Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want
to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty
of the attack....
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will
thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intend of those strikes.
Just like with 9/11 and Iraq where the US government immediately pushed its pre-existing
agenda, so the US doesn't care who really launches attacks on US and US-client positions in
Iraq and Syria but automatically assigns them to Hezbollah and thus to Iran, in accord with
the pre-existing neocon wet dream of provoking a full-scale war with Iran.
If that's the US intent, to escalate against Iran, and if conversely the Iraq government
is serious about kicking out the US military, we'll have the confrontation discussed in the
open thread.
As for the idea that Trump was briar-patching here, wanting a good legalistic pretext to
withdraw troops from Iraq (which would then trigger the practical supply-based pretext to
withdraw them from Syria and not "take the oil" after all), well even if he had such confused
thoughts, we've already seen how spineless he is about trying to assert his will over that of
the neocon bureaucracies, civilian and military. Do we really expect them to agree to vacate
Iraq merely because the legally constituted supposedly sovereign government told them to? It
seems more likely they'll tell the government they're not going anywhere and demand that the
government help them suppress non-governmental resistance to their ongoing presence, or else.
(I don't know if there's yet been a formal order to leave from the Iraqi government, or just
rhetoric in an attempt to save face.)
Being almost 100% sure that Israeli cornering East Mediterranean gas reserves was a done
deal
and after Cyprus gerrymandered its EEZ under UNCLOS -- and Greece signing up
as pipeline terminus in Europe -- Trump put this cart before horse -- and sanctioned
Nord Stream. Europe was to get Israeli gas. Then Turkey and Libya declared EZZ,
and pipeline cannot go!
Also. there will be other claimants to reserves -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza.
Nice try -- but Israel will not be supplying Germany gas any time soon.
Like it was earlier noted, the "New Detente" isn't perfect, as seen most recently by the US'
decision to impose sanctions on
the companies involved in Nord Stream II's construction, but once again, the state of relations
in general are still comparatively better than their nadir in mid-2014 immediately after the
EuroMaidan coup and Crimea's reunification with Russia. The US is still trying to "contain"
Russia with mixed success, while Russia is undertaking its best efforts to break out of this
"containment" noose and even "flip" some of the US' traditional partners such as Turkey, so the
New
Cold War probably won't end anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, did anybody reasonably
expect that it would, but just like during the Old Cold War, there comes a time when the
involved parties believe that it's in their best interests to proverbially take a break and
enter into a period of detente. It seems as though that phase is only now just beginning but
which has finally borne some fruit after Trump promised to pursue this outcome all throughout
the 2016 campaign.
One can argue over why that hasn't already happened to the extent that he promised (or even
if he was fully sincere in the first place), but the point to focus on in the here and now is
that some tangible progress has finally been made concerning the future of Russia's
trans-Ukrainian gas supplies to the EU. From the looks of it, all the relevant players --
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US -- have concrete interests in seeing that this agreement is
upheld. It's convenient for Russia to continue using existing pipelines, Ukraine wants to get
paid for its transit role, the EU desires reliable but cheap gas imports, and the US recognizes
that this outcome perpetuates the geostrategic role of its Ukrainian proxy that it could then
leverage as a "bargaining chip" for reaching a more substantive "New Detente" with Russia
sometime next year or the one afterwards. That said, while each player has their interests,
they don't exactly trust one another for different reasons, which means that the "New Detente"
might still be offset if any of them decides to play the spoiler or is undermined by their
"deep states".
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
"... Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia. ..."
"... North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks, according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%. ..."
"... Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty... The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies. ..."
"... "As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday. ..."
"... According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe." ..."
"... Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday. ..."
"... They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will win out in the end. ..."
"... The Great Gas Game: Vesti Presents a New Documentary Film About Pipelines and Power youtube.com ..."
"... Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria, ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide. ..."
"... Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only 2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners. ..."
"... to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use of fracking. ..."
own goalnoun: (in soccer) a goal scored inadvertently when the ball is struck into the goal by a player on the defensive team.
Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every
legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia.
So what is the
net effect of all of these sanctions?
The Russian stock market has reached record highs this year but still has room to climb further in coming months before paring
gains towards the end of 2020, a Reuters poll of market experts found... The rouble-based MOEX index has reached an all-time high of 3,009.1 in November, taking its year-to-date gain to over 25%, and
is seen finishing this year at 3,000.
That's not exactly what Washington had in mind.
However the real kicker is
this .
North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks,
according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%.
So what is happening is that Washington is punishing Europe for cooperating with Russia, while turning a blind eye to when their
Wall Street donors cooperate with Russia.
As you may have guessed, this has created some hard feelings
.
Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty...
The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business,"
a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Imagine that: countries making their own policy decisions that don't align with Washington's interests? What's the world coming
to?
Allseas, a Dutch-Swiss private company, is going to be significantly harmed by the newest sanctions, and it will delay the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline (but it will only delay it).
However, there is a
bright side
to all of this.
While it costs Moscow hundreds of millions in lost income and additional investments, the country is benefitting on a geostrategic
and political level.
For a mere $9.5 billion, NS2's price tag, Moscow has unintentionally managed to drive another wedge between key Western allies.
Berlin is furious about the sanctions and its already fraught relations with Washington are set to escalate even further. According
to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe."
What is certain is that NS2 will be completed eventually. Most of the work on the 1,230 kilometer or 765 mile long pipeline has
already been finished. Also, the vast majority of the $9.5 billion in investments have already been spent.
Much like our GWOT, we've reached a point in sanctions where staying the course just makes things worse.
It isn't just Russia. The Muslim world is looking for an
alternative trading system to avoid sanctions that Washington hasn't even threatened yet.
Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against
any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday.
..."I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, referring
to the Islamic medieval gold coin.
"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." The leaders agreed they needed do more business among themselves and trade in each other's currencies.
You know that you are using sanctions too much when other nations expect to be sanctioned by you before you even consider doing
it. As for the gold dinar, this is what was proposed by Libya's former leader Gaddafi, and also what got him eventually
killed .
The most recent batch of Clinton emails reveals perhaps the most bizarre morsel of Blumenthal-baked intelligence to date. An April
2, 2011 memo titled "France's client/Q's gold" quotes "knowledgeable individuals" with insider information about French President
Nicolas Sarkozy's motivation for bombing Libya. The military campaign, the anonymous sources say, was designed to quash plans
by Gaddafi to use $7 billion in secret gold and silver to prop up a new African currency. The French worried the move would undercut
the currency guaranteed by the French treasury, known as CFA franc, that's widely used in West Africa and acts as a strong link
between France and many of its former African colonies. After French intelligence officials got wind of this secret plan, the
Blumenthal memo reports, Sarkozy freaked out: "This was one of the factors that influenced [his] decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya."
Kruschev Many remember the quote "We will bury you". I think he was quoting someone else. Lenin?
But they forget the second sentence. "And the capitalists will sell us the shovel."
Greed is indeed a sickness, a mental illness. Not ordinary greed, but Scrooge McDuck greed. The need to have more more more,
when it cannot possibly make any difference in your life.
Not like the guys I worked with that volunteered for every Holiday, every overtime opportunity. The money did make a difference
there, although one can question whether it is worth it. But pursuing an extra billion when you already have tens of billions?
How much is enough? How high is up.
EDIT:
I'm reminded of the old sitcom "Mama's Family". Dim bulb son, Vinton, hears of a new larger lottery jackpot and says, "Wow! Imagine
how many lottery tickets you could buy with that much money!"
EDIT2:
Like an alcoholic that just drinks more and more until he passes out.
@entrepreneur
that capitalism selects for people with this mental illness. A person with a healthy view of life will never be selected as fortune
500 CEO.
excessive are the mountains of paper they accumulate are still stimulated by acquiring more. #1
And whether it be newspapers solidly packing every room in their homes to a depth of 6 feet, leaving barely a 12" crawl space
between the top of the stacks and the ceiling, or be it a pile of money, more than they and their extended family and descendants
can spend in 100 years, it is hoarding, a mental illness.
They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for
a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will
win out in the end.
Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria,
ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project
involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide.
Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those
investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the
project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only
2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia
could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners.
At the end of WWII most of Europe used coal for energy. The US had a goal to convert Europe to oil, since the US was the major
world exporter of oil. One of the stated reasons was to make Europe dependent on US oil and give the US political leverage over
European countries. So this whole thing is about the US projecting their geopolitical dominance schemes to Russia. As it has turned
out, for more than 70 years Russia and previously the USSR has never done that as a policy. The reason being that once you do
that you lose trust as a trade partner. But this is even worse as the US is interfering in trading among European partners that
has nothing to do directly with the US.
to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the
Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US
has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use
of fracking.
The oil shortage of the 1970's brought about the end of power generation using oil. The US, a major exporter of coal, was pushing
the use of American coal for energy security in Europe
since WWII.
Trump Makes American Coal Great Again -- Overseas
U.S. coal exports have exploded. Can that continue?
April 4, 2018
...
The export boom is the one part of Trump's pledge to help the coal sector that is coming true.
Production ticked up a bit last year after a disastrous 2016 but is still at the lowest level since 1978. And despite plenty
of promises to bring back jobs to coal country, coal mining employment only grew by some 1,100 jobs last year; mining employment
is down about 40 percent since 2012. Meanwhile, closures of coal-fired power plants continue apace, with more than two dozen
plants shutting down early last year alone, which means less domestic demand for coal.
...
And the Trump administration's other policies don't look like they'll end up helping coal much either. The push to increase
exports of natural gas to Europe, Asia, and Latin America undermines the overseas market for U.S. coal, since both can be used
to generate electricity. And as U.S. coal is shipped abroad, its price at home tends to rise slightly -- making coal even less
attractive as a power source there.
"Unfortunately, most of the policies the Trump administration is pursuing inside and outside of energy do not help domestic
coal production," Book says.
Try this: Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – May 15,
2017
by Thane Gustafson
A review @ Amazon:
Thane masterfully succeeded in uncovering the fundamental drivers of the Russian oil
industry and its interdependency with the political complex through a comprehensive and
convincing historical analysis, with plenty of meaningful insights and endearing anecdotes.
Rooted in Soviet legacy and having gone through the 90s bust-boom roller coaster and 2000s
state reconsolidation the industry is a unique globally isolated eco system, and, with
Russia as a whole, is at a crossroads. A must read for any decision maker in the O&G
business.
It's official: "Freedom gas" is the Worst Phrase of the Year, according to the Plain
English Foundation. But where does the expression come from? EURACTIV did not have to look
far to get the answer
So where does the whole story come from?
On 1 May, EURACTIV's energy and climate reporter Frédéric Simon attended
a briefing with US energy secretary Rick Perry in Brussels. He recalls the events
below.
The four journalists in the room had spent about an hour asking Perry a basic question:
why would Europeans choose to pay for expensive LNG imported from the US when they have
access to cheap Russian gas?
"But my surprise soon turned to dismay when Perry suddenly took a grave face and
started talking about the Normandy landings during WWII for which commemorations were planned
days after."
Here's what Perry went on to say: Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi
Germany occupation, "the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European
continent," the US energy secretary told reporters that day.
"And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied
natural gas," he added. "So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation," he said in
reference to Fred's suggestion about 'Freedom gas' .
####
Quite instructive about the mindset (f/king nuts) they are over in the States. They really
do live in their own universe where no-one picks up their dogs' (and their own) crap. They
neither notice the smell nor link to the slipperyness underfoot to their own actions. They
don't care either.
They like to talk about the European "blood-debt" to the USA.
I don't know what they think a large number of unfortunate young men were doing on Gold,
Juno and Sword beaches in June, 1944, or indeed that there were such beaches. Even moreso,
they are apparently unaware of the over 22 million Soviet citizens who died 1941-1945 during
what is known as "The Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland, 1941-1945"..
Analysts have identified a way to increase the export of Gazprom to bypass the Ukraine The
Eugal pipeline built to deliver gas from "Nord Stream-2 " to end users, will be operating
in 2020, despite US sanctions. "Gazprom" will redirect gas to this pipeline from "Northern
stream-1", experts say
The capacity of the Eugal onshore gas pipeline, built specifically for delivering gas from
the Nord Stream-2 offshore gas pipeline to end users, may allow Gazprom to increase supplies to
Europe bypassing the Ukraine, despite the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions
against laying the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline. , said experts interviewed by RBC.
The Gascade Gastransport operator,
controlled by Gazprom and the German Wintershall Dea , will commission the first of two Eugal
pipelines with a capacity of 30.9 billion cubic metres per year from January 1, 2020 (total
pipe capacity should be 55 billion cubic metres), which will go from German Greifswald on the
Baltic Sea to the south to the border with the Czech Republic, the Eugal press service said on
December 20. And the next day it became known that the European pipe-laying company Allseas had
suspended the construction of Nord Stream-2 (which should pump 55 billion cubic meters per
year) in the Baltic Sea.
Eugal will lay another 36 billion cubic metre capacity OPAL landline, built to pump gas from the first
Baltic gas pipeline of Gazprom and partners, Nord Stream-1, which achieved at full capacity 55
billion cubic metres per year back in October 2012. Since 2013, Gazprom could only use 50% of
OPAL capacity because of restrictions, and in 2016, the company received permission to connect
to 90% of the pipeline capacity. However, in September 2019, Gazprom was forced to reduce gas
pumping through OPAL, and then through Nord Stream-1, because of a decision of the European
Court of Justice, which, in lawsuit filed by Poland, limited supply by almost half – from
90 to 50% of capacity , or up to 18 billion cubic metres per year.
"The launch of Eugal will ensure a full load of Nord Stream-1. About 20 billion cubic
metres of gas per year can be delivered via a new land gas pipeline, which volume was lost
because of restrictions imposed as a result of Poland's victory in court", said Mikhail
Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, to RBC. The remaining 17–20 billion
cubic metre Gazprom can pump through a second branch from the offshore gas pipeline
NEL , which runs only through
Germany to the west of Greifswald, so Poland could not achieve restrictions on its
capacity.
At the peak of capacity, OPAL pumped up to 103 million cubic metres of gas per day owing to
a decision of the European Court to decrease transit to 50 million cubic metre. Last week, it
fell to 12 million cubic metres per day. This is due to an increase of 115 million cubic metres
per day in supplies to the NEL gas pipeline, as well as an increase in transit to Europe
through the territory of the Ukraine, Korchemkin points out.
"Now most of the gas from Nord Stream-1, which continues to operate at its design capacity,
is sent to the markets of northwestern Europe through NEL, that is, the limitation of the use
of OPAL by the decision of the European Court has practically had no affect on the load of Nord
Stream", added Deputy General Director of the National Energy Policy Fund, Alexey Grivach.
According to him, after the introduction of Eugal, part of the gas can go to Central Europe
through a new onshore gas pipeline, depending on the current market needs and the optimization
of Gazprom's export portfolio.
Despite the impending U.S. sanctions, the possibility of using Eugal to pump Gazprom's gas
was recognized in November by Arno Bux, chief commercial officer of gas transmission operator
Fluxys, which is a minority shareholder in Gascade. According to him, since 2020, from 80 to
90% of the Eugal capacity has already been booked for 20 years at auctions. "Since the
transportation facilities are reserved on a ship-or-pay basis (" transport or pay "), the
potential delays of the Nord Stream-2 project do not affect Eugal's revenues", he told
Interfax, noting that the flows from the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 can be routed through
Eugal.
"We cannot predict the volumes that will be transported through Eugal, because it
depends on requests from transport customers", Gascade spokesman Georg Wustner told RBC on
December 23, declining to specify whether gas supplies from Nord Stream-1 will begin on
January 1 through a new onshore pipeline. A representative of Gazprom Export declined to
comment; the press service of Nord Stream AG (operator of the Nord Stream-1 project) did not
respond to a request from RBC.
Lavrov on the 22nd appeared on what looks to be an interesting program on Russia's Channel
One--
"The Great Game Show" with a transcript at the link. Most of the questions deal with
Lavrov's recent trip to the Outlaw US Empire and his meetings with Trump and Pompeo. I found
Lavrov's remarks about Congress most revealing as they're very similar to what he says about
the tiny Russophobic nations other NATO nations seem to feel they can't break with the
overall consensus despite its being idiotic. His response is related to the illegal sanctions
laid against the construction of Nord Stream 2:
"They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these
threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest.
Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security.
Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including
those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.
"I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented,
and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.
"US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but
the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now
shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and
the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including
absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians."
As you read the transcript, you'll realize that this is a very serious program where the
truth of the overall situation is being revealed and remarked upon in a manner that would be
unimaginable here within the Outlaw US Empire, and I presume the program is viewed by a
majority of Russians. It should certainly be read in relation to what Putin said at
his presser on
the topics covered and at the Informal CIS Summit .
Many are busy with their plans for the holidays, and the combined transcripts will take
4-6 hours to read, so perhaps bookmark them to read before New Year when more time's
available.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
"Gazprom has purchased a pipe-laying ship which would allow the company to build undersea
pipelines despite sanctions. The new vessel may be used to build the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline to Europe."
Apparently the Russians think several steps ahead of the Americans.
This article has all one
needs to know about Russia/Gazprom's ability to finish the job abandoned by the Swiss
cowards, although their ships are apparently still on station. Yes, there'll be a delay, but
that won't matter much. Pissing off the Germans was the absolute wrong move!
@80 Jen It is much too late for the Danes to step in and stop Nord Stream 2.
Their permission was required because the pipe enters their economic zone, but once that
permission was given then the pipelaying started on the basis of "good faith". If the Danes
attempted to renege then I would imagine that it would be Russia and Germany who would tie up
Denmark in legal red-tape, not the other way around, and by the time this got to court the
pipeline would be completed and the gas would be flowing.
The USA's only hope now is that its sanctions scare off companies like Allseas, but that
hope relies on the western conceit that Russia is too technologically backward to be able to
take over and finish the job.
But the Russians are very capable, and extremely wily: if you look at my original post you
will see a link from 2016 where the Russians are already spelling out exactly what they
intend to do.
They acquired a suitable pipeline-laying ship at last three years. They admitted at the
time that they acquired it that it made no economic sense for them to acquire such a
ship.
Economics be damned. They bought it because they had to consider the possibility that the
USA is run by a bunch of duplicitous shits.
As I'm following the case closely, a few supplements.
The problem with the high tech Russian pipelaying vessel is that it is deployed in the Far
East and would need months to get to the scene. The Russian Fortuna lacks the technical
permission from the Danes to work in their waters, but it is suspiciously idling at the
German Coast. NorthStream 2 could ask Denmark to get a special allowance for the Fortuna to
work, and that is not so far-fetched as it seems because Denmark has a new government since
last June.
The Fortuna will at least finish the German part of the pipeline. A German court yesterday
has turned down a complaint by environmentalists who are worried about wintering birds.
The sanctions are a huge strategical blunder of the USA. Yes, the Germans are pissed off,
from the bosses of the chemical industry to the "ordinary people". You can almost hear the
tectonic subterranean crack that moves Germany away from the Anglosphere towards Russia.
In German politics, the Transatlanticians are now in the defensive. The most powerful
transatlantic institutions are IMO the various intelligence services, BND, BfV and so on.
They have certainly initiated the "scandal" about the murdered Georgian djihadist (you
remember, two Russian diplomats were expelled immediately) in order to sabotage the Normandy
talks and NordStream 2 and push Merkel to distance herself from Russia. This has failed,
obviously. Stupid white men.
An excellent show from last week. However still relevant with some reminders from the 80s
that are quintessential irony. Sanchez's journalistic delivery is impressive.
Rapoza's latest effort, for Forbes, is his review of the Russia/Ukraine gas deal that
everyone is talking about. His take, in summary, is that Russia did not really have to give
up very much, it would be to Ukraine's advantage to stop fucking around and concentrate now
on the issues, that Ukraine dropped a very large amount in claims in return for not very much
money (although he does not say how likely Ukraine would have been to win them in court, and
my personal opinion is not very), that Nord Stream II will be completed with not a
significant amount of delay, and that Russia can implement the same no-gas-through-Ukraine in
five years if it does not like the way things are going.
As usual, the range of interpretations of gas agreements is wide and full of water. Most of them have hidden recognition of
groundlessness, because even a simple reading of the document requires above average schooling.
Here is this document, where it is written in black and almost white that the parties agreed on such and such conditions:
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians for domestic consumption, although,
to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against
the background of the absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be extremely
inappropriate.
Why?
Because
Gazprom
is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic phenomenon for immature structures and
individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic
at all. There is no word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not Gazprom.
However, the
Naftogaz
fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on the other hand: the board (8 people) will not have
to return millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize according to the results of the
Stockholm Arbitration
. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant
(not to be confused with capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is comparable to all assets, especially
since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5
billion (according to the Chairman of the Board
Kobolev
), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom. Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom
at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit
system of Ukraine, taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "
Nord
Stream-2
" and, secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject of
negotiations:
Point 2.2.3 The organising company [Naftogaz] will contact LLC "Operator of gas transit system of Ukraine" for the
reservation of capacities of the gas transit system of Ukraine
Provided that at the time of reservation by NCSREPU [National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public
Utilities] a
competitive tariff
recognised by the Organising Company and corresponding to the level of gas
transportation tariffs applied in the countries of western and central Europe will be established.
Point 3.2 The Ukrainian side
will take all necessary measures
(create all necessary conditions) by
29.12.19:
for ensuring reliable legal protection of the interests of the client of services [Gazprom] on transit,
predictability, transparency, economic validity, and stability of tariff formation
;
What went on behind the scenes went almost unnoticed:
1. Ukraine's demand for imported gas, which is still falling due to the decline in production capacity, will be covered
from the volumes approved by the agreement (65 billion m3 in 2020 and 40 billion m3 in the following 4 years). The volume of
imports according to various estimates remains at about 20 billion m3 per year. Tariffs will not be applied on all the Russian
gas that Ukraine will consume from pumping on the gas transit system and will be implemented on the territory of Ukraine at
its own expense. The volume subject to a transit tariff will be determined by the difference between the entrance to the
Ukrainian gas transit system and the exit to Europe.
2. All preliminary talk about gas discounts for Ukraine was not included in the agreement. Thus, the price of gas remains
the subject of bargaining and is inevitably dependent on the transit tariff: the higher the price of transit – the higher the
price of gas and, accordingly, vice versa.
3. In fact, the issue of direct gas supplies to Ukraine is not worth discussing at all. I.e., in the event of a
non-agreement on the price, all gas will come to Europe, Ukraine will earn from transit, but these earnings will be offset by
the increased price of gas on the reverse. Thus, even in the event of pumping all gas to Europe, earnings from transit,
according to experts, will not even cover the cost of servicing the Ukrainian gas transit system.
Lastly, Gazprom – which is not Russia, but behind whose back Russia certainly stands, and was opposed by both Ukraine and
the European Union, represented by the European Commission, as well as the United States with its global interests – managed,
at a minimum, to minimise its tactical losses and preserve strategic Russian interests.
The gas war appears to have retreated, but the most interesting thing is yet to come.
I linked a Russian newspaper article above which analysed the deal and in which it was
pointed out that the $3 billion that Gazprom coughed up is 1% of the annual turnover of that
company. And another thing that the article pointed out was that the deal is between Gazprom
and Naftogaz notRussia and the Ukraine. In return for that $3 billion,
which will be pocketed by many Yukitard bastards, I am sure, Gazprom's never ending
altercations with the Yukie gas outfit over compensation and claims and counter-claims have
had a line drawn under them. I suppose that's really why the Porky bloc in the rada is taking
action against the deal: they fear that their nice little earner is being stifled, in that
penalties imposed by arbitration courts against Gazprom have seemingly ended.
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians
for domestic consumption, although, to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries
immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against the background of the
absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be
extremely inappropriate.
Why?
Because Gazprom is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic
phenomenon for immature structures and individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly
forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic at all. There is no
word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not
Gazprom.
However, the Naftogaz fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on
the other hand: the [Naftogaz] board (8 people) will not have to return
millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize
according to the results of the Stockholm Arbitration. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the
claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is
less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant (not to be confused with
capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is
comparable to all assets, especially since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian
gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5 billion (according to the
Chairman of the Board Kobolev), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom.
Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing
the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit system of Ukraine,
taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "Nord Stream-2" and,
secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject
of negotiations
Japan Proposes Dumping Radioactive Waste Into Pacific As Storage Space Dwindles by
Tyler Durden Tue,
12/24/2019 - 23:30 0 SHARES
As the decade comes to an end, the future of nuclear power in the west remains in doubt.
Almost nine years ago, a powerful underwater earthquake triggered a 15-meter tsunami that
disabled the power supply and cooling at three of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant.
The accident caused the nuclear cores of all three damaged reactors to melt down, prompting
the government to issue evacuation orders for all people living within a 30 kilometer radius of
the damaged reactors, a group that included roughly 100,000 people.
And the evacuation zone:
Now, the
Epoch Times reports that Japan's Economy and Industry Ministry has proposed that TEPCO
gradually release, or allow to evaporate, massive amounts of treated but still radioactive
water being stored at the power plant. TEPCO, or the Tokyo Electric Power Co, is the owner of
the Fukushima plant, and is also responsible for leading the clean-up of the damaged
reactors.
But as regulators have stepped in to try and guide TEPCO as it struggles to dispose of all
the contaminated water, one ministry has offered a proposal that is almost guaranteed to anger
the fishermen who have resisted all of TEPCO's other plans for dumping the contaminated
water.
In its Dec. 23 proposal, the ministry suggested a "controlled release" of the contaminated
water into the Pacific. Offering another option, the ministry also suggested allowing the water
to evaporate, or a combination of the two methods.
But the ministry insisted that the controlled release of the contaminated water into the sea
would be the best option because it would "stably dilute and disperse" the water from the
plant, while also allowing the government and TEPCO to more easily monitor the operation.
And as
we have reported , the Japanese fishing industry isn't the only party that objects to the
government's plan. South Korea has also complained to the IAEA about TEPCO's plans to dump the
radioactive water.
The project is expected to take years to fully dispose of the water.
Still, the fishermen are bound to be skeptical because of one radioactive element that TEPCO
has been unable to remove from the contaminated water: It's called tritium.
Fukushima fishermen and the National Federation of Fisheries Co-operative Associations
have strongly opposed past suggestions by government officials that the water be released to
the sea, warning of an "immeasurable impact on the future of the Japanese fishing industry,"
with local fishermen still unable to resume full operations after the nuclear plant
accident.
The water has been treated, and the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., states that
all 62 radioactive elements it contains can be removed to levels not harmful to humans except
for tritium. There is no established method to fully separate tritium from water, but
scientists say it isn't a problem in small amounts . Most of the water stored at the plant
still contains other radioactive elements including cancer-causing cesium and strontium and
needs further treatment.
Tritium is routinely found in nuclear explosions and other nuclear accidents, including the
meltdown at Three-Mile Island back in 1979. But experts at the IAEA recommend that the
controlled release of the tritium-laced water at Fukushima into the sea is probably the best
option for handling the situation - even if the Japanese decide to wait until after the Summer
Olympics in 2022.
The ministry noted that tritium has been routinely released from nuclear plants around the
world, including Fukushima before the accident. Evaporation has been a tested and proven
method following the 1979 core meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United
States, where it took two years to get rid of 8,700 tons of tritium-contaminated water.
TEPCO says it is currently storing more than 1 million tons of radioactive water and only
has space to hold up to 1.37 million tons, or until the summer of 2022, raising speculation
that the water may be released after next summer's Tokyo Olympics. TEPCO and experts say the
tanks get in the way of ongoing decommissioning work and that space needs to be freed up to
store removed debris and other radioactive materials. The tanks also could spill in a major
earthquake, tsunami, or flood.
Experts, including those at the International Atomic Energy Agency who have inspected the
Fukushima plant, have repeatedly supported the controlled release of the water into the sea
as the only realistic option.
On Dec. 22, some experts on the panel called for more attention to be given to the impact
on the local community, which already has seen its image harmed by accidental leaks and the
potential release of water.
"A release to the sea is technologically a realistic option, but its social impact would
be huge," said Naoya Sekiya, a University of Tokyo sociologist and an expert on disasters and
social impact.
Other possible strategies for disposing of the contaminated water have included injecting
the water deep into the Earth's crust. Another strategy, which called for storing the nuclear
waste in large industrial tanks outside the plant, was ruled out because of fears that leaks in
the tanks could contaminate some of Japan's most important fishing waters.
The USA government acts as a gangster and should expect that other power will behave equally
bad toward the USA. That's a very bad, disastrous calculation, even in view of the current USA
technological superiority (which might shrink in the future)
Pride goeth before a fall. Washington is proud of itself, but a day will come when it will
count the cost, and mutter, "What the fuck was I thinking?" It was not ever going to actually
interrupt, and then seize for itself, Russia's share of the European gas market – that
was just another example of its addled belief in exceptionalism and its ability to overcome
any and all limiting factors, including distance and capacity.
What it HAS done is reveal itself as a petulant global child who will break anything that
does not please it, and therefore a dangerous and unpredictable business partner.
Thus spake the official Washington arsehole in Germany:
The American Ambassador in Berlin Richard Grenell, about whom it has already been
requested in Germany that he be recognized as persona non grata because of his
repeated attacks against the German leadership, has said that the sanctions imposed by
Washington against the pipeline "Nord Stream-2" had been introduced in the interests of the
EU and many countries of Europe are grateful for them.
"Seriously: from 15 European countries, the European Commission and the European
Parliament have all expressed their concerns about the project. We have long heard from our
European partners that the United States should support their efforts. Therefore, sanctions
represent a very Pro-European solution", said Grenell to the publication
Bild am Sonntag . [A German arsewipe publication of the first magnitude -- ME]
According to him, European diplomats have allegedly already repeatedly expressed their
gratitude for the measures taken by Washington.
Recall that the United States, which from time to time has opposed the emergence in
Europe of a strong competitor for its gas, imposed sanctions against the pipelines "Nord
Stream-2" and "Turkish Stream", requiring that the companies involved in their laying
immediately stop construction. In response, the German government has said it "rejects such
extraterritorial sanctions" directed "against German and European companies.
Just two events that occurred during Saturday night have turned into one of the main news
stories in recent months and years: Russia, the Ukraine and the European Commission signed a
trilateral agreement on the transit of gas over the coming years from Russia to the EU via
the Ukrainian GTS, and President Trump signed a law on the defence budget, in which US
parliamentarians have written separate clauses concerning sanctions against companies
involved in the construction of the pipeline "Nord stream – 2″
If anyone has forgotten, allow me to remind you that Vladimir Putin has never talked about
the categorical refusal as regards the transit to Europe via the Ukraine of Russian gas.
Always, he has only stressed that it is a question exclusively of a commercial nature,
without any political overtones, and that such transit be carried out on favourable terms.
Vice-Premier of the Russian government Dmitry Kozak has said about the new contract to be
signed before the New Year that he parties had agreed on favourable terms. In addition to
this, the Ukrainian side said that "Gazprom" had agreed to pay "Naftogaz" $3 billion,
according to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration. So, can the Ukraine celebrate a
"victory"?
So far, only Kiev has stated this figure of $3 billion. On the Russian side, there has
been no confirmation of this yet, but even if the Kiev figure is correct, I do not see much
reason to celebrate "victory", for if Russia has paid this money to the Ukraine ($2.6 billion
+ penalties), then the Ukraine is obliged to return $4.5 billion to Russia (3 billion
Eurobonds + penalties). The balance is not in favour of Kiev. In addition, the Ukraine has
pledged to stop all legal disputes on gas issues. Yes, in one case there is a dispute between
economic entities, and in a second case there is a dispute about sovereign debt. However,
since both Naftogaz and Gazprom are budget-forming state companies, to a certain extent this
difference in debt statuses is leveled.
Now on transit. There is no denying that for Russia it is not only important but necessary
to transit gas through the Ukraine at the moment, since under long-term contracts with
Europe, Gazprom is obliged to supply the volumes of gas stipulated in them, regardless of the
circumstances. Otherwise, the Russian company would have to pay heavy fines and penalties. By
concluding the contract, Gazprom has once again proved its reliability as a supplier, which,
by the way, was has already been emphasized by the European Commission following the
negotiations.
The only thing currently known about the transit contract is that it has been concluded
not for 10 years as Kiev had wanted, but for 5 years. Apparently, a longer term is not
relevant, chiefly because of complete uncertainty about the future of the Ukraine -- by the
way, in the next few days Kiev is likely to start an active struggle against the agreements
already reached, and if something threatens them at the moment, it is only Ukrainian
instability. According to data received from the Russian company, the volume of transit
through the Ukraine next year will be about 65 billion cubic metres. This is certainly a very
significant figure, but it is significantly less than the 90 billion cubic metres pumped
through the Ukrainian GTS in 2017. In 2021-2024, the annual transit volume will drop to 40
billion cubic metres. This volume allows the Ukrainian GTS to operate at a plus rather than a
minus, but Kiev will not receive any significant financial gain through it.
By the way, a certain demand for Ukrainian transit will remain after the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline has reached its design capacity, as European gas demand grows annually and a number
of fields operated in the EU countries are decommissioned in the coming years. As for NS-2
itself, by the time the sanctions are imposed, less than 50 kilometres will have been left on
one pipeline and about 70 kilometres on the other. Even if the Swiss company gathers up its
belongings, Russian pipe-laying ships will finish the job, and even though they lay pipes 3
times slower, they have absolute immunity from American sanctions. One of them is now located
in the area of Indonesia, and the second pipe-laying ship, "Fortuna", which, by the way, has
already participated in the implementation of "NS-2", is in a German port and is ready to
start working within a few days. [My stress! See that Finnish troll? -- ME]
So, by and large, the question is only one of time. But in any case "SP-2" will be
completed in terms of installation, testing and commissioning, and can be put into operation,
at most, at the end of the first half of 2020.
I really really doubt that the US military will attack overtly or covertly. The US already
announced that it will sanction other Russian energy projects if North Stream is placed in
operation.
I don't imagine that will be necessary. Be pretty hard to argue then that they were not
acting solely in their own interests, wouldn't it? It would make a hell of a thriller novel,
though – the pipeline is on the seabed, so any American efforts to tamper with it would
probably have to be from underwater. A submarine has no business being there, so its mission
would have to be super-secret and plausibly deniable. And in that scenario, if it simply
disappeared, the Americans would have to just proceed as if it never existed. There you go,
Karl; a great book idea, you should write it. But I want 20%; 30% if I have to proofread it
before publication to take out all the rhapsodizing about freedom and democracy, and rewrite
the ending where the Americans blow up the pipeline and miraculously escape, sailing home to
a ticker-tape parade and leaving Putin with angry tears running down his face.
Bulgaria is an instructive example here. Remember when it stopped South Stream in its
tracks, and was the hero of America and the EU? And Bulgaria strutted and swaggered, and was
pretty proud of itself while it waited for the rewards of its bravery. And then the USA built
them a Middle School or a new fence or something, I forget, and there were lots of 'well
done, old chap!' compliments, and and then that was it. Bulgaria did not become everyone's
preferred business partner and the destination of enormous foreign investment. And then,
gradually, everybody stopped talking about what a great and brave thing Bulgaria did, and it
just sort of sat there with its mouth half-open, trying to take in how skillfully it had been
creampied, and evidently all for nothing.
And eventually, Bulgaria repented, and went back to Russia and Putin, cap in hand. And
Russia received it warmly, like a brother who fell in with a bad crowd but was not really, at
heart, bad himself. It did not say that Bulgaria must prove itself by repudiating its former
friends. It seemed willing to let bygones be just that.
It is not even too much of a stretch to imagine that might one day be Ukraine as well,
although it certainly could not be under the current conditions. The nationalists would have
to be purged, hard. And there would have to be a completely new political administration. But
there's time, and lots of it. The west is not going to make a prosperous paradise of Ukraine,
it is only interested in stripping it of anything of value, and in the meantime it will go
down and down, because nobody wants to put any money into it. Except, ahem; Russia.
Party Poroshenko initiates sanctions against the supply of gas from Russia
The faction of "European solidarity" in the Ukrainian Parliament initiates sanctions
against the Russian gas supplies directly, reports RIA "Novosti".
As stated by the ex-President and leader of the faction of Petro Poroshenko, the
political force will require the convening of the national security Council on this issue,
and "implementation of sanctions" against the gas supplies from Russia
The people who elected Zelensky expected him to put Porky behind bars. But, surprise
surprise, Zel is a wimp who couldn't bring himself to buck his American overlords.
Said Overlords like Porky and want to keep him around, as the new leader of the Opps, with
hope he gets back into power some day.
Porky is the Ukrainian version of Saakashvili, there is simply no getting rid of him!
What if Germany, angered by American high-handedness, decided to move away from the US
dollar. Could that happen?
It could. Analysts caution that it would be unwise for Washington to laugh at efforts by
nations to make themselves less dependent on the dollar, because it also makes those nations
less susceptible to American sanctions. The world outside America is getting fed up with the
USA's sanctions-happy punishments, which have mushroomed from 5 targeted countries at the
start of the George W. Bush administration to 22 targeted countries at the end of 2018.
One of the ways Russia has hardened its economy against American tampering is in
increasing its use and accumulation of gold as a hedge, which is immune to 'freezing' by the
USA, so long as the gold is held in Russian vaults. That's the key, and momentum is slowly
gathering in other countries. Hungary repatriated all its gold from the Bank of England in
October of this year, and increased its holdings tenfold as well. Romania has submitted a
bill to parliament which mandates that only 5% of the country's gold can be stored abroad.
Currently about 60% of its 103 tonnes is stored at the Bank of England. In 2017 Germany
repatriated around $31 Billion worth of gold which had been stored in New York and Paris.
This week, Poland and Slovakia called for a return of their gold, which is being held by, you
guessed it, the Bank of England. The lesson of Venezuela's stolen gold was not lost on
anyone, and the less foreign gold the Bank of England has in its vaults, the less useful it
is to Washington and its 'freeze' orders.
Germany was chafing at US bullying back in 2018, and talking up policies to pull away from
the US dollar. Would this latest example of American meddling make them more, or less
inclined to pursue financial policies which did not include the United States as a partner,
do you think?
"According to S&P Global Platts Analytics, Nord Stream 2 would have to seek
alternative vessels and contractors to complete the remaining section of pipe in Danish
waters if the sanctions are enacted.
"While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of
around 200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains
complicated," it said.
Russian companies operate capable offshore pipe-lay vessels, which have completed projects
in challenging Arctic conditions, including the MRTS Defender, which worked on the offshore
stretch of the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline.
Platts Analytics believes MRTS Fortuna could be used to complete Nord Stream 2, but is
capable of laying just 1 km/d.
A further obstacle, according to Platts Analytics, is that the Danish permit application
states that it is assumed that the vessels used to complete the Danish section will have
dynamic positioning capabilities (such as those of the Allseas vessels) which are not present
on MRTS Fortuna.
A Russian pipelaying vessel that already has dynamic positioning capabilities, Akademik
Cherskiy, could be used, but it would take up to two months to arrive to Danish waters as it
is currently stationed in Russia's Far East."
It is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not prepare
for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
Karl, this is no attitude for the Christmas season – don't be so dour and pessimistic.
It takes two years to build a specialized ship, at a minimum, and that's just a regular
design like an LNG tanker – should Gazprom have built two or three, only to have the
Americans laugh and not impose sanctions? Then you would have chuckled ruefully over how
foolish Gazprom was to waste its money; there's no pleasing you. Only two days ago you were
moaning over how the entirety of the funds spent so far would be wasted; the pipeline could
not be completed, America is just too strong. You can go back and look. Now it looks as if it
can be completed, just the remainder will be done at about a third the speed it could have
been. But the money which would have gone to Allseas will be saved, and really there's no
hurry now; they have 5 years if they need it. In 2 months the worst of the winter weather
should be over, and any further slowdowns between now and completion can be blamed on the
Americans, whose fault of course it is. It would have been done now but for American pressure
on Denmark to hold out.
I wouldn't say it couldn't have turned out better, but all things considered the results
are not that bad for Russia and not very good for the USA, which has incurred a lot of
resentment and ill-will in exchange for really nothing. It is not going to stop the pipeline
from completing, but it has made a lot of enemies, and even the Poles have stopped yapping
and do not appear to be celebrating too loudly, lest they anger other Europeans.
""While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of around
200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains complicated,"
it said."
Norwegian divers welded pipelines at 900 meters depth (And, yes they had some
problems).
Let me guess – the United States has threatened to confiscate the assets in the USA of
any company which sells dynamic-positioning systems to the Soviets (oops! I mean the
Russians!), and so now they will have to develop the technology themselves. Why not just
threaten to slap sanctions on anyone giving 'aid and comfort' to the Russians? I mean,
they're the enemy, right? Right?? So nobody sell them boots or warm clothes, or anything. See
how they like laying pipe in their skivvies, barefoot.
Say, I'll bet that attitude is good for market share for the remaining American businesses
still operating in Russia. And speaking of that, here's another example – gosh, there
are so many – of America's love affair with sanctions; CAATSA, the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. According to an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research
Institute,
it's a failure , because it did not prevent Turkey from buying the S-400 system from
Russia when they were supposed to buy the Patriot from the USA, or
prevent Egypt from buying the Sukhoi S-35 from Russia when they were meant to buy the
F-35. Oh, but they were frustrated in that because Israel did not want them to have it.
Washington never misses an opportunity to show Israel it still loves it despite all the
actions Israel makes it take against its own best interests.
"Egypt turned to Moscow for the Su-35 aircraft after being frustrated in repeated
attempts to get a foothold in the F-35 program, a move closely watched in Israel, which
remains the only country in the region to receive the fifth-generation aircraft."
America threatened Egypt with – you guessed it – sanctions if it continued
with plans to buy Russian fighters worth $2 Billion in sales, but Egypt basically ignored
them, only not laughing because it would be impolite to laugh.
"The Egyptian leadership views the US threats as not credible, based on a long history
of Egyptian/US relations where the US has made threats and even withheld assistance, but in
the end has always capitulated," said Andrew Miller, who was director for Egypt and Israel
military issues in the Obama administration's National Security Council."
Egypt also bought the two MISTRAL class light assault carriers that Washington made France
cancel the sale of when Russia had already paid a security deposit, which had to be returned.
Egypt quickly purchased helicopters from Russia to outfit its new ships.
In fact, America seems to be losing its grip on the Middle East and Africa. And its
newly-discovered and somewhat childlike faith in sanctions as a cure-all is ruining its
traditional alliances and eroding its global reach. Much less-powerful countries now
routinely ignore its threats to impose sanctions and more sanctions. The fewer foreign
businesses interested in locating significant assets in the United States – so as to
prevent their being seized in a fit of pique – the less influence Washington can bring
to bear through sanctions. Its most loyal toady, the UK, will soon no longer be a part of the
EU, while nations jostle one another in eagerness to get their gold back from the Bank of
England where the United States cannot slap a 'hold' order on it through its devoted
proxies.
Russian dolts just don't have the technology, isn't that right ?
From the Finnish naysayer:
In retrospect the biggest mistake Russia did was to start the Nord Stream 2 project
without possessing the technology to complete the project and relying on the Western
technology. This made Nord Stream 2 and Russia vulnerable for the sanctions and this
vulnerability was exploited.
Will Russia learn and not start any major project in the future without having the
means to complete the project itself without relying on the West? I doubt it.
As mentioned earlier, commercial contracts normally include provisions for frustration
– supervening illegality can prevent performance of obligations contracted under
different circumstances and no one would expect a company to commit suicide. It's just a
business problem. But a business problem which, as Mark states, leaves the instigator –
the USA – diminished by its own actions.
Every contract has Force Majeure provisions to address factors beyond the control of the
supplier. The list includes of acts of God (weather, for example), civil unrest, labor
disputes, etc. "US sanctions" need to be added.
According to ME they were within 50 kilometers of landfall. According to Karl the replacement
vessel can lay pipe at a 1km/day rate. The resulting calculation isn't rocket science
mathematics. Ribbons will be cut and valves will be turned on in a few months to the clink of
vodka and champagne glasses.
Peskov did not say a fuckin' thing about "hope" that the pipeline will be completed. He
stated that the sanctions will NOT work to bring about substantial delay.
Two pipelines are being laid in parallel. One line , if I rightly recall, has 50 kms left to
be laid, the other 75 kms. The Russian pipelayers, again if I rightly recall, lay at one
third of the speed as did the Allseas vessel. The Russians are also aware of the
geopositioning requirement that the Danes may impose. Only one Russian pipelayer, the one at
present in the Far East, has this capability. from here
"Pioneering Spirit" and" Solitaire" crossed the border of Swedish and Danish waters on
27 and 28 November, respectively, since which time the former has covered 89 km, the latter
-- a little less than 70 km, i.e. they move at a speed of 3.5–4.5 km per day. This
means that they should be able to complete the construction within a month. But maintaining
this momentum depends on the weather conditions.
There was only 1 month's worth of laying left when Allseas fucked off.
The Russians are seemingly, from the troll's point of view, faced with such insurmountable
odds that he is coming in his pants. They'll never finish the job.
Like when they said they would never finish that bridge, across the petersburg-Simferopol
train crosses for the first time this coming Christmas Day?
From same source as above, namely Moskovskiy Komsomolets :
According to a representative of one of the contractors involved in the creation of the
offshore section of "Nord Stream – 2", Gazprom began to insure against sanctions
against companies involved in laying the pipeline in October. The Fortuna pipe-laying barge,
built in 2010 at a Russian shipyard and later upgraded at Chinese shipyards, has been used.
This vessel has been based for about two months in the German port of Mukran, where the pipes
required for the gas pipeline construction are shipped.
According to an MK interlocutor who wished to remain anonymous, despite the fact that
Fortuna is the most powerful domestic vessel in its class, it is unlikely that it can fully
replace Allseas pipelayers. "Fortuna" is able to do such works, but the speed of the project
will be slowed down. "Fortuna specializes in laying infield and linear pipelines on land,
while Gazprom charters vessels with foreign registration for offshore sections.
At the same time, Fortuna has experience working in deep water areas. As part of the
Sakhalin-3 project, the barge was deploying an underwater production facility in the
Kirinskoye field at a depth of 100 meters. The depth of the sea in the Danish section of the
NS-2, which remains to be completed by Gazprom, does not exceed this mark, while Fortuna has
a depth limit of 200 meters", explains the MK interlocutor.
Yeah, according to the Troll:
it is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not
prepare for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
For "pleasantly surprised" above, read: "bitterly disappointed".
The United States is less concerned with matters green. Nord Stream 2 poses a security
threat.
Trump's former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson,
saw it as "undermining Europe's overall energy security and stability."
US energy secretary Rick Perry
argues that "Russian gas has strings attached." The claim is that Germany will be come too
reliant and Ukraine further weakened. Ukraine had been the premier gatekeeper for Russian gas
supply, with 40 percent of Europe's total amount transiting through Ukrainian soil. A
slump in gross domestic product occasioned by an end to transit fees is considered
imminent.
Other European states have been crankily concerned about the prospect of Gazprom's deepening
involvement in the continent's energy market. Poland's anti-monopoly body UOKiK showed a
measure of that opposition
by fining France's Engie Energy (ENGIE.PA) 40 million euros in proceedings against
Gazprom.
In February, EU ambassadors agreed that the project be subjected to greater scrutiny. A
Franco-German compromise was struck : Nord Stream 2 would be placed
"under European control".
The Trump administration's actions against Gazprom and Russia's energy influence, found in a
provision of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), can hardly be seen as noble
endeavours.
The provision threatens
sanctions and the freezing of assets against entities laying down the pipeline unless their
activities cease "immediately". The United States has its own energy interests in Europe, and
wishes to frustrate the effort. Market share is at stake.
The suspension of laying activities on the part of Allseas, a Swiss company, suggests that
Trump's announcement is already biting.
"In anticipation of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),"
went a
company statement , "Allseas has suspended its Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities." The
company would "proceed, consistent with the legislation's wind down provision and expect
guidance comprising the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from
the relevant US authority."
The angle taken by the European Union, Germany and Russia can hardly surprise. Themes of
energy security are reiterated. The Nord Stream 2 consortium makes the claim that, "Completing the
project is essential for European supply security." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova spikily condemned the
sanctions measure. "A state with a $22 trillion national debt prohibits creditworthy countries
to develop the real sector of their economies!"
For a EU spokesman, this
constituted "the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate
business." A German government spokesman suggested that such actions "affect German and other
European businesses, and we see the move as meddling in our internal affairs." Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz has sees
it as an infringement of sovereignty. "It is up to the companies involved in the
construction of the pipeline to take the next decisions."
Nothing is quite so simple. Gas pipeline politics has always been contentious. One state's
sovereign promise is another's weakening. Concessions made to corporate monopolies are risky,
capable of fostering insecurity as much as reassurance. Those who control the tap control a
country's future.
But the imposition of any sanctions regime signals another bout of economic violence. In
the international market, where governments operate as ready gangsters for corporate interests,
prompted by such motivations as seeking more natural resources, tools of state become
handmaidens of economic self-interest...
This month, the energy consulting firm Wood MacKenzie gave an
online presentation that basically debunked the whole business model of the shale industry.
In this webinar, which explored the declining
production rates of oil wells in the Permian region , research director Ben Shattuck noted
how it was impossible to accurately forecast how much oil a shale play held based on estimates
from existing wells.
" Over the years of us doing this, as analysts, we've learned that you really have to do it
well by well," Shattuck explained of analyzing well performance. "You cannot take anything for
granted."
For an industry that has raised hundreds of billions of dollars promising future performance
based on the production of a few wells, this is not good news. And particularly for the
Permian, the nation's most
productive shale play , located in Texas and New Mexico.
Up until now, the basic premise of the fracking business model has been for a company to
lease some land, drill until finding a high-volume well, hype to the press this well and the
many others it plans to drill on the rest of its acreage, and promise a bright future, all
while borrowing huge sums of money to drill and frack the wells.
Throughout the seminar, Wood MacKenzie analysts emphasized that companies can't reliably
predict future oil production by "clustering" wells, that is, estimating volumes of many future
wells based on the performance of a small number of nearby existing wells, and described the
practice as potentially "misleading."
Shattuck called out how the old business model of firms borrowing money from investors while
hoping for future payouts on record-breaking wells no longer works. He summed up the
situation:
" We're transitioning to a point in time, where the investment community was enamored of
the next well and how big it might be. That has changed for a variety of reasons. One very
important reason is the next well might not be bigger. It might be smaller."
The fracking industry is now being asked to produce positive financial results -- not just
promises of new
super wells, or cube development, or artificial intelligence. And yet the industry couldn't
deliver profits while drilling all the best acreage over the last decade. Now, shale companies
need to do that with oil wells that may not produce as much.
Seven years ago, Rolling Stone referred to the fracking industry as a "
scam " while profiling the "Shale King" Aubrey McClendon, the man generally credited with
inventing the business model the shale industry has used the past decade. Today, McClendon's
old company Chesapeake Energy is
in danger of going bankrupt .
Perhaps investors are finally catching on.
Are Child Wells the New Normal?
Last year I covered the issue of
child wells , or secondary wells drilled close to an existing "parent" well, and the risk
they posed to the fracking industry. Child wells often cannibalize or damage parent wells,
leading to an overall drop in oil production.
At the time, I cited a warning about this situation from Wood MacKenzie, which said,
"Closely spaced child well performance presents not only a risk to the viability of the ongoing
drilling recovery but also to the industry's long-term prospects."
Over a year later, has the shale oil industry abandoned this approach or are child wells
still an issue?
During this month's webinar, Ben Shattuck answered that question, making a statement that
should strike fear in the heart of shale investors and the owners of all this shale
acreage:
" We know we're on the cusp of a child-well world."
One of the biggest problems with fracked oil well production is child wells, and according
to Shattuck, that looks like the new normal. When the bug in an unprofitable business becomes
the main feature of the business model, its future is definitely at "risk."
In the Eagle Ford shale, average production per foot of well length and per pound of
"proppant" has been falling steadily. Mr Kibsgaard blamed the decline on a rising proportion
of child wells, which are now up to about 70 per cent of all new wells drilled https://t.co/uG58KcNNJp
As long as shale firms could keep borrowing and losing money to drill new wells, producing
more oil was simple. When profits weren't a concern, the debt-heavy business model worked. But
similar to the dot com boom and bust, the fracking industry is learning that if you want to
stay in business, you need to make a profit.
Without a doubt, drilling and fracking shale can produce a lot of oil and gas in the right
geological regions. It just usually costs more to get the oil and gas out of the rock than the
fossil fuels are worth on the free market. Now, however, the much-lauded "shale revolution" is
facing two big issues -- the best rock has been
drilled and few are eager to
loan money to drill the remaining acreage.
E&E News recently highlighted
what this reality means for Texas's Eagle Ford shale play, where production is now 20 percent
lower than at its peak in early 2015. For an oil basin that's only been producing oil via
fracking for
just over a decade , that is a pretty grim number. However, an analyst quoted by E&E
News highlights the secret to making money while fracking for oil: Simply stop fracking.
"Generating free cash is easy: Stop spending on new wells," said Raoul LeBlanc, vice
president for North American unconventionals at IHS Markit. "The catch is that production will
immediately move into steep decline in many cases."
# IHSM arkit
forecasts capital spending for shale drilling & completions to fall by 10% to $102
billion this year. By 2021, we'll see a near $20 billion decline in annual spending. What's
causing this? Raoul LeBlanc comments- https://t.co/7q1QTiWZVs @HoustonChron
Ah, the catch. To generate cash while fracking requires companies to stop fracking and sell
whatever oil they have left from rapidly declining wells. Because fracked wells decline quickly
even when everything goes perfectly, if a producer isn't constantly drilling new wells, then
the oil production of a field drops off very quickly -- the "steep decline" noted by
LeBlanc.
That's exactly what happened in the Eagle Ford shale, an early darling of the fracking
industry, and most of the top acreage
in the Bakken shale play in North Dakota and Montana has already been drilled, and will
likely see similar declines.
LeBlanc emphasizes this point again in the Journal of Petroleum Technology
, where he is recently quoted saying that the decline rates in the Permian region have
"increased dramatically" for new fracked wells.
A year and a half ago, DeSmog launched a special series exploring the finances
of the fracking industry , putting a spotlight on its financial failings. At the time,
optimism about the future of fracking was still filling the pages of the financial press.
Hughes told DeSmog that with the finances of fracking, "Ultimately, you hit the wall. It's
just a question of time."
With the industry on the cusp of a "child-well world," that wall appears to be approaching
quickly -- unless you still believe the industry promises that fracking's big money is right
around the corner.
As the article says, the key scary thing for investors and the industry about fracking is
that fracked wells don't tail off over years like conventional ones – they stop
producing quite abruptly. Once the sweet spots are sucked dry, the drop off in production
will be calamitous with all sorts of potential impacts through both the oil/gas and the
finance world. It will probably happen far too quickly for most investors to jump off the
carousel in time. It will be a game changer when it happens (and probably, sadly, quite good
news for the Gulf States).
In past years, whenever I've expressed scepticism about the finances of fracking, the
usual response is 'but those guys wouldn't be putting in billions unless they knew there was
lots of oil and gas there'. What they don't seem to grasp is that making money from oil and
gas exploration is not the same as making money from oil production. Its not about selling on
the fuel. Its about first of all extracting money from investors for the exploration (and
getting your cut), then its about developing a prospect and selling it on for a big profit.
They don't really care if the well is profitable in the long term or not. I know of at least
one oil company (not in fracking, mostly off-shore), which has made millions for its owners
over the 40 years of its existence, despite the fact that it has never sold one barrel of
oil, nor ever found a field which could be brought to full production. All their profits have
come from their cut in selling on prospective fields, not one of which has ever come to
production.
===Its about first of all extracting money from investors for the exploration (and getting
your cut)==
==All their profits have come from their cut in selling on prospective fields, not one of
which has ever come to production===
What that tells me is there are a lot of investors that have soo much idle money floating
around the world and can literally throw huge sums of money at some venture and if the
venture fails oh well.
Many authors (Susan Strange, etc.) have used the term Casino Capitalism and this seems to
fit that.
It's like taking millions of dollars and making an idle bet at the roulette wheel and if
you lose oh well it was just pocket change or I'll just make up the losses on some other
scam. Meanwhile millions of people are homeless, without healthcare, hungry, etc. It's is
long past time to storm the castles! Pitchforks Up!!
I predict a nightmare of numerous abandoned wells as the many unprofitable fracking
companies go belly up, leaving the public with an expensive environmental mess to clean
up.
Just another example of western cronie capitalism where you privatise all profit, and
socialise all losses including both monetary and environmental.
The only way to stop this is to make shareholders personally responsible for such losses
including environmental clean up, even after a company goes belly up. Only then will
shareholders demand long term viability and more sustainable environmental practices, instead
of only short term profits.
A much simpler way is to simply insist that any license to drill can only be granted if it
is tied to a certified insurance bond for correct capping and abandonment. It would be
interesting to see just how many insurance companies would be willing to take on that
risk.
This should be the norm for all resource extraction permits: mining, logging, drilling,
whatever. A "restoration bond" has to be in place to finance the restoration of the site
after the valuable resources have been carted away.
This would be cheap in some cases, and very expensive in others (e.g., uranium mining). It
would be a way of factoring the externalities (as economists like to call them) into the
overall cost of the project, as well as decreasing the odds that fly by night operators will
trash the planet.
"You wouldn't know you were near an uranium mine any more ."
Alas, the residents of Red Shirt, South Dakota, a tiny Lakota community on the fringes of
the Pine Ridge Reservation, know about uranium mining. Past uranium mining
activity has resulted in the leaching of radioactive materials into their ground water
and wells. Even the nearby Cheyenne River has been contaminated. They can't drink the water.
Or use it for irrigation or fishing. The entire region is an official National Sacrifice
Area. Just a bunch of poor Indians.
The Defenders of the Black Hills are now fighting efforts to mine uranium using in-situ
leach mining. In this process, holes are dug, water and solvents injected to dissolve the
uranium, then the waste water is brought to the surface and temporarily stored in mud waste
ponds. Sounds like 'fracking?' Concerns are for the spread of contaminants in ground water
and aquifers. Where you can't see it.
Granted, no type of mining is without its problems.
But you could live in an area like mine where well water has to be tested routinely for
the high levels of uranium that occurs naturally in our water. No uranium mines around
here.
I'm going to be polite and ignore the tone of your comment. I was merely pointing out that
uranium mining is not the only reason for high uranium levels in ground water. There is a lot
of uranium in the earth's crust and it is dissolvable in water. All well water should be
checked for uranium levels but it is rarely done.
I'd favor forcing the investors and executives that want to erect these horrors to
personally (along with their family members) do the on-site labor of closing and cleanup,
while breathing the air and drinking the water that locals do. Still, of course, possible to
game even that by capturing the regulatory process of setting cleanup standards and
requirements, a la the federal and state Superfund programs.
Malum prohibitum vs. malum in se
" Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very nature being illegal
because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In
criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created
by statute, which are "malum prohibitum." Example: murder, rape, burglary and robbery are
malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most "white collar
crimes" are malum prohibitum." https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1201
The public won't be asked to fund the cleanup because there will be no cleanup. The
responsible parties aren't interested, and our government is no longer interested either.
It's another one of those issues in which communities without power will insist on government
action, and they will be ignored.
I wonder if could it be the case that some government considers strategically important to
keep production from free-falling, no matter if the economics are not sound, and shifting the
cost to the Treasury. MMT to the rescue of shale plays and financiers.
If the article is correct, calling for a plateau as soon as in 2021, the shale boom will
prove more transient than expected.
I can't keep up with all the interlocks and back-scratches. But Banksters are getting
rich, the intermediators in exploration and production are getting rich, the petroleum Bigs
are getting rich and using the notional global competition and Market to damage one
"nation's" comparative advantage to their own ends. And as with all the behaviors leading to
the conclusion that humanity is a failed, and maybe more honestly a plague species, all the
incentives and flows of power are in the direction of what I believe it was a Reagan
appointee offered as the moral underpinning of globalization and ruination: "God gave us
dominion over the planet, and Jesus is coming back real soon and if we have not used up the
whole place in accordance with His Holy Word as i read it, He is going to be really pissed
"
As with all the stuff we NCers read here, everything seems to drive the truly awake soul
in the direction of despair and that sense of vast futility, and that mindset of "Eat, drink
and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die " And screw future generations – past
generations said that to us, so why should we, or some small elite among us, who now are in a
position to have all our pleasure centers fully engaged and satiated to the max, behave
"Responsibly?" "Responsible people maximize shareholder value (and executive looting)!"
5 million EV takes inevitably back to nuclear energy. Without nukes you can anticipate
losing your residential AC for several hours/day. PG&E is the future.
The Forbes article is crap. Any analysis of electricity costs coming from renewable power
that does not include the costs of the energy storage systems required at high
penetration levels will underestimate the costs. Badly. The solar panels and wind turbines
are the easy part. The energy storage systems will easily cost 10X as much (and take 10X as
much time). Because of this, we've seen renewable energy deployment efforts stall out in
Germany, Spain, China, Denmark, and elsewhere, as they bumped into grid stability issues that
require storage to mitigate. And the storage costs too much.
Using "batteries" also produces a 10%* net loss to charge the batteries right off the bat.
You need 110% of the electricity to get to same 100% you were getting before the battery.
Rather than batteries helping, they actually end up using more electricity. That's also
before counting the electricity to make the battery.
* that's best case, theoretical, scenario.
Batteries are net users of electricity. The do not make it.
The Forbes article talks about balancing the grid so that variable energy sources can be
incorporated reliably. To whit:
Actually, battery storage, though often cost-effective today, is rarely needed to "firm"
the output of variable renewables (photovoltaics and windpower), because there are eight
ample cheaper methods.
I believe the author's thesis is for the electricity from renewables to be fed into the
grid when it is available, not to store it.
Do you think nuclear power plants run continuously and are never taken off the grid? Do
you think we use huge storage batteries when they are down?
Both your quote, and the pdf 'talk about' that. That's all they do. The forbes author
really is a treat. "There are 8 ample, cheaper methods" What are those eight methods? why
only 8? No further details.
"I believe the author's thesis is for the electricity from renewables to be fed into the
grid when it is available, not to store it."
It seems you noticed it too. No details, just numbers spelled out as words and asserted as
evidence.
Well, unfortunately the link that explains his 8 methods is behind a paywall.
But I think we are talking apples and oranges here.
The author of the Forbes article is talking about how a grid works. When a power plant is
taken off the grid, energy is moved in from some other area to take up the slack as long as
that power plant is offline. He expects that should be done with renewable energy also.
If you are depending on only one form of renewable energy, then of course you would need
batteries when that form of energy is not available. But batteries are an added cost and not
as efficient as moving energy via the grid. A better method would be to have many types of
renewable energies available so that you can switch between them as necessary. It is what he
means when he is talking about needing to firm the output of variable renewables.
So for example, in my area, the winds kick up when the sun goes down so it makes sense to
switch from solar to wind power at dusk.
I'm don't buy Amory Lovins' thesis. Bob's criticism is correct. The other 8 methods aren't
listed. The required sizes and associated costs aren't listed. It is impossible to judge the
viability of the scheme he envisions when the relevant information is missing.
A real plan would list nameplate GW for all types of generation assets and GW and
GWh for all energy storage assets. In other words, full details.
The only "plan" I've seen for supplying US energy needs with 100% renewable power that
actually contained full details came from Mark Jacobson of Stanford University: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
. To his credit, he did the time-domain analysis necessary to determine the amount of
load-sharing and energy storage necessary to keep the lights on through even extended periods
of unfavorable weather.
Unfortunately, his "solution" required two things: (1) expanding US hydro capacity by a
factor of 10, and (2) deploying a stupendous 541 TWh of energy storage. Neither is feasible.
The first would cause massive flooding and ruin river ecosystems if ever run at full power,
and the second would cost over $100 trillion at today's energy storage costs of $200/kWh. His
plan was so wildly unrealistic (and yet popular with Democrats) that a team of scientists and
engineers issued a formal rebuttal: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722 .
Jacobson's plan has been debunked .
The South Koreans deployed their nuclear fleet for approximately $3000/kW. At this cost,
we could completely de-carbonize the US electrical system for less than $2.5 trillion. It
would be quite the bargain in comparison.
The South Koreans do have one of the lowest costs for nuclear energy production – a
LCOE of about $2021/kWe compared to the US of $4100/kWe and the world average of $4702/kWe
– but the way they do that is by having much looser regulations and by severely
underestimating the decommissioning, waste management, and accident compensation costs. Is
that what you want for nuclear energy in the US?
I think it's kind of dangerous to just throw numbers around unless you understand what
they actually mean.
Ah, the wonderful "Heaters". They are situated outside EBR-1, just south of ID-20, west of
Idaho Falls, and east of Arco.
The whole of the area around there is a fascinating place to visit for a nuclear nerd like
me, plus you have the wonderful Craters of the Moon NM there too.
Other interesting places to visit are Atomic City, which has a population of around 25,
and is a weird time capsule from the '60s, plus Big Southern Butte, which is a, er, big
butte.
You can also find a gate leading off ID-20 to the north, into INL (Idaho National
Laboratory), which used to be the access road to the army's SL-1 reactor, which underwent a
steam explosion due to a core excursion in 1961, and is (as far as is admitted) the only
nuclear accident that led to immediate deaths in the US.
For a really interesting review of nuclear history read the three books by James Mahaffey.
He was a nuclear plant operator for a while, and describes the little pastime of "reactor
racing", which was seeing who could get a reactor up to nominal operating capacity in the
shortest time.
I guess that this means that Trump and his crew will make another run at Venezuela –
before the fracking industry goes down the gurgler. All of Venezuela's oil fields are like a
big box of chocolates in America's backyard. But if they try to take it, like life, you never
know what you are going to get.
Am I right in guessing that this will significantly impact forecasts of aggregate US
domestic oil production? Do we remain the global "swing" producer?
As PlutoniumKun says above, the collapse of the shale field production will be great news
for the Gulf Coast's petroleum industry. Not only is the Gulf a proven reserve, but with the
inevitable higher prices for crude oil, many more of the offshore wells will become
profitable.
The American shale collapse will also be good news for other world producers of petroleum.
OPEC will regain some of it's lost political influence.
On the down side; all forms of shipping and transportation will have a spike in per unit
costs. A canny politician could use this factor to push an onshoring of lost industrial and
manufacturing capacity. Put Americans back to work in America. That will be a winning
strategy.
Yes, well, I generally assume that the definition of "profitable" in use in the board
rooms of the giant conglomerates 'rules the day.' Until some method of 'regulating' the
actions of the board rooms of industry are brought into play, I'm afraid we are stuck with
some version of the status quo.
Just as the German usual suspects moved nations into 'Realpolitik' after the War, so too have
the modern Austrian usual suspects moved the world into 'Realeconomik.' Both have led our
best of all possible worlds into a Neoliberal Paradise.
Didn't Chesapeake Energy declare bankruptcy a good ten years ago? And then restructured
itself into a shale fracking company with the extreme help of the Obama administration? When
Obama "pivoted" away from KSA he went straight to US drillers. Allowing any hype necessary to
get the needed investments. Obama was clearly panicked. I wonder if it is possible that that
is when he learned that Aramco's reserves were only a fraction of the Saudi hype? Bin
Sawbones was subsequently allowed to provide the estimate of the worth of KSA's oil reserves
at 2 Trillion. The IPO went forward at that estimate and just today there is an article in ZH
about Aramco's actual value being much less. It looks to me like we just up and left KSA. Why
on earth would we do that unless they were running dry? And why would they have fought that
obscene war with Yemen unless they (the Saudis) were getting desperate? Secure people
generally don't do things that stupid. And the next logical question might be, How long will
Russian reserves hold up as they supply both China and the EU? The simple answer is it is all
just a question of time. We need to envision a lifestyle that is far more compatible with the
planet. Fracking was just a distraction. A farce. It would be better to own warm sox than oil
shares. And electricity is not going to help us out if we do not aggressively restrict our
use. I'd just like to know why we can't all come together and admit this one elemental
fact.
Drainage! Draaaainage, Eli, you boy! Drained dry. I'm so sorry.
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is,
that's a straw, you see? You watching? And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts
to drink your milkshake.
I drink your milkshake! slurp I drink it up! Every day I drink the Blood of Lamb from
Bandy's tract.
The last man standing might be profitable.
Not so long ago gas was much higher I think the peak during a pre fracking cold winter was
$15 now under $3. Plus we're exporting the stuff bc us price is so far below Eu price. But us
price is clearly unstable Bc it's too low for frackers to break even, much less make
money.
It's the large fracking production that's driven price down to sub $3. Maybe foolish
investors and banks will soon stop burning $, after which price will rise towards $10 as this
happens utilities will really jump on solar bc gas will be increasingly non competitive.
Ca should refuse all utility requests to build more gas-fired generating plants existing ones
will be shut over the next decade as solar plus storage price continues falling and gas price
rises.
From graphs 2 and 3, you can see that half or more of the national oil production comes
from about 50,000 high producing wells (out of roughly 1mm total). These are of course on the
treadmill of decline and need continuous investment to be renewed.
Anyway after 2014 the national production responded to the price collapse within about a
year. This is what is somewhat different about fracking -- the short time horizon and the
outsize contribution of the "top" wells -- constant depletion and investment -- results in a
fairly fast response to the price environment.
Factor in pipeline capacity shortages come and go, affecting the share of $$ taken by the
midstream. In any case, they're losing money when the WTI price is in the $50-$60 range. What
does that mean? Great question.
So, the shale/fracking industry has ~$200bn in debt, god only knows how much market cap is
at risk on Shale and fracking alone, and it's COMPLETELY UN PREDICTABLE. And people buy
shares in this snake oil on the market? SEC sleeping? what a crock.
I suspect that shale plays like OXY, with marketwatch assigning a "beta" of (get this!)
0.99 to this stock, are fundamental misallocations of capital. In a political sense, it's a
red state SOE type play that doesn't pass snuff. I saw the entire Wood MacKenzie webinar
linked in Lambert's article, and even THEY themselves are amazed at the range of valuations
in the shale sector. No two wells can be compared truly. The webinar references when Ben
Shattuck asked a wall street analyst for their comps on some company, and Wood MacKenzie's
analysis using on the ground depletion knowledge, was 40% lower, versus a higher paid wall
street "comps" analysis!
This entire sector is SNAKE OIL, imho, not to mention the environmental degradation not on
the balance sheets. But it is politically privileged, so we must zip it.
Trump is expected to sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020
which mandates the imposition of sanctions on companies involved in Nord Stream II's
construction, but while this crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede the project since
it's already in its final stages, its importance derives in the fact that it signals extremely
strong support for the interests of the US-backed "Three Seas Initiative" whose Polish leader
has objected to this game-changing pipeline on geopolitical grounds.
***
The US Senate's
approval of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020 means that Trump will likely
sign it into law very soon, which is troublesome for Trans-Atlantic relations because it
mandates among its many sometimes unrelated provisions the imposition of sanctions on companies
involved in Nord Stream II's construction. This crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede
the project since it's already in its final stages after Russia
secured Denmark's permission back in October to construct a crucial segment of this
pipeline through its maritime territory, which will facilitate the project's completion and
thus strengthen Russia's strategic partnership with EU-leader Germany. That outcome will likely
accelerate the ongoing rapprochement between Russia and the bloc's Western European members
that became obvious to all after Macron's successful visit
to Moscow in late August, but which is in turn compelling the US to double down on its
commitment to the Polish-led " Three
Seas Initiative " (TSI) that it envisages functioning as its wedge for retaining influence
in the strategic Central European space between those two.
The impending NDAA 2020-connected sanctions should therefore be seen as an extremely strong
signal of support for this trans-regional integration structure because they satisfy the
demands of its Polish leader for the US to impose costs upon Germany for its reinvigorated
strategic partnership with Russia. Barely reported on at the time, it's significant to mention
that a bipartisan
resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives at the end of October shortly
after Russia secured Denmark's support for Nord Stream II mandating that Congress prioritize
its support for the TSI in the aftermath of that development, with a specific focus on energy
and physical connectivity projects. The grand strategic goal that the US is aiming to achieve
is to create a so-called "cordon sanitaire" that would serve to divide Russia from Western
Europe by exploiting the preexisting animosity that the many states between them have towards
Moscow, and it will likely end up being one of the main drivers of American foreign policy
towards the continent for the foreseeable future.
In pursuit of that objective, the US is also making strategic outreaches to
Belarus , knowing very well that its wily leader Lukashenko is more than willing to
"balance" between the West and Russia in a risky attempt to extract more (mostly economic)
"concessions" from each of them. It goes without saying that this policy will probably ramp up
now that Nord Stream II is a fait accompli and the "cordon sanitaire" is more significant than
ever in the current context. That former Soviet Republic, however, is unlikely to engage in a
decisive "pivot" against Russia, though from a zero-sum standpoint, the gradual moves that it's
making towards the West can indeed be interpreted as being "mildly" against Russia's long-term
interests. Still, there isn't much that Russia can do since it must avoid the perception that
it's putting overwhelming pressure on Belarus or even plausibly considering doing so since that
notion would only accelerate the very same trend that Moscow wants to reverse. Minsk, it must
be said, recognizes how geostrategic its position is for both the Russian-led Eurasian Union
(EAU) and the Polish-led TSI, so it'll try to play them off against the other, all with the US'
passive support.
The US isn't the only Great Power spreading its influence through the TSI, as China is also
rapidly on the ascent there too. The Balkans are becoming more important of a destination for
Chinese foreign direct investment than ever through the Belt & Road
Initiative (BRI), most visibly manifesting itself in Beijing's plans to construct a
high-speed railway from the Hungarian capital of Budapest to the Greek port of Pireaus (the
"Balkan Silk Road"). It also holds yearly meetings with the leaders of the TSI countries and
others in this region through the 17+1
format that was recently expanded to include Greece (having been the 16+1 previously). In
addition, Belarus is a key node on the Eurasian Land Bridge, with China investing in the "
Great Stone " industrial
park that it envisages becoming a major export center along that route. None of this is to
imply whatsoever that China is "teaming up" with the US to "contain" Russia in Central &
Eastern Europe, but just to point out that China's infrastructure investments will greatly help
to connect the region along the north-south axis, after which the US will likely exploit these
apolitical and purely economic projects for its strategic ends vis-a-vis Russia.
Even so, while the TSI space is certainly geostrategic, its economic importance pales in
comparison to Western Europe's. The German economy alone is larger than all of those states'
combined, so Russia isn't exactly losing out in the economic sense as a result of the US' TSI
plans. It is, however, at risk of this "cordon sanitaire" being used as its rival's
trans-regional platform for putting military pressure upon it, which has already been happening
ever since most of its states joined NATO and then doubled down on their commitment to it after
the onset of the New
Cold War in 2014 following Crimea's reunification with Russia in response to the US-backed
coup in Ukraine. Poland and increasingly Greece
bookend this pro-American military structure, while Ukraine and possibly soon even Belarus
could ultimately become its eastern-most appendages by proxy. Russia still has instruments of
influence that it can leverage in an attempt to keep this trend under control, though it's
seemingly on the defensive in recent years and appears unable to gain any successes on this
front, instead choosing to concentrate on Western Europe through Nord Stream II and other
measures.
Looking forward, the rise of the TSI as the US' preferred continental proxy is all but
assured, though it's unclear whether or not it'll succeed with its fundamental purpose of
keeping Russia and Western Europe apart. Classical geopolitical thought suggesting that it
would doesn't take into consideration the much more complex nature of contemporary
International Relations whereby a conventional military clash between the TSI states and Russia
is unlikely for reasons of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stemming from many of the
former's memberships in NATO, and their other memberships in the EU mean that a successful
EU-Russian detente would force them to facilitate trade between Western Europe and Russia if
even a single state vetoes the continuation of sanctions in the future. Altogether, it can
therefore be said that Russia's successful completion of Nord Stream II would flip the
strategic dynamics by once again returning Moscow to a position of strength whereas Washington
would then be the Great Power on the defensive instead. Still, the TSI's potential shouldn't be
underestimated either since it might lead to some surprises for both Western Europe and Russia
if its American patron has a few tricks up its sleeve that it's wiling to teach its regional
partners.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
"Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline"
The Russians will probably finish that last segment themselves but the German reaction
will be the one to watch out for – if there is one. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany will
have to accept having a smaller economy because of insufficient energy to power it which will
have knock-on effects in taxation, revenue raising & allocation, etc.
This will make them less competitive against the US and other economies and if they are
forced to buy US gas shipments, it will play hell with their budget due to the excessive
cost. Having a US Ambassador that thinks of himself as a Proconsul of Germany has not
lessened any tensions either. So we will see if there is any German reaction.
When Russia finishes the pipeline, which is not really sure since the swiss special ships
might finish in time or might be actually needed to finish the pipeline, then why would a
reaction from Germany be needed?
If/when the pipeline is done, Germany will take the gas from it for e.g. its chemical
industry. From what I understand, the US hasn't sanctioned users of russian gas in general,
"only" companies who actively build on the pipeline, like the owner of the special ships
used.
If the US however doubles down and sanctions users of russian pipeline gas, then it will
probably have a big fight on its hand. Then not only Germany is affected but almost all EU
countries, except Poland and the Baltics of course.
Frankly, I just don't get the logic behind this move by Trump. Is he saying that he thinks
that Germany is a colony of the US and that the US gets to determine where they get their
resources? That is pretty high-handed, even for the US.
I think that's exactly what these sanctions are about. "The US considers the project a
security risk to Europe" certainly sounds colonialist, and "The Trump administration fears
the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and reduce its own share
of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas" sounds like the USA
wants to tell Europe what to buy and where.
I'm not sure about pinning it all on Trump though: " Congress voted through the
measures as part of a defence bill last week and the legislation, which described the
pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by Mr Trump on Friday."
(Quotes from the BBC article)
Why have NATO. Do you need a military against a country that you buy gas from. You give
them enormous amounts of money and they can shut the switch at any time. Maybe we should
bring Russia into NATO to defend against aliens.
Russia asked to join NATO, but were rejected. NATO needs a bogey man enemy to justify
forcing all its members to spend 2% of GDP on US military equipment. The first thing American
arms salespersons did when the Berlin Wall fell was to head to Eastern Europe to sell
arms.
It might be high-handed, but it's not new. Variations of this game have gone on since the
80s, when the first gas exports from Russia were starting. This is an upswing in aggression,
but it's mostly a continuation of standard US policy.
I am not even sure that the increased aggression comes from Trump. It's more that gas
producers in the US are now more powerful than a decade ago (and somewhat desperate due to
low gas prices in the US), so their interests add to the old-school geopolitics.
Well Germany and EU are sure behaving as if they are colonies. Zero fight for what is good
for EU. Think Russia sanctions. Hurt only EU, not US and a little bit Russia, which now have
moved to produce themselves the stuff EU was selling to Russia. EU has screwed itself on the
long-term by order from the US. US is not Europe's friend, but is making sure that it gets
weaker and cannot offer an alternative, economical, social or military.
If you want to amuse yourself you can see the ships here :
They appear to be returning to port. Were last working just to the SSE of Bornholm (the
Danish island).
Here is a gazprom map of the route as of Oct .
Most of the remaining route, the segment in German EEZ waters going in the southwest directon
from Bornholm, is shallow water.
I keep wondering when Europe will decide to throw off the shackles. A complicating factor
may be history: they'd rather an American master, mostly far away, than a German one.
Didn't we interfere with Japanese oil supplies once? For large values of happy, I can say
I'm happy with synopsizing the result of World War 2 as being about 'Who had the most oil?' I
feel like we are now vaporizing so many kinds of capital to maintain energy dominance. Can
the US please stop fighting WWII sometime before WWIII
HB. I have used leases developed in our field in the past ten years to demonstrate that shale
is high cost. Again, rule of thumb the cost of a conventional well in our field is
approximately 1/100 of a shale oil well ($70K range v $7 million range).
Here are some examples with production through 10/31/19:
8 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative BO 83,466. YTD BO 2,085. First production
4/2003.
10 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative BO 116,065. YTD BO 2089. First production
9/2005.
10 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative Bo 55,595. YTD BO 3,023. First production
3/2006.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 37,418. YTD BO 1,289. First production
8/2008.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative BO 42,494. YTD BO 2,328. First production
10/2008.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 19,216. YTD BO 1,220. First production
12/2010.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative BO 46,463. YTD BO 1,877. First production
8/2011.
4 producers 2 injection wells. Cumulative BO 10,700. YTD BO 634. First production
10/2011.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative 59,592 BO. YTD 4,956 BO. First production
11/2011.
1 producer. Water disposed of in adjoining lease. Cumulative BO 7,872. YTD BO 444 BO.
First production 5/2012.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative 56,500 BO. YTD 3,858 BO. First production
6/2012.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 11,758. YTD BO 1,457. First production
6/2013.
2 producers. Water disposed of on adjoining lease. Cumulative 3,524 BO. YTD BO 393. First
production 11/2013.
6 producers Two injection wells. Cumulative 25,988 BO. YTD 3,233 BO. First production
9/2014.
Figure in anywhere from $60K-80K to drill, complete and equip each well including
electric, flow and/or injection lines. Figure another $20-30K for a tank battery.
Assume anywhere from 12.5 to 20 percent royalty.
Of course, some projects do better than others. But compare this to shaleprofile.com
wells.
There was very little drilling in our field from 1987 to 2003. There has been very little
since 2015. Century plus year old stripper field.
There have also been many reclamation projects in our field during 2005-2014 of abandoned
wells wherein the producers went bust in the 1990s, with 1998 being a knockout blow.
We took over 2 wells drilled in the 1950s they were abandoned in 1998. We just had to
equip them and build a new tank battery. We also took over three wells also drilled in the
1950s where we had to do the same, plus plug the injection well and convert one producer to
an injector. These work well at $55-65 WTI also.
I can also point to many projects developed in our field in the 1980s where cumulative per
well has topped 40K BO to date.
Conventional oil is a much better deal than shale usually when you can find it. And also
when you aren't trying to pay for 8 figure CEO pay, skyscrapers and jets out of it.
Shale just has the scale. Huge scale. Worldwide game changing size.
Shallow, I can't thank you enough. Alot to digest here. My first glance gave me the feeling
shale drilling dollars are about half as productive. Maybe you have a better number.
When a new field is drilled, is it always under pressure without the cost of lifting it
from the hole? Then once the pressure is exhausted it becomes a stripper?
A lot of the Huntington Beach field lays under the ocean. There is over a mile long row of
wells along the shoreline. I'm assuming they go horizontal under the ocean. Only a few wells
have lift Jacks. Can strippers wells go horizontal?
There isn't enough down hole pressure here for natural flow. Everything goes on pumping unit
immediately and injection wells are also drilled at the same time as production wells.
To put into perspective, the field was originally drilled over 100 years ago. Waterflood
was initiated on a large scale right after WW2. Many wells were plugged in the late
1960s-early 1970s when oil prices were low. The field was redrilled in the late 1970s –
early 1980s. Little activity after 1986, until prices took off during the Iraq War.
For example, we operate a lease that was originally drilled in the 1950s. It was plugged
out in 1972. In 1979-81, all of the plugged wells were drilled out (casing had not been
pulled). New injection wells were drilled.
Cumulative from 9 producing wells since 1979 is over 140K BO with production currently at
5.5 BOPD. It is difficult to tell what these wells produced from 1953-1972, because they were
part of a larger unitized waterflood project. Our guess is around 200-250K BO during that
time frame.
Only a small company would be interested in 9 wells making 5.5 BOPD, but they have been
economic even during the worst part of 2016 (barely during Q1 – 2016).
There haven't been HZ wells drilled in the shallow zones (1,500' and below). However,
there has been some success with 1,800'-5,000' TVD hz wells. Not sure of the economics.
There has been success with slick water fracks in deeper vertical wells also.
No way. It's already here, and there will be no rebound. BTW I did carefully read your
comments above Dennis and thank you for your time to respond. As always, your responses are
significantly better than what my caustic remarks deserve.
As has been said many times, money does not equal geology. Even if a new tranche of
'investment' could be begged, borrowed, or stolen (likely stolen) it would be spent to build
new drilling equipment, pay for new leases/roads/infrastructure, with all of it into new
wells that will produce less than any before them. If inflation is a factor (and it is), the
borrowed & eventually defaulted upon money will buy less than before.
Shale started bad, and it will stay bad. No shale well was a gusher instead, they all
needed huge horsepower, millions of gallons of water, hundreds of tons of sand, and lots of
investment dollars just to get started. None of these were ever a Texas gusher. To me, this
is no business model to follow, it is a debacle.
We have seen hundreds of shale companies go bankrupt over the last couple of years. Going
forward, there won't be hundreds of bankruptcies because there won't be hundreds of shalies
to go bankrupt. Like the motorcar companies of old, it'll go from dozens of market
participants to a handful through M&A and bankruptcies. There is still plenty of surface
carnage to come and it is far from over. Bear in mind, this is largely the same crowd that
kept exclaiming a dropping 'breakeven' price from 2010 forward, to the point where $20 was
wildly shouted from the rooftops (particularly from John Mauldin) as the point of
profitability. Of course, none of it was true. Now we see at long last that $60 (and probably
$75) was the true breakeven point. Lots of C-suite executives should be in jail for their
malfeasance, but of course none are and with the exception of Aubrey McClendon, all of them
are still 'at large'.
So with all this in mind and to round off a long screech, I summarize by saying that 2019
is peak shale.
The small companies, which have gotten only B class land will have to reduce, leading the
decline.
The bigger ones can continue to grow to a certain amount – but using up their A
class land. Especially all non-Permian will see this very soon and start declining. So
Permian growth soon will not be enough to keep up all shale decline – and this at the
cost of the Permian Tier A claims.
Oil production from shale will have a long future if prices settle at 100$ – but
with worse land it will just not be a bit boom.
A boom means high drilling everything costs, in a long calm era everything has more normal
prices (why should a truck driver carrying fertiliser to farm tows earn much less than a
truck driver delivering sand to a hole). And so finally some money can be earned in the oil
spot.
If the Democrats take over and get more green, taxes on oil production will be increased
anyway, and tax credits cut – so more calm drilling anyway. This is a big "if", I don't
know how the D – R battle stands now.
" The golden age of U.S. shale is far from over, with an expected slowdown in the Permian
Basin likely to be temporary, according to the new U.S. Energy Secretary.
The shale boom helped transform the U.S. into a net exporter of crude and petroleum
products in September from a major importer a decade ago. Even as growth is set to slow next
year in the Permian and elsewhere as drillers respond to investor demands for capital
restraint, Dan Brouillette said the shale boom has further to run."
Permian Drillers Are Struggling To Keep Output Flat
Newer wells in the Permian see their oil and gas production declining much faster than
older wells, and operators will need to drill a large number of wells just to keep current
production levels, an IHS Markit analysis showed on Thursday.
IHS Markit has analyzed what it calls the "base decline" rate, calculating the actual or
expected production of all the operating wells at the start of the year and tracking their
cumulative decline by the end of the year. Over the past decade, the base decline rate of
the more than 150,000 producing oil and gas wells in the Permian has "increased
dramatically," according to the analysis.
Your article goes into a lot of depth. I noticed these statements:
"The main driver of Legacy Loss is Total Production, which is logical.
In Permian, higher Initial Production (IPt) increased legacy loss, probably because new wells
deplete faster than old wells"
New wells depleting fasting than old wells partly explains why the monthly legacy loss
keeps increasing from month to month. It's now close to 600kbd/month, according to EIA
DPR.
The chart below from the article shows Jan 2015 as Peak Shale No 1 as legacy loss was
above new monthly shale production. The author says when "red line gets above new monthly
initial production then that's Peak Shale No 2", which might happen as soon as early 2020.
This is shown by the dashed line "IPt minus Legacy Loss" reaching zero, which means Peak
Shale No 2. The author says that this could happen if WTI stays at $55.
The basic premise is that productivity per completion has stalled, and there is no longer
a huge overhang of cheap frac spreads keeping the frac market oversupplied.
And what, Dennis? How, pray tell, will 17 million horsepower -and other infrastructure
including manpower – magically re-appear in 2020 and inflate another peak? With
existing shale finances in the tank, $300 billion of already accumulated and un-repayable
debt, and Wall Street financiers demanding repayment on their investments, your
prognostication for a rebound has a tinge of 'wildly unrealistic' about it.
ExxonMoble boe per day is 2.25 millon and has a market value of $300 billion. The tight oil
shale play over the last decade has increased production 7 million bpd. Is $300 billion of
debt really out of line? Do you have CFO experience with a multi-billion dollar company?
In the trucking industry the major freight companies running 24/7 turn their tractor fleet
over on a 5 year rotation receiving 20 cents on the dollar at retirement. Ready mix trucks
are turned over after 10 years rotation at 20 cents or less on the dollar running 12/5. When
the business environment is good. It's easy to delay retirement a little to meet demand. When
times are difficult, the old trucks sit in the yard and can be stripped for parts.
I have to question your hair on fire comment. Do you know the life expectancy of a
drilling rig for a large corporation ? The related article is talking about retiring 10
percent. That's a 10 year rotation. Maybe replacement is just cost efficient verses down
time. The big boys don't work on the same time frame as the little guy.
HB. $300 billion divided by 7 million comes to over $42,000 per barrel of debt. IMO that
is a high level of debt unless oil prices recover to 2011-14 levels.
Only the best oil production is selling for that in our part of the world and that is
production with a decline rate of 3% per year or less.
Regarding XOM, keep in mind that includes not just the upstream, but the midstream and
down stream, both of which are substantial.
XOM also has substantial international upstream assets which are generating substantial
cash flow at $60s Brent.
The only reason there is any production of shale oil at all is that there is a combination of
cheap money and a plethora of desperate investors starved for yield. Well guess what, the
investors want a return on their investment and the cheap money is drying up. So, artificial
life support is being withdrawn and the patient is now expected to get off the emergency room
gurney and start working for his keep. We shall see how that turns out.
This whole exercise in perfidy is much like Uber, that has never made a profit to date,
and yet was supported by billions of investor dollars. The whole ignominious affair put
hundreds of thousands of cabbies into destitution and bankruptcy, i.e those who didn't enjoy
the largess of investors willing to put up with loss-making operations for years on end.
Uber and Shale; the twin shitstorms of inequity, capital misalocation, and widespread
collateral damage to their respective proximal markets.
I agree with your concerns Mike. It seems to me that debt will be accumulated in the system
until it needs to be defaulted on. The governments of the world have become expert on kicking
the can down the road.
But that path will end one day, perhaps suddenly. Default will come via one of several
mechanisms- currency devaluation and debt write-off, for example. Whatever method, it will
severely hurt those who were expecting pensions or government payments (Medicare/SS), or to
live on savings or investment yield. These things will be massively de-valuated. Negative
interest rates you have been hearing about are just the early symptom of this process. A
president who cannot release his tax returns because he has a long pattern of committing
severe financial crimes, is another. The extreme accumulation of wealth among the super
wealthy is yet another.
I have given up expecting a 'fair' or rational game.
The EIA has December 2019 C+C production at 12.99 million bpd. They have December 2020 at
13.28 million bpd. That is an increase, December to December of .29 million bpd. Quite a
comedown from the over 2 million bpd increase in 2018.
HB. The problem with shale is that it is expensive oil, despite what companies such as XOM
and CVX put out publicly. However, it has a big advantage in that it is onshore, USA.
I think part of the reason that XOM, CVX, COP, MRO and other companies with worldwide
operations keep at it is because it is onshore lower 48.
I remember when everything that these companies were doing was international. It required
employees to live in some less than desirable places. Recall the stories I have related here
about employees of these companies having less than 24 hours to leave Libya, or being herded
out of the office in Venezuela at gunpoint.
Working offshore can't be a picnic. Also, the liability is great, see BP's disaster.
The management and employees want shale to work very badly. And it does at a high enough
oil price. Unfortunately, the price hasn't been there since 2014. But they keep making stuff
up because they don't want to be sent back to the Middle East and other tough places, or work
offshore deepwater.
But what has been bad for the companies has been great for consumers. I can't believe how
much Bernie and Elizabeth ignore the benefit shale has been to the US economy.
What would have happened without US going from less than 5 million BOPD to almost 13
million in eleven years? I suspect a lot of bad things. My primary beef is that the companies
lie about what price they need for shale to work and completed too many wells when prices
were low.
I think maybe shale is finally figuring out they need above my preferred $55-65 WTI
price band. We have been slightly below that and it appears things are really slowing
down.
Also lots of Goldman Sachs charts, with the one below showing a peak plateau from 2022 to
2025. The legend is missing 3 shale plays. The bottom dark blue is Delaware (Permian),
Midland (Permian) above and Bakken, the grey.
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
President Trump is expected to sign legislation into law
AllSeas Group SA
said it would halt operations on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany on
expectations the U.S. Congress will pass legislation to sanction companies working on the
project, which critics say will bind Europe more tightly to Moscow.
The contractor said in a two-line statement it would suspend work "in anticipation of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act."
... ... ...
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, the main Senate sponsor of the sanctions,
wrote a letter with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson to AllSeas Chief Executive Officer Edward
Heerema Wednesday warning the company that it would face "crushing and potentially fatal"
sanctions if it continued work on the pipeline.
"The consequences of your company continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after
the President signs the sanctions legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and
potentially fatal legal and economic sanctions," they wrote.
Good article, I believe it will not only be related to US shale oil quality but also a more
or less collapse in US shale , to use the shale pioneer Mark Papas words from 2019 " the best
in US shale is behind " but the investors choose to not believe him as it not fits with what
the shale producers had presented them. Perhaps this time wall street will learn a lesson
that might be quite exspensive. I am waiting for how much Exxon will write down of their
assets in Permian, that might be higher than Chevron have annonsed.
Tight oil output will not increase as much as forecast by IEA and OPEC so it is not likely a
refining wall at the World level will be be reached. As to demand outrunning supply, when
that occurs oil prices will rise to a level that demand is destroyed to the point that supply
will equal consumption as it must over the long term. Demand (consumption) cannot be higher
than supply (output) for very long as stocks cannot be less than zero plus pipeline fill and
minimum storage tank levels needed to keep the overall refinery and distribution system
functioning. Oil prices will rise from 2020 to 2030, of that we can be sure, unless a severe
World recession occurs (I expect this to begin in 2030+/-2 years and last for 2 to 4 years if
World economists remember their Keynesian economics, otherwise it could be 5 to 7 years, if
nonsense like fiscal austerity in the face of severe recessions is recommended and we are
foolish enough to forget the lessons of 1929-1933.)
Oil quality is not the way to address or label the issue. Quality is a word traditionally
used in oil to describe sulphur content, not a scarcity of middle distillates in the yield.
Needs a different word.
Further, from the article, diesel is not the consumption growth heavy constituent. It's
jet fuel. Up 3.7% last year. Gasoline was up almost 1%.
"... Given decreasing money available to shale oil, declining frac spread counts and falling rig counts, I now guess that US peak oil month is Nov 2019. Permian oil production should continue increasing slowly but it's not enough to offset falling production from other shale basins and other conventional oil basins. ..."
EIA STEO says US oil production in 2019 is 12.25 mbd. That means that IHS is forecasting
12.69 mbd in 2020. This 0.44 mbd growth is assumed to come from the 7 US shale regions on EIA
DPR. In 2019, shale region production was 8.60 mbd. 2020 shale region production is forecast
to be 9.04 mbd, after 0.44 mbd growth. EIA DPR says that Jan 2020 shale region production is
9.14 mbd which is greater than 9.04 mbd which means that IHS 0.44 mbd 2020 growth implies
that a US peak oil is happening about now.
IHS says that modest growth is expected in 2022, but they don't quantify how much growth.
I believe this sentence was added because IHS does not want to be accused of implying US oil
production has peaked. Dan Yergin, vice chair of IHS, founded CERA in 1982 which is now owned
by IHS. Dan Yergin "clearly doesn't care about converting peak oilers. He really wants to
influence Washington." In other words, IHS says modest growth in 2022, to please Washington
politicians. US shale growth might increase in 2022, even with higher oil prices, but I'm
guessing it won't. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/whos-afraid-of-daniel-yergin/
Given decreasing money available to shale oil, declining frac spread counts and
falling rig counts, I now guess that US peak oil month is Nov 2019. Permian oil production
should continue increasing slowly but it's not enough to offset falling production from other
shale basins and other conventional oil basins.
Price of oil does have problem that will play out over next 6-8 months. Without a trade war
and Brexit hanging over markets. There isn't a whole lot of reason to be holding government
bonds which yield next to nothing or less than nothing in some cases. Fed is buying bills so
Repo market won't implode into another 2008. Only problem is they need to be buying coupons
or treasuries also. They are buying some treasuries but it's not near enough to hold interest
rates down. Yields on debt are going to rise without something like a trade war holding them
down. That is a problem if your long oil.
Keep an eye on 10 year US treasuries. If they become just a little less liquid and yields
rise as i believe they will. These OPEC cuts aren't going to mean as much as some might
think.
"... One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to "keep the oil" was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield ..."
"... Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration. ..."
"... WINEP's close association with AIPAC, which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel several times in the past with no consequence, combined with Jeffrey's long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey's plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted 77 percent of Israel's total oil imports during the KRG's occupation of Kirkuk. ..."
"... the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale agreements for Israel's benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of behavior. ..."
The outsized role of U.S. Israel lobby operatives in abetting the theft of Syrian and Iraqi oil reveals how this
powerful lobby also facilitates more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that
favor Israel.
Kirkuk, Iraq
--
"We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers
because we're keeping the oil," President Trump stated on November 3, before adding, "I like oil. We're keeping the
oil."
Though he had promised a withdrawal of U.S. troops from their illegal occupation of Syria, Trump shocked many with
his blunt admission that troops were being left behind to prevent Syrian oil resources from being developed by the
Syrian government and, instead, kept in the hands of whomever the U.S. deemed fit to control them, in this case, the
U.S.-backed Kurdish-majority militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Though Trump himself received all of the credit -- and the scorn -- for this controversial new policy, what has been
left out of the media coverage is the fact that key players in the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby played a major role in its
creation with the purpose of selling Syrian oil to the state of Israel. While recent developments in the Syrian conflict
may have hindered such a plan from becoming reality, it nonetheless offers a telling example of the covert role often
played by the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby in shaping key elements of U.S. foreign policy and closed-door deals with major
regional implications.
Indeed, the Israel lobby-led effort to have the U.S. facilitate the sale of Syrian oil to Israel is not an isolated
incident given that, just a few years ago, other individuals connected to the same pro-Israel lobby groups and Zionist
neoconservatives manipulated both U.S. policy and Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in order to allow Iraqi oil
to be sold to Israel without the approval of the Iraqi government. These designs, not unlike those that continue to
unfold in Syria, were in service to longstanding neoconservative and Zionist efforts to balkanize Iraq by strengthening
the KRG and weakening Baghdad.
After the occupation of Iraq's Nineveh Governorate by ISIS (June 2014-October 2015), the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) took advantage of the Iraqi military's retreat and, amidst the chaos, illegally seized Kirkuk on June
12. Their claim to the city was supported by both the U.S. and Israel and, later, the U.S.-led coalition targeting ISIS.
This gave the KRG control, not only of Iraq's export pipeline to Turkey's Ceyhan port, but also to Iraq's largest oil
fields.
Israel imported massive amounts of oil from the Kurds during this period, all without the consent of Baghdad. Israel
was also the
largest customer of oil
sold by ISIS, who used Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk to sell oil in areas of Iraq and Syria
under its control. To do this in ISIS-controlled territories of Iraq, the oil was sent first to the Kurdish city of
Zakho near the Turkey border and then into Turkey, deceptively labeled as oil that originated from Iraqi Kurdistan. ISIS
did nothing to impede the KRG's own oil exports even though they easily could have given that the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export
pipeline passed through areas that ISIS had occupied for years.
In retrospect, and following
revelations from Wikileaks
and new information regarding the background of relevant actors, it has been revealed
that much of the covert maneuvering behind the scenes that enabled this scenario intimately involved the United States'
powerful pro-Israel lobby. Now, with a similar scenario unfolding in Syria, efforts by the U.S.' Israel lobby to
manipulate U.S. foreign policy in order to shift the flow of hydrocarbons for Israel's benefit can instead be seen as a
pattern of behavior, not an isolated incident.
"Keep the oil" for Israel
After recent shifts in the Trump administration in its Syria policy, U.S. troops have controversially been kept in
Syria to "
keep
the oil
," with U.S. military officials subsequently claiming that doing so was "a subset of the counter-ISIS
mission." However, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
later claimed
that another factor behind U.S. insistence on guarding Syrian oil fields was to prevent the extraction
and subsequent sale of Syrian oil by either the Syrian government or Russia.
One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to
"keep the oil" was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield. Satterfield was previously the assistant
secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, where he yielded great influence over U.S. policy in both Iraq and Syria
and worked closely with Brett McGurk, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran and later special
presidential envoy for the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" coalition.
Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli
intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now
known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never
charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush
administration.
David
Satterfield, left, arrives in Baghdad with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, and Joey Hood, May 7, 2019. Mandel
Ngan | AP
In 2005, federal prosecutors cited a U.S. government official as
having illegally passed
classified information
to Steve Rosen, then working for AIPAC, who then passed that information to the Israeli
government. That classified information included intelligence on Iran and the nature of U.S.-Israeli intelligence
sharing. Subsequent media reports from the
New York Times
and other outlets revealed that this government
official was none other than David Satterfield, who was then serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near
East Affairs.
Charges against Rosen, as well as his co-conspirator and fellow AIPAC employee Keith Weissman, were dropped in 2009
and no charges were levied against Satterfield after State Department officials shockingly claimed that Satterfield had
"acted within his authority" in leaking classified information to an individual working to advance the interests of a
foreign government. Richard Armitage, a neoconservative ally with
a long history
of ties to CIA covert operations in the Middle East and elsewhere,
has since claimed
that he was one of Satterfield's main defenders in conversations with the FBI during this time
when he was serving as Deputy Secretary of State.
The other government official named in the indictment, former Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, was not so lucky
and was charged under the Espionage Act in 2006. Satterfield, instead of being censured for his role in leaking
sensitive information to a foreign government, was subsequently promoted in 2006 to serve as the Coordinator for Iraq
and Senior Adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
In addition to his history of leaking classified information to AIPAC, Satterfield also has a longstanding
relationship with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a controversial spin-off of AIPAC also known by its
acronym WINEP. WINEP's website has long listed Satterfield as
one of its experts
and Satterfield has spoken at several WINEP events and policy forums, including several
after his involvement
with the AIPAC espionage scandal became public knowledge. However, despite his longstanding
and controversial ties to the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, Satterfield's current relationship with some elements of that
lobby, such as the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is complicated at best.
While Satterfield's role in yet another reversal of a promised withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria has largely
escaped media scrutiny, another individual with deep ties to the Israel lobby and Syrian "rebel" groups has also been
ignored by the media, despite his outsized role in taking advantage of this new U.S. policy for Israel's benefit.
US Israel Lobby secures deal with Kurds
Earlier this year, well before Trump's new Syria policy of "keeping the oil" had officially taken shape, another
individual with deep ties to the U.S. Israel lobby secured a lucrative agreement with U.S.-backed Kurdish groups in
Syria.
An official document
issued earlier this year by the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the political arm of the
Kurdish majority and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a New Jersey-based company,
founded and run
by U.S.-Israeli dual citizen Mordechai "Motti" Kahana, was given control of the oil in territory held by the SDC.
Per the document, the SDC formally accepted the offer from Kahana's company -- Global Development Corporation (GDC) --
to represent SDC in all matters pertaining to the sale of oil extracted in territory it controls and also grants GDC
"the right to explore and develop oil that is located in areas we govern."
The
SDC's formal acceptance of Global Development Corporation's offer to develop Syrian oil fields. Source |
Al-Akhbar
The document also states that the amount of oil then being produced in SDC-controlled areas was 125,000 barrels per
day and that they anticipated that this would increase to 400,000 barrels per day and that this oil is considered a
foreign asset under the control of the United States by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
After the document was made public by the Lebanese outlet
Al-Akhbar
, the SDC claimed that it was a forgery,
even though Kahana had
separately
confirmed
its contents and shared the letter itself to the
Los Angeles Times
as recently as a few weeks
ago. Kahana previously attempted to distance himself from the effort and
told the Israeli newspaper
Israel Hayom
in July that he had made the offer to the SDC as means to prevent
the "Assad regime" of Syria from obtaining revenue from the sale of Syrian oil.
The Kurds currently hold 11 oil wells in an area controlled by the [Syrian] Democratic Forces. The overwhelming
majority of Syrian oil is in that area. I don't want this oil reaching Iran, or the Assad regime."
At the time, Kahana also stated that "the moment the Trump administration gives its approval, we can begin to export
this oil at fair prices."
Given that Kahana has openly confirmed that he is representing the SDC's oil business shortly after Trump's adoption
of the controversial "keep the oil policy," it seems plausible that Kahana has now received the approval needed for his
company to export the oil on behalf of the SDC. Several media reports
have speculated
that, if Kahana's efforts go forward unimpeded, the Syrian oil will be sold to Israel.
However, considering Turkey's aversion to engaging in any activities that may benefit the PKK-SDF – there are
considerable obstacles to Kahana's plans. While the SDF -- along with assistance from U.S. troops -- still controls
several oil fields in Syria, experts assert that they can only realistically sell the oil to the Syrian government. Not
even the Iraqi Kurds are a candidate, considering Baghdad's firm control over the Iraq-Syria border and the KRG's
weakened state after its failed independence bid in late 2017.
Regardless, Kahana's involvement in this affair is significant for a few reasons. First, Kahana has been a key player
in the promotion and funding of radical groups in Syria and has even been
caught hiring
so-called "rebels" to kidnap Syrian Jews and take them to Israel against their will. It was Kahana,
for instance, who financed and orchestrated the now infamous trip of the late Senator John McCain to Syria, where he met
with Syrian "rebels" including Khalid al-Hamad – a "moderate" rebel who gained notoriety after a video of him eating the
heart of a Syrian Army soldier
went viral online
. McCain had also
admitted meeting
with ISIS members, though it is unclear if he did so on this trip or another trip to Syria.
In addition, Kahana was also the mastermind behind the "Caesar" controversy, whereby a Syrian using the pseudonym
"Caesar" was brought to the U.S. by Kahana and went on to make claims regarding torture and other crimes allegedly
committed by the Assad-led government Syria, claims which were
later discredited
by independent analysts. He was also
very involved
in Israel's failed efforts to establish a "safe zone" in Southern Syria as a means of
covertly expanding Israel's territory
from the occupied Golan Heights and into Quneitra.
Notably, Kahana has deep ties -- not just to efforts to overthrow the Syrian government -- but also to U.S. Israel
lobby, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) where Satterfield is as an expert. For instance,
Kahana was a key player in
a 2013 symposium
organized by WINEP along with Syrian opposition groups intimately involved in the arming of so-called "rebels." One of
the other participants in the symposium alongside Kahana was Mouaz Moustafa, director of the "Syrian Emergency Task
Force" who assisted Kahana in bringing McCain to Syria in 2013. Moustafa
was
listed
as a WINEP expert on the organization's website but was later mysteriously deleted.
Kahana is also intimately involved with the Israeli American Council (IAC), a pro-Israel lobby organization, as
a team member
of its national conference. IAC was co-founded and is chaired by
Adam Milstein
, a multimillionaire and convicted felon who is also on the boards of AIPAC, StandWithUs, Birthright
and other prominent pro-Israel lobby organizations. One of IAC's top donors is Sheldon Adelson, who is also the top
donor to President Trump as well as the entire Republican Party.
Though the machinations of both Kahana and Satterfield to guide U.S. policy in order to manipulate the flow of
Syria's hydrocarbons for Israel's benefit may seem shocking to some, this same tactic of pro-Israel lobbyists using the
Kurds to illegally sell a country's oil to Israel was developed a few years prior, not in Syria, but Iraq. Notably, the
individuals responsible for that policy in Iraq shared connections to several of the same pro-Israel lobby organizations
as both Satterfield and Kahana, suggesting that their recent efforts in Syria are not an isolated event, but a pattern.
War against ISIS is a war for oil
In
an email
dated June 15, 2014, James Franklin Jeffrey (former Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey and current U.S. Special
Representative for Syria) revealed to Stephen Hadley, a former George Bush administration advisor then working at the
government-funded United States Institute of Peace, his intent to advise the KRG in order to sustain Kirkuk's oil
production. The plan, as Jeffery described it, was to supply both the Kurdistan province with oil and allow the export
of oil via Kirkuk-Ceyhan to Israel, robbing Iraq of its oil and strengthening the country's Kurdish region along with
its regional government's bid for autonomy.
Jeffrey,
whose hawkish views on Iran and Syria are well-known
, mentioned that Brett McGurk, the U.S.' main negotiator between
Baghdad and the KRG, was acting as his liaison with the KRG. McGurk, who had served in various capacities in Iraq under
both Bush and Obama, was then also serving Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran. A year later, he would
be made the special presidential envoy for the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" coalition and, as previously mentioned, worked
closely with David Satterfield.
James
Jeffrey, left, meets with Kurdish Regional Government President Massoud Barzani, April 8, 2011, at an airport in
Irbil, Iraq. Chip Somodevilla | AP
Jeffrey was then a private citizen not currently employed by the government and was used as a non-governmental
channel in the pursuit of the plans described in the leaked emails published by WikiLeaks. Jeffrey's behind-the-scenes
activities with regards to the KRG's oil exports were done clandestinely, largely because he was then employed by a
prominent arm of the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby.
At the time of the email, Jeffrey was serving
as a
distinguished fellow
(2013-2018) at WINEP. As previously mentioned, WINEP is a pro-Israel foreign policy think-tank
that espouses neoconservative views and was created in 1985 by researchers
that had hastily left AIPAC to escape investigations
against the organization that were related to some of its
members conducting espionage on behalf of Israel. AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is the largest
registered Israel lobbyist organization in the US (albeit registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act would
be more suitable), and, in addition to the 1985 incident that led to WINEP's creation, has had members indicted for
espionage against the U.S. on Israel's behalf.
WINEP's launch was funded by former President of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Barbara Weinberg, who is its
founding president and constant Chairman Emerita. Nicknamed 'Barbi', she is the wife of the late Lawrence Weinberg who
was President of AIPAC from 1976-81 and who JJ Goldberg, author of the 1997 book
Jewish Power,
referred to as
one of a select few individuals
who essentially dominated AIPAC regardless of its elected leadership.
Co-founder alongside Weinberg was Martin
Indyk. Indyk, U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1995-97) and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1997-99),
led the AIPAC research time that formed WINEP to escape the aforementioned investigations.
WINEP
has
historically
received funding from
donors
who donate
to causes of special interest for Zionism and Israel. Among its trustees are extremely prominent names in political
Zionism and funders of other Israel Lobby organizations, such as
Charles and Edgar Bronfman
and
the Chernicks
.
Its
membership
remains dominated by individuals who have spent their careers promoting Israeli interests in the U.S.
WINEP has become more well-known, and arguably more controversial, in recent years after its research director
famously called for false-flag attacks to trigger a U.S. war with Iran in 2012, statements well-aligned with
longstanding attempts by the Israel Lobby
to bring about such a war.
A worthy partner in crime
Stephen Hadley, another private citizen who Jeffrey evidently considered as a partner in his covert dealings
discussed in the emails, also has his own past of involvement with Israel-specific intrigues and meddling.
During the G.W. Bush administration, Hadley tagged along with
neoconservatives
in their numerous creations of fake intelligence and efforts to incriminate Iraq for possessing
chemical and nuclear weapons. Hadley was one of the promoters from within the U.S. government of the false claim that
9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.
What this particular claim had in common with the
'Iraq meets Atta in Prague'
disinformation, and other famous lies against Iraq fabricated and circulated by the
dense neocon network, was its source: Israel and pro-Israel partisans.
The distribution
network
of these now long-debunked claims was none other than the neoconservatives who act a veritable Israeli fifth
column that has long sought to promote Israeli foreign policy objectives as being in the interest of the United States.
In this, Hadley played his part by helping to ensure that the United States was railroaded into a war that had long been
promoted by both Israeli and American neoconservatives, particularly Richard Perle -- an advisor to WINEP -- who had been
promoting regime change in Iraq
for Israel's explicit benefit
for decades.
In short, for covert intrigues to serve Israel that would likely be met with protest if pitched to the government for
implementation as policy, Hadley's resume was impressive.
Israeli interests pursued through covert channels
Given his employment at WINEP during this time, Jeffrey's intent to advise the KRG to sustain Kirkuk's oil production
despite the seizure of the Baiji oil refinery by ISIS is somewhat suspect, especially since it required that 100,000
barrels per day pass through ISIS-controlled territory unimpeded.
Jeffrey's email from June 14, therefore, demonstrated that he had foreknowledge that ISIS would not disturb the KRG
as long as the Kurds redirected oil that was intended originally for Baiji to the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export pipeline,
facilitating its export and later sale to Israel.
Notably, up until its liberation in mid-2015 by the Iraqi government and aligned Shia paramilitaries,
ISIS kept the refinery running
and, only upon their retreat, destroyed the facility.
One would normally expect ISIS to be opposed to such collusion given that the KRG, while a beneficiary of the
ISIS-Baghdad conflict, was not an ally of ISIS. Thus, a foreign power
with strategic ties to ISIS
used its
close ties to the KRG
and assurances that it was on-board for the oil trade, to deliver a credible guarantee that
ISIS would 'cooperate' and that a boom in production and exports was in the cards.
This foreign power -- acting as a guarantor for the ISIS-KRG understanding vis-a-vis the illegal oil economy,
represented by Jeffrey and clearly not on good terms with Iraq's government -- was quite clearly Israel.
Israel
established considerable financial support
as well as the provision of armaments to other extremist terrorist groups
active near the border between the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Southern Syria when war first broke out in Syria
in 2011. At least four of these extremist groups were led by individuals
with direct ties to Israeli intelligence
. These same groups, sometimes promoted as 'moderates' by some media, were
actively fighting Syria's government – an enemy of Israel and ally of Iran – before ISIS existed and
eagerly partnered with ISIS
when it expanded its campaign into Syria.
Israel has also long promoted the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, with Israel having provided Iraq's Kurds with
weapons, training and teams of Mossad advisers
as far back as the 1960s
. More recently,
Israel was the only state
to support the KRG independence referendum in September 2017 despite its futility, hinting
at the regard Israel holds for the KRG. Iraq's government subsequently militarily
defeated the KRG's push for statehood
and reclaimed Kirkuk's oil fields with assistance from the Shia paramilitaries
which were responsible for defeating ISIS in the area.
A
2014 map shows the areas under ISIS and Kurdish control at the time. Source |
Telegraph
This arrangement orchestrated by Jeffrey, served the long-time neoconservative-Israeli agenda of empowering the
Kurds,
selling Iraqi oil
to Israel and weakening Iraq's Baghdad-based government.
WINEP's close association with AIPAC,
which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel
several times in the past with no consequence, combined with
Jeffrey's long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in
Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey's plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted
77
percent of Israel's total oil imports
during the KRG's occupation of Kirkuk.
The WINEP connection to the KRG-Israel oil deal demonstrates the key role played by the U.S. pro-Israel Lobby, not
only in terms of sustaining U.S. financial aid to Israel and ratcheting up tensions with Israel's adversaries but also
in facilitating the more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that favor
Israel.
Yet the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale
agreements for Israel's benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of
behavior.
caucus99percent
free-range politics, organic community
Trump is stealing Syria's oil for the Saudis
gjohnsit
on Fri, 12/20/2019 - 4:28pm
President Trump recently said the quiet part
out loud
.
"We may have to fight for the oil. It's O.K.," he said. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in
which case they have a hell of a fight. But there's massive amounts of oil." The United States,
he added, should be able to take some of Syria's oil. "What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a
deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly," he
said. The goal would be to "spread out the wealth."
At the very least this amounts to pillaging, but then respect for the law isn't on Trump agenda.
Trump is "protecting" Syria's oil in the
exact
same way that the mob "protects" a
small businessman from arson.
Not
kind of
the same way. EXACTLY the same way.
Trump comment US intends to keep the oil in
Syria. Guard with US armored forces. Bring in US oil companies to modernize the field. WHAT ARE
WE BECOMING.... PIRATES? If ISIS is defeated we lack Congressional authority to stay. The oil
belongs to Syria.
https://t.co/Leko5s1hXF
So what "great companies" would be willing "to go in there" and "spread out the wealth?"
That company turned out to be
ARAMCO
.
Sources have disclosed that the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, commonly referred to as Aramco, has
sent a delegation of experts to discuss
investment opportunities in the oil fields and
wells in the Eastern Syrian city of Deir Ez-Zor.
According to the oppositionist news site Deir Ezzor 24, Aramco "started implementing
practical steps in this field, where a group of the company arrived in an official mission to
al-Omar oil field in the eastern Deir Ezzor countryside."
There is no legal means to do this. This is the outright theft of resources.
And it keeps getting worse.
It is believed that the
investments will be made through contracts signed between Aramco
and the US government
, whose armed forces have steadily been increasing their military
presence in terms of manpower and equipment around the oil fields.
That is trafficking in the sale of stolen property, but it gets even worse than that.
The Kurdish Syrian Defence Forces (formerly known as the YPG) currently control most of the
country's oil fields and have shifted towards an alliance with the Syrian government after
losing American protection in the north-east of the country in the wake of Trump's "withdrawal"
and ensuing Turkish offensive dubbed "Operation Peace Spring" to clear the area of Kurdish
militias
So we can't even pretend to be doing this for the benefit of the local population, our regional
allies, or any other justification except naked theft.
Trump should be in jail for this.
"I think in this case we are not talking about an operation associated with a huge share of
risk, but, on the contrary, about a well-thought-out operation."
- Professor RSUH Grigory Kosach
The Pentagon is enthusiastically cooperating in this blatant violation of international law.
US troops have
returned
to six out of 16 bases in Syria that had been previously abandoned during the October
withdrawal.
What's more, our military is
settling in
for the long haul.
Barely two months after US President Donald Trump's demagogic announcement that he was pulling
US troops out of northeastern Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring a halt to
Washington's "endless wars," the senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon chiefs told a House
panel Wednesday that
there is no foreseeable end to the American presence there.
...
Esper went even further, insisting that US military forces had to remain in Syria not so much to
counter any existing military force, but rather an "ideology".
"I think the defeat, if you will, will be hard because it's an ideology," Esper told the
House panel after repeated questions regarding US strategy in Syria.
"It's hard to
foresee anytime soon we would stamp it out,"
he added.
Everyone that somehow finds a way to defend Trump based on his so-called aversion to foreign
wars needs to take a good, hard look at this. Because THIS is 100% Trump's doing.
US-led forces have blown up three oil tankers in Syria as the United States increases
its pressure on Syria by thwarting the oil trade between the PKK/YPG and the Assad
regime, according to local sources quoted by several media sources.
The YPG are our Kurdish allies that the warmongers were so concerned about just a few
months ago. We "care" about them, right up until they want to sell oil to the Assad
regime. Then they deserve death.
That's OUR oil.
I think the powerful foreign policy cabal in Washington have him by the balls and give
them a squeeze when he gets off point.
One day he is pulling out. The next day he says
he staying in to "protect" the oil fields. The third day he sends US forces back in so he
can sell the oil so that the Syrians don't "steal" it.
What's going to happen on the fourth day when a half dozen American soldiers get
eviscerated by a roadside bomb while on patrol?
but just like congress won't make him withdraw troops from Yemen and stop supporting the
Saudis, they are in complete agreement with him doing that.
Israel bought Syria's oil from ISIS all during Obama's tenure as he watched them take
it out through Turkey.
But it's Russian aggression that is causing all the problems in the Middle East right?
And Iran's too. Why we can't make deals for resources instead of spending gawd only knows
how much money. But then the defense companies wouldn't get all of our money now would
they? We pay for the defense companies CEOs large bonuses and salaries. Great gig!
Regarding your last sentence: this is the great truth that Washington's world hegemonists would have you forget. Taking into
account the untapped vast resources of Canada and Alaska and its expansive offshore economic zones extending deep into the Atlantic,
the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean, the North American anglosphere could be entirely self-sufficient and do
quite nicely on its own for hundreds of years to come, it just wouldn't be the sole tyrannical state presumably ruling the entire
planet.
Why, it might even entertain the idea of actually cooperating with other regional powers like Russia, China, the EU, India,
Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, greater central Asia, Latin America and even Africa to everyone's benefit, rather than bullying
them all because god ordained us to be the boss of all humans.
America's major malfunction is its lack of historical roots compared to the other societies mentioned. All those places had
thousands of years to refine their sundry cultures and international relationships, certainly through trial and error and many
horrible setbacks, most notably wars, famines, pestilence, genocide and human bondage which people did not have the foresight
to nip in the bud. They learned by their mistakes and some, like the great world wars, were doozies.
The United States, and some of its closest homologues like Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina, were thrown together very
rapidly as part of developing colonial empires. It was created through the brute actions of a handful of megalomaniacal oligarchs
of their day. What worked to suppress vast tracts of aboriginal homelands, often through genocide and virtual extinction of the
native populations, was so effective that it was institutionalized in the form of slavery and reckless exploitation of the local
environment. These "great leaders," "pioneers" and "founding fathers" were not about to give up a set of principles -- no matter
how sick and immoral -- which they knew to "work" and accrued to them great power and riches. They preferred to label it "American
exceptionalism" and force it upon the whole rest of the world, including long established regional powers -- cultures going back
to antiquity -- and not just conveniently sketched "burdens of the white man."
No, ancient cultures like China, India, Persia and so forth could obviously be improved for all concerned merely by allowing
a handful of Western Europeans to own all their property and run all their affairs. That grand plan fell apart for most of the
European powers in the aftermath of World War Two, but Washington has held tough and never given up its designs of micromanaging
and exploiting the whole planet. It too is soon to learn its lesson and lose its empire. Either that or it will take the world
down in flames as it tries to cling to all that it never really owned or deserved. The most tragic (or maybe just amusing) part
is that Washington still had most of the world believing its bullshit about exceptionalism and indispensability until it decided
it had to emulate every tyrannical empire that ever collapsed before it.
Realist , April 30, 2019 at 02:08
"ex·tor·tion /ik?stôrSH(?)n/ noun The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
"Racketeering refers to crimes committed through extortion or coercion. A racketeer attempts to obtain money or property from
another person, usually through intimidation or force. The term is typically associated with organized crime."
I see. So, American foreign policy, as applied to both its alleged enemies and presumed allies, essentially amounts to an exercise
in organised crime. So much for due process, free trade, peaceful co-existence, magical rainbows and other such hypocritical platitudes
dispensed for domestic consumption in place of the heavy-handed threats routinely delivered to Washington's targets.
That's quite in keeping with the employment of war crimes as standard "tactics, techniques and procedures" on the battlefield
which was recently admitted to us by Senator Jim Molan on the "60 Minutes" news show facsimile and discussed in one of yesterday's
forums on this blog.
Afghanistan was promised a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs as incentive to bend to our will (and that of Unocal which,
unlike Nordstream, was a pipeline Washington wanted built). Iraq was promised and delivered "shock and awe" after a secretary
of state had declared the mass starvation of that country's children as well worth the effort. They still can't find all the pieces
left of the Libyan state. Syria was told it would be stiffed on any American contribution to its rebuilding for the effrontery
of actually beating back the American-recruited, trained and financed ISIS terrorist brigades. Now it's being deliberately starved
of both its energy and food requirements by American embargoes on its own resources! North Korea was promised utter annihilation
by Yankee nukes before Kim's summit with our great leader unless it submitted totally to his will, or more likely that of Pompous
Pompeo, the man who pulls his strings. Venezuela is treated to cyber-hacked power outages and shortages of food, medicines, its
own gold bullion, income from its own international petroleum sales and, probably because someone in Washington thinks it's funny,
even toilet paper. All they have to do to get relief is kick out the president they elected and replace him with Washington's
chosen puppet! Yep, freedom and democracy blah, blah, blah. And don't even ask what the kids in Yemen got for Christmas from Uncle
Sam this year. (He probably stole their socks.) A real American patriot will laughingly take Iran to task for ever believing in
the first place that Washington could be negotiated with in good faith. All they had to do was ask the Native Americans (or the
Russians) how the Yanks keep their word and honor their treaties. It was their own fault they were taken for suckers.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Moscow planned to keep gas transit
via Ukraine irrespective of a number of gas pipelines Moscow currently builds to bypass its
ex-Soviet neighbor.
...
"This is a very difficult, sensitive topic. We would like to solve this problem," Putin said
at his annual press conference in Moscow.
"We will look for a solution that is acceptable for all parties, including Ukraine. That's
despite the construction of infrastructure such as Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2, TurkStream.
We will preserve gas transit through Ukraine."
...
Putin said on Thursday that Russia would be ready to give Ukraine a discount of 20-25% for
gas purchases. "I am confident we will reach an agreement ... We have no desire to exacerbate
the situation ... or use this to influence the situation in Ukraine itself."
...
This gives Ukraine three options:
keep buying Russian gas from Europe
swallow their pride and buy discounted gas direct from Russia
Yes it was corrupt before the violent coup, but at least people could live nicely and be
warm during winter. People have frozen during the winters since and many of them had to go
back to work because of the damn IMF loans that hurt big time.
Congress said that they had to put sanctions on Nordstream because of Russia aggression.
One article listed all of the aggressions they have done.
Invaded Iraq.
Supported the Honduran coup.
Invaded Libya
Invaded Syria....well you get the drift. Sorta like how Iran has destabilized the Middle East
as pompous Pompeo is saying. It's the effing hypocrisy!
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
The anti-Russian insanity that dominates the politics of America is dangerous, stupid and
detached from facts. Two news items from Wednesday (December 18th) should scare the hell out of
you.
The first concerns Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which is nearing completion
and will deliver gas to Europe.
According to Reuters :
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to slap sanctions on companies building a
massive underwater pipeline to bring Russian natural gas to Germany, but it was uncertain
whether the measures would slow completion of the project.
Senator Jim Risch, a Republican and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said the sanctions will prevent the project's completion and are an "important tool to counter
Russia's malign influence and to protect the integrity of Europe's energy sector."
Nord Stream 2, led by state-owned Gazprom, would allow Russia to bypass Poland and Ukraine
to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany. U.S. lawmakers say Ukraine could lose billions
of dollars in transit fees if it is built.
This is not the fault of the Democrats. This is being driven by Republicans, with Senator
Ted Cruz
leading the charge .
The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash to
fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline "would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy," Cruz
told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday. "And that makes Europe susceptible to economic
blackmail, because Putin has already demonstrated he's perfectly willing to cut off the gas in
the dead of winter to try to force people to do what he wants."
Russia's "military aggression?" Did Russia invade Iraq twice in the last 29 years? Did
Russia launch a war in Libya? Did Russia arm and train insurgents in Syria? I think Ted Cruz
has not been paying attention to world events over the last thirty years. The number one
country engaged in foreign military aggression is the United States. Hands down.
Here are the actual military facts about Russia:
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Russia's annual manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared
to $2.2 trillion for the US economy.
Russia's working age population of about 85 million is already just a fraction of the US
working age population of 255 million.
Russia's $61 billion of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32
days of Washington's current $750 billion of expenditures for defense.
During the Cold War Russia armed itself to the teeth via a forced-draft and allocated
upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military. Today the Russian defense
budget amounts to less than 4% of the country's anemic economy.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier. A carrier based
strike group is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of
destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft.
The United States dwarfs Russia's ability to project force via air power-- the US has
6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and attack aircraft versus
Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift aircraft compared to
just 1,100 for Russia.
The only military category where Russia enjoys a decisive edge is tanks -- 22,710 versus
8750 for the United States. This is a legacy of WW II, where Russian tanks played the
critical role in pushing the Nazis back to Germany.
As recently as 2017, the Russian fleet operated 61 submarines. "Historically the backbone
of the Russian navy, 75 percent of the 61 operational submarines are over 20 years old and
are slowly being replaced." The United States has 75 and is building two new ones each year
at a cost of $5 billion.
So why is this pipeline now a redline in the sand that Russia dare not cross? Apparently
because it will give Russia a way to make more money to finance its massive military buildup
(hopefully you understand sarcasm) and, more importantly, will cost Ukraine lost income. Can't
afford to have Ukrainian oligarchs running out of money that they are sending to Democrat and
Republican consulting firms and candidates.
While it is unlikely that the sanctions will prevent the pipeline from being completed,
largely because they come too little, too late, this is not going to
hinder efforts to punish Russia :
A new Bloomberg headline reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian
Threat" just following new sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late, despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of dollars to Russia:
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part of
a defense bill are too late to have any effect. The U.S. instead will try to impose costs on
other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
Seriously, that United States has no right to threaten Russia in this way. It is reminiscent
of the sanctions that the United States imposed on Japan prior to World War II that blocked
Japan's access to critical oil and rubber supplies. That was a precipitating factor in Japan's
decision to attack us on December 7, 1941.
NATO exercises near the border with Russia reflect the alliance's preparations for a
large-scale military conflict, Russia's chief military officer said in remarks published
Wednesday.
The chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, said at
Tuesday's meeting with foreign military attaches that NATO's activities have heightened
tensions and reduced security along the Russian border.
Asked if the Russian military sees a potential threat of war, Gerasimov said that Moscow
doesn't see "any preconditions for a large-scale war."
He added, however, that Western pressure on Russia could trigger "crisis situations" that
may spin out of control and provoke a military conflict.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the United States is tying the hands of Donald Trump to act
responsibly to protect America. If he vetoes the bill put forward by the Congress he will be
accused, as he has been for more than two years, of catering to Putin.
The fanatics and frauds waving the Russian threat ignore the fact that the United States and
Russia work closely and productively on the Space Station. Our astronauts and their cosmonauts
co-exist peacefully in space and we rely on the Russians to haul our folks to and from the
Space Station. In Syria, the Combined Air Operations Center (i.e., CAOC) communicates daily
with Russian counterparts to ensure that their respective air assets do not fire on each other
or inadvertently wander into a combat space. This has been going on for more than three
years.
Russia still has nuclear weapons. It is their ultimate deterrent against another invasion.
The memory of losing more than 12 million soldiers in World War II remains vivid and painful.
The U.S. public can barely remember that we lost less than 500,000 soldiers, marines and
sailors in World War II. Our inability to remember coupled with unjustified belligerence is
pushing us towards a war with Russia that would be beyond catastrophic.
''The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash
to fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas''
I don't know how many times I have ..Who do these politicians think they are !!??
They were not elected to 'run the world'. WE must get rid of them.
The Col told me awhile ago that the CIA doesn't do 'accidental deaths' ....too bad.
At least, these sanctions are not only directed against Russia, but also against Western
Europe.
First,the sanctions directly affect not only Gasprom, but also Western European companies
that are involved in building the pipelines (since only a small part of the work remains to
be done, Nordstream 2 can probably be finished without some of them, but if everything
continues as before, some Western European companies involved in building the pipelines would
clearly be affected by US sanctions, among them a specialized Swiss company).
Second, the purpose of the pipelines clearly is not only to help Russia selling gas, but also
to help Germany buying Russian gas.
The sanctions are not anti-Russian sanctions, but sanctions against Europe, including Russia,
Germany, and other European countries.
Especially in Germany, there is absolutely no tolerance for such sanctions with which the US
wants to force Europeans to buy uncompetitive expensive US fracking gas. There are talks
about European countersanctions against the US. The US may hope to exploit disagreements
among EU countries. After all some EU countries like Poland are against Nordstream. But the
US should not rely on this - such blatant interference in European matters is clearly not
tolerated by the EU. An appropriate countermeasure might be punitive Tarifs on US fracking
gas exports - there is not much demand for it, anyway, but it would make sense to prevent any
significant amounts of US fracking gas from being bought in Europe as long as the US wants to
force Europeans to buy it.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show once more that the US has become a pariah
nation that has isolated itself and has no real allies any more (except perhaps Saudi Arabia
and Israel).
I would not call these sanctions only anti-Russian sanctions. They are just as well directed
against Western Europe.
First, it is not only Gasprom which is involved in building the pipeline (although it is
the owner), but also European companies (among them a Swiss one). Since Nordstream II is
almost finished, the services of some of these companies may not be necessary any more, but
if they continued normally, also some Western European companies would be sanctioned.
Second, obviously, the purpose of the pipelines is not only to help Russia selling gas,
but also to help Germany (and other Western European countries that will receive it via
Germany) buying Russian gas.
In Germany, there is very little tolerance for such sanctions, and people talk about
counter-sanctions against the US. An appropriate measure could be punitive tariffs on US
fracking gas. There is little demand for US fracking gas in Europe, anyway, since it is more
expensive, but it may make sense to make sure than no significant amounts of US gas are sold
in Europe as long as the US wants to force Europeans to buy it.
The US may hope to exploit disagreements about Nordstream within the EU. After all, some
countries like Poland are against it. But the US should not rely on this tactic working. Such
blatant interference in European energy supplies with sanction will hardly be tolerated by
the EU.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show one more how much the US has become a
pariah country that has isolated itself and hardly has allies any more (except perhaps Saudi
Arabia and Israel).
I agree that one of the motives for these anti-European sanctions is anti-Russian insanity
in the US. But another important motive is disrespect of the US for Western Europe, which it
seems to regard as a kind of colonies or vassal states it can tell what to do.
In Europe, there is still a certain gap - while polls show that the US is very unpopular,
among European elites, pro-US forces still have a certain influence. But probably, it won't
take very long until European countries will adapt their policies towards the US in the
direction a majority of their citizens wants. Another such example of US folly is the idea
that Germany should pay more for the presence of US troops. According to polls, about half of
the German population wanted US troops to leave, anyway, even before the question of
increased payments was raised, and if the US is serious about this demand, the consequence
that it will lose its military bases is obvious.
I credit you with possessing the good sense, seemingly rare, to not wish to enter into a
direct military conflict with Russia, particularly out of some hyper inflated sense of
threat, owing (no less) to their aggression. Kudos to you for acknowledging which country is
the number one threat of military aggression in the world.
The sarcasm of referring to a mounting Russian threat is merited insofar as their military
budget is actually falling as a proportion of output.
I would suggest, however, when assessing the strength of the enemy you rightly argue that
it is stupid to provoke, that you do not limit yourself to the prevailing think-tank
approaches to assessing that threat. It's pretty obvious to most people that comparing an
Su-35 to an F-35 in dollar terms makes the F-35 3 or 4 times the military threat of the
Sukhoi. Ditto with an Su-57 to F-22 comparison.
But it would be better to listen to actual military experts with technical training in the
STEM disciplines needed to provide the analysis. I would suggest you look at the work of A.
Martyanov's work, a retired Russian naval officer writing occasionally US Naval institute
Blog. Or visit his blog, Reminiscence of the Future, through which you could get more
background on his books, including the latest, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs.
His concern is that (while some of us use these CIA factbook-type analysis to cool off the
hysterical claims of threat) Russia hawk politicians and think-tank military pseudo-experts
are using these to seriously downplay Russia's capacity to counter American aggression. Would
welcome your thoughts on his work.
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Larry, it is patently and, actually, grossly untrue on both counts. Nor comparison of
military budgets is legitimate tool. In fact, all this is in the foundation of the United
States failing, time after time, having a good grasp of the military balance.
Last winter LNG from the Russian Yamal gas field was delivered to the United States. Perhaps
Washington should deal with its own dependence on Russian energy before it starts pressuring
Europe.
The goal is to overturn the government of Russia, just like the goal has been to overturn the
government of Bolivia (Mission Accomplished), Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea,
Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria... This is imperialism. It's history is long and has been
successfully practiced by far by the British and Americans. And it's goal is the theft of the
resources, human and natural, of the countries targeted. It is old news. Nothing has changed
for two hundred years. My God, the original Crimean War was fought for exactly the same
reasons as the current Crimean War although the actual fighting is of a different scale and
different style. Permit me to include in the litany above Native Americans who were
slaughtered for their territory. It is astonishing that President Trump seems to be less than
enthusiastic about this program, but it certainly recommends him highly if he is. And today,
we may ask who is behind this program. It is certainly not the American people.
A new Bloomberg headline
reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian Threat" just following new
sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late , despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of
dollars to Russia :
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part
of a defense bill are too late to have any effect . The U.S. instead will try to impose costs
on other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
The admission is a rare concession on what had been a top foreign-policy priority for the
Trump administration and highlights how European allies such as Germany have been impervious
to American pressure to abandon the pipeline. It also shows how the U.S. has struggled to
deter Russia from flexing its muscles on issues ranging from energy to Ukraine to election
interference.
The resolution contained in the defense spending bill, expected to be immediately signed
into law by Trump, are measures which specifically target companies assembling the pipeline --
a last ditch US effort to block the controversial 760-mile, $10.2BN project that would allow
Russia to export natural gas directly to Germany, depriving Ukraine of badly needed gas transit
fees along the current route for Russian supplies.
Washington's position has long been that it weakens European energy security, while Merkel's
Germany has rejected Trump's
"meddling" in European energy affairs, which the Europeans have lately sought to
diversify.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a February visit to Poland said Nord Stream 2
ultimately "funnels money to Russians in ways that undermine European national
security."
It's expected to double Russian gas shipments to the EU's biggest economy Germany, while
others fear --
including dissenters within Merkel's own ruling coalition -- it will give Moscow
significant geopolitical leverage over Europe while also punishing Ukraine.
The new US sanctions measures will target executives of companies operating vessels laying
the pipeline , and will further seek to hinder those companies' ability to operate on the
project. It's been spearheaded by Russian giant Gazprom and five European energy companies,
including French electricity and gas firm Engie SA and Royal Dutch, and the Swiss company
Allseas Group SA, among others, and is nearing completion, expected soon this coming year.
Bloomberg
reports further, "Trump has indicated that he'll sign the legislation passed Tuesday. The
penalties on companies building the project, led by Russian energy company Gazprom PJSC, would
be effective immediately, according to a Senate Republican aide."
In total, continues Bloomberg, "Some 350 companies are involved in building the undersea
link, most notably the Swiss company Allseas Group SA, whose ships are laying the last section
of pipe in Danish waters."
Regardless, Gazprom head Alexei Miller has for months said it's "past the point of no
return" and that nothing would derail it. "We are working from the idea that Nord Stream 2 will
be realized strictly in accordance with the planned timetable," he
previously told shareholders.
THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION needs to keep its nose out of European energy policy! In
fact, it needs to keep its nose out of everybody else's business.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Of course. I have said this repeatedly. I say this with confidence because I have read a
book that is solely about Gazprom and all aspects of gas production, distribution, payment
etc. etc. within and outside Russia. Which of course includes the major special problem of
Ukraine. You cannot understand any Ukraine politics and scams (and Uk-RF politics and
conflicts) without understanding the role of gas, and of Ukraine as a bottleneck for a LOT of
the gas flowing between Russia and the EU. The Ukrainians have always been fiddling the
Russians and their gas. And then the EU got into the picture and caused more trouble for
Russia. Anyhow, it is fitting that the scam described in the video runs on GAS.
It is believed that the investments will be made through contracts signed between Aramco
and the US government, whose armed forces have steadily been increasing
their military presence in terms of manpower and equipment around the oil fields. Despite
initially claiming to
scale back troops from Syria, US President Donald Trump announced in October that
America had " secured " and
taken control of the oil in the Middle East.
The sad reality is that the Washington Post, New York Times and most of the mainstream TV
and radio media are worse liars and better propagandists for the US Military-Industrial
Complex than Pravda was for the Soviet Communist Party. There is no and never was an fair and
balanced journalism. There's even no professional journalism!
My Russian opponents and Latin friends now laugh that I don't believe anything coming from
US media today and I'm hoarding hard and untraceable assets just like they do in the Eastern
Bloc, Middle East and Cuba. The 21st Century might yet be the century of dictators and their
storm troopers who learned their lessons from Hitler and Stalin.
If populism and Trump don't survive the coup it'll be pretty grim times for the non-elites
in America. The revenge from the weirdos and the leftist globalist Marxists will definitely
start US Civil War 2.
Yes and thank you for stating fundamental and obvious truths ..
on the other hand ,
"The Washington Post performed a service to the country by shedding light on the
disinformation used to sustain endless war. But the Post's intentions are also political,
seeking to undermine Trump's electoral chances by damaging Trump's military credentials as
well as his standing amongst military personnel. What Washington's elite and the Post do not
know, or perhaps prefer to ignore, is that such media investigations directed against
political opponents actually end up doing irreparable damage to the political and military
prestige of the United States."
The Washington Compost May well have an ax to grind with and motive for publishing
newfound truthiness, it's a miracle ! I fail to see however, just how Trump takes credit in
the bull **** fog, of the longest running war, motivations department.
other than that ...
And so in closing, I would be more inclined to believe sir, propagandizing, the
propaganda, with such an opinion, is just another kin to, let's say, the impeachment farce in
example. Or in the words of "The father of modern day marketing", an obvious attempt at
further shaping public opinion, for the masses, an opinion that grows more weary, more
suspicious, more distrustful, and divergent from government and their various mouth pieces,
by the day.
Stating obvious points such as you have, and blowing it with flawed analysis, is not a
good look ..
Washington Compost, has a much more simple, damaging ,and nefarious agenda.
Truth is being revealed, regarding the mountain of year on year lies, spoon fed to the
bewildered, inflamed, dispassionate, and cowed citizenry, as the bull **** gets harder to
peddle, more impossible to digest whole.
And is happening with or without the post, and likewise, various other "main stream" mouth
pieces and government hacks (in the interests of national security, of course.)
This doesn't seem very complicated to me.
Turkey is emboldened by Turkstream (and by the Ukraine/Georgia stalemate) - Erdogan clearly
believes he can monopolize gas transit between Central Asia/Middle East/Eastern Mediterranean
and Europe. This would be a huge geopolitical and economic benefit for Turkey - far above and
beyond any religion based "leadership" Turkey could benefit from the Muslim world.
Russia doesn't really care as it already has a pole position regarding natural gas to Europe
- Erdogan's actions will only serve to slow down any buildout of competing supply from
Central Asia/Middle East. Erdogan is likely being financially backed by Qatar as well - they
also stand to benefit if Turkey can carve out a pipeline domination in the Eastern Med.
"Follow the money..." If I recall correctly, Haftar got a nice pile of money from Russia in
the form of Libyan banknotes that he ordered, and the status of those banknotes was unclear,
but in LNA zone they are as good as the central bank notes. Legally, payments for Libyan oil
have to go to that bank, and the operations, location and loyalty of that bank deserve an
investigative article.
Erdogan has too little money to succeed, IMHO. If he were flushed, he would place nice
weapon orders in UK, France, Germany and USA, as KSA + UAE did, and as we know from Yemen,
that secures NATO blessings, either verbal or quiet. His military is probably in a better
shape than Egyptian, if vulnerable to attacks by mysterious submarines. The coastal highway
from Egypt is surely good enough for military vehicles, but it is vulnerable to attacks from
air.
Putin's priority number 2 in the region is South Stream, so he will probably not supply
mysterious submarines, Greece could being irate over maritime claims, and Egypt would have
the most obvious motif. My conclusion is that the sultan's dog's barks a lot, and sometimes
bites, but with some caution. Libyan expedition has the smell of Sicilian Expedition, a
notable event during the Peloponessian war.
Egypt will not tolerate a Muslim Brotherhood led Libya as its neighbor. Before the Turkish
support allows the GNA government to defeat Haftar Egypt will intervene. The situation can
thereby soon develop into an intense war during which Turkish troops fight on Libyan grounds
against the Egyptian military.
<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule.
i agree with Psychohistorian's Mezran quote.. a Russian Turkey agreement will foreclose
USA and British access to oil from Libya, Egypt and Turkey( new OPEC will form).
Now the GNA is a UN construct so Turkey supporting it should not be a big deal politically
for the west. As for the CIA fellow, if he is working as closely as he appears to be with
Russia, I think Turkey stepping in is just as suggested:
"...from the karlof1 link:
""Mezran suggested. "If the Turks become the major supporter of the GNA, not the Europeans or
the Americans, and the Russians are the ones who are the major supporter of Haftar, then all
it would take is an agreement between Moscow and Ankara to solve the Libyan problem, causing
much damage to American and European power.""Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 17 2019 20:25
utc | 11.
I particularly like the strategy cutting out the Central Bank by the General and Russia,
looks to me like there is a master plan being rolled out and it is moving quickly. Perhaps
Peace is breaking out:)
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
@ Posted by: ben | Dec 17 2019 22:58 utc | 20 who wrote
"
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
"
Thanks for that perspective. That is THE reason that I continue to call out Hillary "We
came, we saw, he died" Clinton as the war criminal I hope she is prosecuted for in her
lifetime.
Does anyone have an idea of both the size and combat readiness of Egyptian forces?
Would Sisi be in a position to send in a force of, say, 50,000 or 100,000 troops with
armour and air cover? If so, he could end both the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Quaeda problem in
Libya as well as nip one of Erdogan's meddlesome adventures in the bud.
I want what Libyans want, but it seems nobody can be arsed to find that out. I strongly
suspect Libyans' preference would be for neither of these two foreign funded options since
both of these grubby groups are committed to maintaining the repeal of the petroleum act
which has protected Libyans from rapacious foreign corporations and foreign-state owned
enterprises who put sweet FA into any of their hosts' economies while meddling unceasingly in
host politics to ensure everyone but them gets screwed.
IMO the amerikan interest is less about oil & other Libyan resources than ensuring
that Libya can never again support North African nations who the empire is determined to
annex and form into a vast super-national state where governments have no control, but
corporations do.
AFAIK, both cliques in Libya are proponents of Arab nationalism which intend to pretend
the black african and berber populations are all foreigners despite both groups having a
longer history of living in the region than arabs do.
Arabs entered this region, the Magreb, about 647 AD fighting to take control off the
indigenous population of the Magreb which up until then comprised myriad african ethnicities
& language groups until around 709 when Arabs united under the banner of Islam had
complete control.
There really hasn't been a demographic based census in Libya, most likely because the role
of black africans or as the imperialists like to refer to them 'sub-saharan' (which of course
implies they are outsiders) has always been contentious among some Libyans who consider
themselves to be 'Arabs' or as they like to claim, the ruling class.
Generally the bulk of lighter skinned Libyans class themselves as Berber-Arabs, while other
Libyans (eg Muamar Ghaddaffi -may he rest in peace) consider themselves to be Berber.
The iFUKUS intervention promoted a mob claiming to be solely Arab and therefore the
legitimate rulers of the nation. They also reckoned all black africans in Libya were
foreigners. A genocidal campaign of terror and good old amerikan style lynching of black
folks followed. We rightly see the sociopath in H Clinton at this time, but what about
Oblamblam, WTF was he thinking?
Eventually some bright spark saw that killing was wasteful, so those black Libyans
remaining were rounded up and sold into slavery - to 'owners' primarily in Saudi Arabia and
the UAE.
Who knows if Libya can ever find another leader as enlightened as the Colonel? All we do
know is that there is no chance of such a leader emanating from either Haftar's gang or the
'UN-recognised' gang.
Libyans don't deserve either of these agglomerations of arseholes which is why they are
copping them. A big message from the big states that any nation which indulges in such caring
and sharing of neighbours & friends as Libya did, must be severely punished so no other
decent society will dare try that on.
"<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule."
I think Snake is on to something here. The power balance in Egypt is fairly evenly divided
with only a slight advantage to Sisi over Muslim Brotherhood forces.
What Turkey is seeking is fair treatment and recognition of rights it feels that it has in
the Mediterranean Sea. What a group of nations (Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US –
hereafter referred to as The Group) is attempting to do is deny Turkey any rights at all.
Those that disagree with Turkish claims have the following position:
1. Greek "owned" islands, which in some cases (e.g. Kastellorizo) go really close to the
Turkish coast, exclude Turkey from any significant rights to the Mediterranean.
2. Turkey has no claim to the area around Cyprus.
3. Cyprus is partnered with Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US for energy exploration in the
Mediterranean Sea and Turkey is not included.
4. In January 2019, the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum was convened as a means for
Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Jordan, Israel, Italy and the Palestinian Authority to develop a
regional natural gas market. Turkey was excluded from this forum and was very upset. (A month
later ExxonMobil announced a new gas discovery in Cypriot waters.)
In other words it is a melange of denying rights, legal assertions and exclusion
tactics.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
It is a very big mistake to believe that Turkey is in the wrong and also that it will back
down on this.
In addition to Turkey, the countries that are excluded appear to be Syria, Lebanon, and
Libya. It is right that The Group is seeking to exclude all these other countries?
It doesn't matter whether the oil and gas are viable (it may or may not be) what is
happening is that Turkey is not being allowed any recognition and they are choosing to assert
(take) their rights (because there is no other option available to them). If Turkey did not
do so then they would lose any future rights to the Mediterranean at all.
Syrian, Lebanon and Libya are obviously too weak to assert their rights. Although the
Palestinian Authority participated in Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum I don't really expect
Palestine to benefit much and it should be noted the Palestinian Authority is are far too
weak to do anything – I'm afraid they are just being used.
Greece and Cyprus are being used as pawns by the US (why else would US Ambassador Pyatt be
based in Greece? This kind of disruption is his speciality) and Greece is being set to
confront Turkey.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
The reason why Turkey does not want the Libyan GNA to fall is because they fear that
Haftar will fall into line with The Group and further strengthen Turkey's exclusion from the
Mediterranean energy exploration. So it is in Turkey's great national interest to secure
Libya as an ally. Also, the GNA are still recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by
the UN so in legal terms Turkey is not doing anything wrong in recognising and supporting the
Libyan GNA.
As regards the Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone - What is happening is that Turkey and Libya
are showing The Group that it to can carve out areas and claim to areas of the Mediterranean
Seas just as much as they can.
It was widely believed that the 2015-17 Cyprus reunification talks where positive and the
closet ever to reaching a settlement. Who should be blamed for the collapse? Many believe
that is was the Greek Cypriot side that was a fault. The big sticking point was that the
Turkish Cypriot side wanted some 40,000 Turkish troops to remain based in the North of the
Island because of fears over security. At the time the Greek Cypriot side said it was
impossible to accept the continued presence of Turkish troops. This was a big mistake, Cyprus
would have been federally united and in 10 years time the Turkish troops could well have been
greatly reduced. When the talks collapsed the talk was of inevitable partition.
And what do we see in 2019? Anastasiades, the Greek Cypriot President, wants to reopen
talks "exactly where they left off" - A belated recognition that it was the Greek Cypriots
that threw away what would have been a fantastic settlement and a fairly blatant attempt to
peel away Turkish Cypriots from Turkey (Anastasiades call for a resumption of talks seems to
have come with some unnecessary hostile remarks directed at Turkey), and hasty desire (now
that there has been a gas discovery off the coast of Cyprus) to rescue the agreement because
The Group now they can use this agreement to further marginalise Turkey.
I like Frances's take on this...ie smells like a master plan between Russia and Turkey...
Why not...?...the Sultan and VVP deciding to carve up some territory, as in the old
colonial days...?
Russia and Turkey are getting closer all the time...Helmer's take about the 'Stavka' not
being fully on board with this notwithstanding...
The very useful clue is from that Atlantic Council article...the rule to apply here is to
just be for everything they are against...and be against whatever they are for...
In this case they are agitating for the West to step up to the plate and arm the
GNA...even a fly zone for farg's sakes...
Yeah...everything but let Turkey and Russia divide the spoils among themselves
right...?...throw a wrench into the spokes at any cost...?
But the thing is that Trump is not interested in any new wars or proxy wars...and I think
a Libya 2.0 is going to be an extremely hard sell anywhere, with the disaster of Killary's
2011 adventure still fresh in everyone's minds...
So nobody is stepping in...there is a vacuum there and I think that there may be some
grand bargain cooking behind the scenes with VVP and the Sultan...who knows how far
this thing could go...?
It's already causing HUGE headaches in Sodom on the Potomac...as is clear from the shrieks
of agony from the likes of the Atlantic Council and many others...
Turkey may not be the best militarily; they are slow and ponderous but they are strong
enough to move forward, occupy and hold space and take a significant amount of attrition
while doing so. Turkey is strong enough to be able to assert "facts on the ground" even if
they have to absorb several hard blows - they have been learning a lot from Russia on
this.
With regards to Libya, Turkey cannot be prevented from moving forward, occupying space,
supplying the Libyan GNA, providing military equipment and troops, etc. UNLESS their lines of
supply are cut and this means that The Group would have to attack first and sink a Turkish
ship.
And this would mean that Greece (the obvious party that might be set-up for this role)
would attack Turkey and sink a Turkish ship? This would be an act of war against Turkey and
Turkey would, as a result of such action, be fully (and legally) entitled to respond. So,
commonsense tells you that Greece and The Group can't really do this.
If The Group enables Haftar to sink a Turkish ship then Turkey will be able to claim an
attack against them, and retaliate and occupy Libya and expect NATO support whilst doing so.
The effect of such an act by Haftar's forces would inevitably result in victory for Erdogan
(counter-intuitive though that may seem).
While Turkey and Erdogan's association with the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as a vector
that ensures Egypt's hostility towards Turkey's presence in Libya can this really express
itself militarily?
The Muslim Brotherhood is a strong movement in Egypt which has been around for a very long
time. Effectively this excludes Egypt from joining any direct attack on Turkey because they
will fear the unintended consequences that will arise within Egypt.
I'm afraid The Group, in seeking to exclude a major country like Turkey (with an obvious
major interest in the Mediterranean), is taking the first step towards war. Sinking a Turkish
ship would be another step towards war. Turkey will win any conflict as long as they are
prepared to accept some hard blows (and they will be). The Group will lose any conflict
because they are only able to strike small (sink a ship at most) or strike huge
(annihilation); they have no middle game – Turkey will be able to absorb small blows
and China & Russia will not allow Turkey to be destroyed.
At present, Turkey has nothing to lose (as far as the Mediterranean Sea energy exploration
goes) - it follows that in any military conflict that Turkey will gain. Military conflicts
have to be settled by negotiation - it is only a western delusion that wars are fought to
unconditional surrender or absolute destruction. It is The Group and, in particular, Greece
that will lose (Greece has a lot to lose in any conflict - no matter how well it goes for
Greece - they will have to give up something, even if they think they have won, because that
will be price of ending any conflict (because it always is unless you can annihilate your
adversary).
It is not Turkey that is over-reaching- it is The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and
the US) that have overplayed their hand and have most to lose.
The only thing that makes any sense in terms of a strategic plan is that it nothing more
than machinations by the US seeking to bring chaos closer to the heart of Europe. From the
outset, The Group knew what they were doing to Turkey and they knew how Turkey would feel
about it and how Turkey was likely to react.
div> On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get
into troubles for two reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each other.
And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman , Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get into troubles for two
reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each
other. And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
Kastellorizo – A Greek Island off the Turkish Coast
Greece "owns" Kastelorizo, an island which is only about 2 kilometres off the coast of
Turkey. "Ownership" of islands such as Kastellorizo is meant to "give" Greece the "right" to
exclude Turkey from the Mediterranean Sea? I'm afraid that this is an absolutist, simplistic
and unrealistic position.
The "ownership" of Kastellorizo has changed many times throughout history and has been
"owned" by Turkey (the Ottomans) on a number of occasions. If you look at the maps you can
see that Kastellorizo is part of the same geological formation as the nearby Turkish coast.
It's akin to claiming "ownership" of my doorstop and then claiming that you "own" everything
outside the walls of my house (including my garden, car, garage, dog, cat, etc. and then
telling me I can't even use my doorstep or leave my house. If you did that to me, I would
push you aside and that is what Turkey is doing to Greece.
I know that many, many Greeks fundamentally disagree but they are just being partisan,
unfair and realistic and are allowing themselves to getting carried away with hostility
towards Turkey.
Kastellorizo could have been assigned to Turkey at the end of the WWII as part of the
Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 but instead, the "ownership" of Kastellorizo was removed from
Italy and given to Greece.
In any military conflict between Turkey and Greece (like, for instance) sinking a Turkish
Ship, then islands Kastellorizo will be immediately taken into "ownership" by Turkey and it
will be a long time, if ever, that Greece can think about re-"owning" Kastellorizo.
Essentially, the issue of Kastellorizo and its "ownership" would be settled and there would
be very little Greece could do about it.
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey.
Turkey is wrong if it thinks something in international law allows it to annul the freedom of
the seas and block pipelines. I will repost what
I wrote on October 31:
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave
countries the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental
impact assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the
treaty does it say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms
of the seas.
Turkey does not need and doesn't intend to conquer Libya.
All Turkey has to do is maintain the Libyan GNA which is the government legally recognised
by the UN.
Only the Security Council can remove recognition of the Libyan GNA and this would be a
fairly cynical move by the West if attempted (and, I imagine, would be vetoed by more than
just Russia and China).
Military aircraft are vulnerable when ground troops have access to modern surface to air
missiles and are trained in their use. Expect Libyan GNA forces to have copious supplies of
the ground and shoulder-launched versions of these weapons. What good did aircraft do for
Saudi Arabia in Yemen? There is no winner here, only stalemate and that's more than good
enough for Turkey.
The only way to prevent Turkey from achieving its aims is to sink it's supply ships. This
would be a rash and extremely inadvisable act.
I would advise policymakers and Governments (particularly, The Group) to see where this is
all heading and not go down this path.
The coming debacle may present few heroes for our consideration. The weakest states are
probably headed for the smash-and-grab treatment at the end of the day. How is one to believe
that Erdogan gives a damn about the government in Libya?--any government? Hafter and the GNA
are both pretenders who have only marginal support in that country. These are but stick
figures in a land that's been thrown into a howling anarchy, thanks to the military operation
that Obama green-lighted. Since Erdogan is dealing with virtual nonentities, this aggression
is his aggression. And this illegal sea lane is his insult to international law and prior
agreements that recognize the rights of regional nations. It looks a lot like an act of war
or at least a pretty serious provocation.
Greece, for one, ought to be worried about this development, as some of the resources it
counts on as its territorial right is threatened here.
I don't believe that any of the Mediterranean Sea is "international waters" it's all been
carved up into Exclusive Economic Zone's (EEZ)- there's nothing left! The Group are carving
everything up for themselves and left Turkey (and a number of other countries e.g. Syria)
with very little.
Any person thinking rationally would be able to see that Turkey has been treated unfairly
and will see Turkey has been left with no effective (peaceful) way to get any redress.
All Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean nations need to do is get together, cooperate
and share.
The actions of The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US) are the ones that are
causing all the difficulties because they have tried to grab everything for themselves and
exclude everyone else.
Greece and the rest of The Group need to include Turkey, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and
Palestine (and remove the US).
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey to consider military
options.
Turkey controls the Dardanelles (the entrance to the Black Sea) by treaty. Turkey has been
treated as it deserves. The Aegean Sea is recognized as Greek waters; and that probably
includes the seabed beneath it. When Greece was at its most vulnerable after the recent
financial collapse, Turkish air force ramped up overflights of Greek territory, some of it
pretty aggressive, just to rub salt in the wound. It wasn't very neighborly. It looks like
Erdogan's new sea lane trespasses the Greek island of Rhodes and several others.
What Andrew Korkblko suggests is that the pipeline, that Turkey is obstructing with the
"Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone", is not really about Cypriot gas (which b. believes will be too
small and uneconomic to justify a pipeline) but about Israeli gas which is intended to be
piped under the Mediterranean Sea into Europe as a competitor to Russian gas. Maybe the whole
thing about Cypriot gas is just a smokescreen to disguise the true origins (Israel) of the
gas.
What, I suppose, Israel is trying to achieve is to minimise the number of nations that
have a say about (and, I guess, a cut of) the pipeline. So, the attempt to cut Turkey and
other weaker countries out of share (gas transit fees) has forced Turkey to move on its
long-held grievance about being treated unfairly in the Mediterranean Sea.
Are we about to see a war in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey caused by US and
Israeli machinations?
I am not talking about rights that are legally justified by "ownership" - what I am saying
is that the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and its resources should be shared fairly and
reasonably by all nations of the Mediterranean.
The proposed gas pipeline is just an example where a small group of nations (Israel,
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US - The Group) have got together to grab what they can for
themselves and exclude others.
Your argument is essentially we have the legal right, we are recognised under
international law, therefore we can do what we like, we can have it all, and you, who have
been excluded, you will have nothing. But, anyone can see that this is unreasonable and the
path to disaster.
But in some ways all this is now moot. The pipeline appears to be really about Israeli gas
and the lack of wisdom in trying to exclude Turkey. If The Group has any sense they will
share the booty with Turkey. If not, they will get Greece to sink a Turkish ship - the
outcome won't be good for Greece.
There's nothing like wild volatility to destroy the integrity of those high-end bankers and
analysts who are brave enough to make oil price predictions year in and year out.
But the forecasting nightmare doesn't stop them, even at the worst of times.
In the final month of last year, banks and analysts were brave enough to divulge their
predictions for 2019.
At that time, the second year of the OPEC
agreement was coming to a close; the U.S. had
re-imposed sanctions on Iran four months earlier with waiver extensions; and the average
price of a Brent barrel for December was changing hands at $56.50, compared to the month
earlier average of $65.20. WTI averaged $49 in December 2018. OPEC had
agreed to cut production again for 2019.
So who should we look for when it's time to forecast what oil prices will do in 2020? That
depends on their track record the last time around.
Here are some of the best and worst oil price predictions of 2019:
The World Bank
For 2019,
the World Bank was one of the first on the scene to provide its outlook in late 2018.
The Bank said the most important factor for 2019 would be OPEC, specifically the lack of
spare production capacity among OPEC members. This lack of oil production capacity would
provide "limited buffers" should there be a sudden shortfall in the supply of oil "raising the
likelihood of oil price spikes in 2019."
While WB acknowledged that the world was currently in a state of oversupply, it could swing
the other way quickly. In the first month of 2019, the World Bank conservatively predicted that
Brent would average $67 per barrel for the year -- a $2 per barrel decrease from its June 2018
predictions for 2019. The WB was quick to add that the "uncertainty around this forecast is
high."
How did they do? Aside from needlessly worrying the market with OPEC's lack of capacity, it
turns out their prediction was a bit high. The average
price of the Brent barrel in Q1 2019 was $63.30; for Q2 it was $68.30, and Q3 at $61.90.
November's average was $62.70.
Citi
Citi's
forecast for 2019 , also made in December 2018, was more sober-minded, with the bank
predicting that Brent would average $60 for the year. It, too, predicted a volatile market for
the next year, largely because the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia -- the top three oil
producers in the world--all had different views as to what that perfect oil price should be.
The bank also predicted that oil production in the United States would continue to offset much
of what OPEC would cut -- a prediction that turned out to be close to reality: US production
has increased 1.2 million bpd this year -- precisely what OPEC agreed to cut.
How did they do? Not terrible. Its primary range was for Brent to trade between $55 and $65
per barrel--a generous $10 price range. Even with that big range, oil sat above $65 for the
better part of February through May.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML)
Also in mid-December 2018, BAML took a stab at making Brent price
predictions , forecasting that oil would resume its path back up to $70 average in 2019,
with a potential for higher prices in Q2. Similar to Citi and World Bank, BAML said that oil
prices would be volatile.
How did they do? It's hard to argue with the fact that oil indeed appears to be trending
upward, which could be interpreted as "resuming its path back up to $70". And Q2 was in fact
higher, with oil prices actually surpassing $70 for a time in April and May.
However, BAML lost a bit of credibility in our book when it hedged its forecast by saying
that "the only certainty is uncertainty." BAML hedged further in April when it said oil prices
had a higher chance of hitting $100 than what the
market consensus was, due to OPEC supply cuts, a slowdown in US shale, and IMO 2020
regulations.
BAML further watered down its predictions in August when it said oil could
fall to $30 or $40 should China decide to import substantial amounts of oil from Iran,
despite the US sanctions.
The EIA
A month after Citi, WB, and BAML ponied up their predictions, the EIA came out with its own.
Its prediction
for 2019 , provided in its January 2019 Short Term Energy Outlook, was that Brent would
average $61 per barrel. Around this time, specifically at the start of the year, Brent was
trading at $53.80 and WTI was trading at $45.41 .
How did they do? Not half bad. Brent traded at an average of $61.90 for the 3rd quarter
2019, and November's average was $62.70 -- less than $2 off per barrel for a prediction made 11
months ago in a volatile market.
That's it for the predictions made at the start of the year. But other predictions along the
way, armed with a half a year or more of actual data, are noteworthy as well.
FX Empire: Using adaptive dynamic learning (ADL),
FX Empire predicted in July of this year that oil prices would rotate between $47 and $64
between July and October, before falling in November and December to a range between $45 and
$50. FX Empire said it could actually dip below $40 by the end of 2019, or in early 2020.
How did they do? FX Empire's ADL appears to be pretty far off the mark. This CL=F is today
trading at $59.42, nearly $20 higher than it's sub-$40 prediction for the end of the year.
Goldman Sachs' Jeff Currie : In October, Currie, head of Goldman's commodity research,
warned that oil prices could fall as low as $20
per barrel for WTI if oversupply were to result in full storage facilities. With nowhere to
put it, explains Currie, the price of oil would fall dramatically as production would have to
crash. However, crude oil inventories in the United States are not dramatically up, and are
almost even-steven with this time last year, down a total of
1.41 million barrels over the last 50 weeks. Global oil inventories are a different story,
though. In Currie's defense, he did say that there was a less than 50% chance of oil falling
below $20 barrel.
How did they do? By our math, that 50% hedge would have made Goldman correct either way.
IEA : Piggybacking off Goldman's October forecast for the oil-inventory-pocalypse, the IEA's
Fatih Birol said that these low prices would force the US to cut production, resulting in a
price hike once again. In July, the IEA predicted that slowing oil demand would cap oil prices,
and keep them from moving
too much higher. At the time, Brent was trading at $63.01, with WTI trading at
$56.18.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
How did they do? With Brent trading on December 12 at $64.47, the $1.50 increase comfortably
falls within the not-too-much-higher range, so we'd say the IEA's prediction was spot on.
Analyst Poll : In August,
Reuters polled 51 economists and analysts, who thought Brent would average $65.02 in 2019.
At the time, Brent had averaged $65.08, so the $65.02 wasn't stepping out on a long limb.
How did they do? Wisely, the analysts cited the US-China trade dispute and risk of an
economic slowdown as the reason for its new forecast, which was down from $67.47 for the month
before. Still, the price prediction was a bit high.
RBC Capital Markets : RBC's Helima Croft in May suggested that Brent could top
$80 over the summer due to Iranian tensions.
How did they do? RBC got it partially right. Iran tensions did indeed escalate. Iran
repeatedly made threats to close Hormuz, drone strikes attacked Saudi Aramco's oil
infrastructure, and Iran seized a British oil tanker and held onto it for months. Still, prices
didn't get anywhere near $80. But this isn't your daddy's oil market. A year or two ago,
tensions in the Middle East -- especially ones that are more than just threats, would have sent
oil prices soaring. But the market is today permanently spooked with the trade war negotiations
with China and slow oil demand growth, meaning these geopolitical risks no longer pack the same
punch.
Iran : In June, a top military aide to Iran's Supreme Leader
issued a prediction which was really more of a warning: that the first bullet fired in the
Persian Gulf would push oil prices above $100 per barrel. At the time, oil was trading at
$61.67.
How did they do? Not well. Things did heat up in the Gulf, and bullets -- many of them --
have been fired over the last month after major fuel protests in Iran. There were also drone strikes over
Saudi Arabia that did significant damage to oil infrastructure, which took offline over 5
million bpd. Still, oil got nowhere near $100.
Eurasia Group : Henry Rome, a senior analyst at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group,
agreed that these same Iranian tensions could push prices above $100, and a major confrontation
with Iran "would likely" send prices above $150.
How did they do? Even worse than Khamenei's military aide.
WSJ Poll: At the end of April, a week or so after the US announced that it would not extend
the waivers to buyers of sanctioned Iranian oil, WSJ-polled analysts expected Brent to
average $70 per barrel in 2019 -- an increase of $2 per barrel from its previous poll a
month earlier.
How did they do? Oil was already trading at $70 at the time of their prediction, so it
wasn't really a huge leap of faith at the time. Still, prices failed to get any higher than
that for the remainder of the year, rendering their prediction in the far-too-high
category.
I think it should have been seen as a thirty year campaign and the same with Iraq and Libya.
The northern Ireland campaign took 30 years and many people are as bitter as they ever were
much of it secondhand from younger people who weren't even alive during the conflict. The
idea of a quick war is a very big mistake I think and flawed short-term thinking.
The West and the USA in particular have always taken the stand that their ideology is the
only right one. That they have a right to interfere in the interns, affairs of other
countries but their own internal affairs are sacrosanct.
So - USA, with UK support decided that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. They moved in to
do so - they killed Saddam but had no plan to return the country to a functioning nation.
Instead they facilitated the unleashing of internal wars and have now left the citizens of
that country in utter turmoil.
& then went and repeated the exercise n Libya.
Decades ago, Britain decided that Palestinians could be thrown out of their homes to make
way for the creation of Israel and laid the foundation for the Middle-East turmoil that has
caused untold misery and suffering. They followed that up with throwing out the Chagosians
out of their homes and making them homeless. Invited Caribbean's to the 'Mother Country' to
serve their erstwhile lords, ladies, masters and mistresses only to then drive to despair the
children and grandchildren of the invitees who had contributed to the 'Mother Country' for
decades.
We are 18 years into an illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We are the invaders,
the terrorists. The Taliban are fighting for their country, they may use brutal methods but
so did the French, Dutch, Russian freedom fighters during the Nazi invasions. America's
puppet regime in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Quislings of WW2. And to use drones to
kill Afghans and to say it is progress that there is more transparency is the height of
hubris. All it does is show the corrosive effect of unfettered power in America and it's
military. Why do we tolerate this inhuman action on another country's society? America is by
far the greatest contributor to the rise in terrorism in the world and if not somehow stopped
the greatest threat to world peace. It keeps on invading country after country with it's MSM
propaganda machine claiming it is spreading Democracy throughout the globe. Thank you America
!
Speaking of Shane Gustafson: this is an excellent book:
Crisis amid Plenty: The Politics of Soviet Energy under Brezhnev and Gorbachev
(Princeton Legacy Library) Paperback – February 1, 1991
Although the Soviet Union has the most abundant energy reserves of any country, energy
policy has been the single most disruptive factor in its industry since the mid-1970s. This
major case study treats the paradox of the energy crisis as an essential part of larger
economic problems of the Soviet Union and as a key issue in determining the fate of the
Gorbachev reforms.
One of the theses of the book is that the Soviet industry had a "silo" structure: the
various components (exploration, drilling, production, transport, export) didn't coordinate
with one another and depended on the glue of communist party apparatchiks to keep the system
functioning. Gorbachev is said to have eliminated that glue and chaos ensued.
Schmoe@ 36
Re: "Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of
that), it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity."
"... The sanctions against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in difficult to reach environments. ..."
"... That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok we give up'...? ..."
"... And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world, Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico... ..."
"... That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero... ..."
We shall see how strong. I'd put money on the Germans doing business with their natural
Eastern partners. Business is business, suzerain occupation since 75 years
notwithstanding.
Actually I harbor doubts about the strength of imperial ability, as the natural reaction
every time they use dollarweapon, is the weakening of the weapon...
That Good Man V Putin, I'm sure we all recall, recently spoke to this matter...signing off
with "they (or the dollar) will collapse soon."
zerohedge > "The Dollar Enjoyed Great Trust Around The World. But For Some Reason It Is
Being Used As A Political Weapon, Imposing Restrictions. Many Countries Are Now Turning Away
From The Dollar As A Reserve Currency. US Dollar Will Collapse Soon."
We will see on Nordstream 2 sanctions' effectiveness. Generally, US sanctions, when
aggressively enforced, are extremely effective (and lethal in many cases). The sanctions
against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in
difficult to reach environments.
I would also add that:
a) LNG prices are currently at incredibly low levels and if they hold at these levels
importation of LNG could minimize Germany's hit, and Qatar last week announced it will expands
its LNG export capabilities;
b) Russia / Gazprom did not finance Nordstream 2's construction; initially I believe Gazprom
did so but a consortium of 4 Netherlands (including Royal Dutch Shell), Austrian and German
companies later assumed the financing obligation;
c) Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of that),
it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity.
Based on a) - c) there is much less than meets to eye for Nordstream 2.
A more likely outcome than violation of US sanction IMO is an asymmetric response from
Germany; perhaps the EU aviation authorities will deny whatever Band Aid Boeing puts our for
the 737 Max's MCAS system. Or Germany approves Huawei's 5g equipment.
I'm not sure how I missed those Nov 16 posts so thanks for forwarding. This quote will be
interesting:
"With some 85% of the pipeline already laid, new congressional sanctions aimed at
companies participating in the pipeline's construction will not stop it.
Instead, they will become a new bone of contention between the United States and
Europe.
That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and
have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok
we give up'...?
Even a child can see this Spiegel diarrhea for what it is...
And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world,
Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop
Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico...
That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero...
Yet the Russians are the world's gas and pipeline superpower and have more pipeline
projects in the works...
As if Allseas is going to risk their biggest customer for some bullshit US
sanctions...[they are also laying the Turkstream pipeline..."
Any company whose operations are all international will unfortunately have to think long
and hard about losing accessing to dollars. Open violations of US Sanctions are still almost
unheard of - Rosneft in Venezuala, Reliance Industries might now be buying Venezuelan oil -
so I would not be pollyanish about their power. Note that European companies will not use
Instinex out of fear of losing access to dollars.
Your questions are absolutely justified. The original story was written by Georg Mascolo,
the German Dana Milbank, i.e. the chief mouth piece of the intelligence services. This is an
obvious attempt to put pressure on Merkel to hamper relations with "Evil Russia" just prior
to a possible breakthrough in the Normandy talks. The German services, especially the BND,
are the last strongholds of Transatlanticism here, and they try to brace themselves against
any rapprochment between Russia and Germany. But this will be in vain. It's simply that the
geopolitical imperative is too strong: the two countries fit together perfectly in terms of
their respective needs and abilities.
Power of Siberia is here. It's finished. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese
Premier Xi Jinping christened the pipeline to begin the month. Next month Putin will travel to
Turkey to join President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open the first of four potential trains of the
Turkstream pipeline.
It is only Nordstream 2 that continues to lag behind because of insane levels of pressure
from the United States that is dead set against this pipeline coming online.
And the reason for that is the last of the major energy issues surrounding Gazprom needing
resolution this month, the gas transit contract between it and Ukraine's Naftogaz.
The two gas companies have been locked in legal disputes for years, some of which center on
Crimea's decision to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia in 2014. Most of them, however,
involve disputes over costs incurred during the previous and expiring gas transit contract.
The particulars today are ultimately irrelevant as these lawsuits have been used as nothing
more than blackmail to keep a new contract from getting signed. Ukraine has sued Gazprom in
courts, like in Sweden, that rule not by the tenets of contract law but rather through the lens
of social justice.
These have been political decisions that allowed Naftogaz to seize Gazprom's European
assets, further complicating any resolution to the conflict. These policies were pursued
aggressively by former Ukrainian President and long-time US State Department asset Petro
Poroshenko and they have done nothing to help Ukraine.
All they have done is strip-mine the country of its assets while keeping a war to prevent
the secession of the Donbass alive.
This dovetails with the external pressure applied to EU member states, like Denmark, to
delay if not outright thwart completion of Nordstream 2.
Opposition to Nordstream 2 in the US is all about leveraging influence in Ukraine and turn
it into a client state hostile to Russia sharing a border with Russia. If there's no gas
transit contract and there's no Nordstream 2 then US LNG suppliers can sell gas there and
deprive Russia of the revenues and the business.
It's truly that simple. But that strategy has morphed over the years into a convoluted chess
match of move/countermove in the vain hope of achieving something that looks like a victory.
But this isn't a game of real chess but rather a timed match.
Because the end of 2019 was always coming. And Ukraine would eventually have to decide as to
which direction it wanted to go. Moreover, that same choice was put in front of the EU who have
clearly, in the end, realized that the US under President Trump is not a long-term reliable
partner, but rather a bully which seeks its goals through threat and intimidation.
Stay with the US or green light Nordstream 2. The choice in Europe was clear. Nordstream 2
gets finished, as Denmark finally granted the final environmental permit for its construction
in October.
That delay moves the completion date out into 2020. And that now gives the US Senate one
last chance to stop the completion of the pipeline because everything else to this point has
failed, including the EU changing the rules on its gas pipeline rules to force Gazprom to
'unbundle' the pipeline from the gas flowing through it.
Germany amended that directive to allow Nordstream 2 to be regulated at the German federal
level and not at the EU level. This was as much of a win as could have been hoped for.
"The reason for the push is that this window is closing. A lot of Nord Stream is done
already. It will cost them dearly. I think if those sanctions pass [the companies] will shut
down, and I think the Russians will have to look for another way to do this if they can do
this," Risch said.
In reality the window has closed.
At the end of the day even if this legislation passes there will be no way to stop the
pipeline from being completed or the gas to flow through it. With so little of the pipeline
left to complete there is no practical way to stop it from happening. Risch and other US
senators are hoping to strand Nordstream 2 as an unfinished boondoggle but that's folly.
The German government wants this pipeline, therefore the German government will put up the
funds to ensure the contractors are paid and the pipeline completed.
There is a limit to the extent which sanctions can block commerce and once completed the US
will have no ability to sanction the gas flowing through the pipeline. It's a sad and pathetic
state of affairs that so much time, manpower and capital was wasted to stop a pipeline that is
necessary for Germany's future.
It also highlights the hypocrisy of US policy since there isn't a peep out of the US on
Turkstream, which will stitch NATO ally Turkey to Russia via 15.75 cm of natural gas every
year. Eventually it will replace the lost South Stream pipeline as the other trains are built
and contracted for.
All of the countries in eastern Europe are hungry for a piece of Turkstream's future. Serbia
Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece are all potential customers.
And all of these countries that currently get their gas from Ukraine are at risk if nothing
gets resolved between it and Russia. This is why the meeting between Putin and Ukrainian
President Zelensky is so important. It has the opportunity to begin reversing the damage done
to the basic fabric of Ukraine and Europe by agreeing to a path to ending the war in the
Donbass and coming to an agreement on gas transit.
There are more than $12 billion in lawsuits outstanding that Naftogaz has pending against
Gazprom. With Nordstream 2 a fait accompli that is all the leverage Zelensky has at that
meeting.
This game is a microcosm of the way the US foreign policy establishment uses Europe as the
battleground in the war against Russia. And given the way the political winds are shifting,
Europeans are getting very tired of it.
This is why gas storage facilities in Europe are full, there is real fear that Gazprom will
walk away from the talks with Ukraine and will wait out the completion of Nordstream 2. Gazprom
offered an extension of the current contract on the condition that Ukraine drop the
lawsuits.
Naftogaz said no. We'll see if Zelensky is smart enough to say yes.
China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline in operation
HARBIN -- The China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline was put into operation on
Monday.
At the gas-distributing and compressing station in the city of Heihe, northeast China's
Heilongjiang Province, the data screen was switched on, indicating parameter variations of
the gas passage. The station is the first stop after the Russia-supplied natural gas enters
China.
The pipeline is scheduled to provide China with 5 billion cubic meters of Russian gas in
2020 and the amount is expected to increase to 38 billion cubic meters annually from 2024,
under a 30-year contract worth 400 billion U.S. dollars signed between the China National
Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and Russian gas giant Gazprom in May 2014.
The cross-border gas pipeline has a 3,000-km section in Russia and a 5,111-km stretch in
China.
Shao Hua, general manager of Heihe City Natural Gas Development Co., Ltd. of China Gas,
said that the border city of Heihe still largely relies on coal for heat. With the
Sino-Russian natural gas pipeline's operation, the city now has access to a stable supply of
clean energy.
Heihe has registered 30,000 households for switching to natural gas for heating. It will
take one year to complete full coverage of the gas network in the city, according to the
company.
China's natural gas consumption reached 280.3 billion cubic meters in 2018. The country's
demand for natural gas will continue to soar toward 2040, outstripping domestic output by
around 43 percent, according to an International Energy Agency report.
China aims to raise the use of natural gas to 10 percent of the country's energy mix by
2020 and 15 percent by 2030, said the National Development and Reform Commission.
How Russia-China Gas Pipeline Changes Energy Calculus
By Olga Tanas, Anna Shiryaevskaya and Dan Murtaugh - Bloomberg
Russia is pivoting its energy business to the east. The world's largest exporter of
natural gas has built an enormous pipeline running from Siberia to the Chinese border to feed
China's insatiable energy appetite. The new conduit, called the Power of Siberia, is part of
a plan by Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce his country's dependence on gas markets
in Europe and tap into the fast-growing economies of Asia. For China, whose domestic energy
production can't keep up with demand, the pipeline offers a vital new source of
supply....
Another fun chart with oil prices and the implicit price deflator. Oil used to mostly
follow the implicit deflator, until 2014.
The index start is different so there is some data discrepency, but it is clear that we
have become an oil economy, we dig it up and sell it to more advanced economies, just like
Nigeria.
Further, it you were to include the median home price over the housing bubble you will see
that median, aggregate home price rose with oil, mainly because oil is about 15% of the input
to home construction, and oil tripled in price.
The true home bubble was in California and Florida, a result we discovered in about 2010,
and was reported on this blog.
We knew what was happening with oil shocks and chose to ignore it so we could have a nice
Dean Baker style narrative. That is, we knew the truth and preferred the deception, which we
also knew at the time. Ex post it is obvious our fake narrative resulted in increased
inequality, which we have now proven.
We, the folks on this blog, were a natural experiment, mostly a natural experiment of
boomers faking it, in full knowledge of the consequences. We got the expected result, low
real GDP growth while interest charges, as a percentage of real growth, going through the
roof.
Now we have another natural experiment. Either the price deflator has to drop rapidly, or
oil has to rise dramatically or we get an MMT moment. Dunno the outcome. But we are really
good at having the MMT moments. We can show that we have become better MMTers as each
generation gains more technology and knowledge applied to central banking.
The financial struggles of the U.S. shale industry are
becoming increasingly hard to
ignore,
but drillers in Appalachia are in particularly bad shape.
The Permian has recently seen
job
losses
, and for the first time since 2016, the hottest shale basin in the world has seen job
growth lag the broader Texas economy.
The industry is cutting back amid heightened
financial scrutiny from investors, as debt-fueled drilling has become increasingly hard to justify.
But E&P companies focused almost exclusively on gas, such as those in the Marcellus and Utica
shales, are in even worse shape. An IEEFA
analysis
found
that seven of the largest producers in Appalachia burned through about a half billion dollars in
the third quarter.
Gas production continues to rise, but profits remain elusive.
"Despite booming
gas output, Appalachian oil and gas companies consistently failed to produce positive cash flow
over the past five quarters," the authors of the IEEFA report said.
Of the seven companies analyzed, five had negative cash flow, including Antero Resources,
Chesapeake Energy, EQT, Range Resources, and Southwestern Energy. Only Cabot Oil & Gas and Gulfport
Energy had positive cash flow in the third quarter.
The sector was weighed down but a sharp drop in natural gas prices, with
Henry
Hub
off by 18 percent compared to a year earlier. But the losses are highly problematic. After
all, we are more than a decade into the shale revolution and the industry is still not really able
to post positive cash flow. Worse, these are not the laggards; these are the largest producers in
the region.
The outlook is not encouraging.
The gas glut is expected to stick around for a
few years. Bank of America Merrill Lynch has repeatedly warned that unless there is an unusually
frigid winter, which could lead to higher-than-expected demand, the gas market is headed for
trouble. "A mild winter across the northern hemisphere or a worsening macro backdrop could be
catastrophic for gas prices in all regions," Bank of America
said
in
a note in October.
The problem for Appalachian drillers is that Permian producers are not really interested in all
of the gas they are producing. That makes them unresponsive to price signals. Gas prices in the
Permian have plunged close to zero, and have at times turned negative, but gas production in Texas
really hinges on the industry's interest in oil. This dynamic means that the gas glut becomes
entrenched longer than it otherwise might. It's a grim reality plaguing the gas-focused producers
in Appalachia.
With capital markets growing less friendly, the only response for drillers is to cut back. IEEFA
notes that drilling permits in Pennsylvania in October fell by half from the same month a year
earlier. The number of rigs sidelined and the number of workers cut from payrolls also continues to
pile up.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
The negative cash flow in the third quarter was led by Chesapeake Energy (-$264 million)
and EQT (-$173 million), but the red ink is only the latest in a string of losses for the sector
over the last few years. As a result, the sector has completely fallen out of favor with investors.
But gas drillers have fared worse, with share prices lagging not just the broader S&P 500, but
also the fracking-focused XOP ETF, which has fallen sharply this year. In other words, oil
companies have seen their share prices hit hard, but gas drillers have completely fallen off of a
cliff. Chesapeake Energy even
warned
last
month that it there was "substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern." Its
stock is trading below $1 per share.
Even Cabot Oil & Gas, which posted positive cash flow in the third quarter, has seen its share
price fall by roughly 30 percent year-to-date.
"Even though Appalachian gas companies
have proven that they can produce abundant supplies of gas, their financial struggles show that the
business case for fracking remains unproven,"
IEEFA concluded.
Tags
Business Finance
This has no small strategic significance: previously, for foreign sales, Russia was
dependent on customers in Europe who are all, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to
pressure from the war party.
Added to which transport was affected by Kiev's whims. Turkstream (scheduled to start next month) and
the two pipelines to Germany help with the second problem and this one with the first. Sooner
or later, Russia-China pipelines would have appeared but I think Ishchenko's
argument that the Western war on Russia speeded up the process is credible.
(Come to think of it, now that Putin's hand is imagined everywhere, maybe it's time to
consider that he's the American war party's real backer; after all, everything it's touched has
turned to dust: from the forever wars, to Iran's increased influence, to the Russia-China
alliance and now the furore in the USA over Ukraine – itself another disastrous
project.)
"... "Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office. ..."
"... "David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago. ..."
"... It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related, it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade. ..."
"... The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will mean fewer jobs and lower pay. ..."
"... This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported. ..."
"... Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive. ..."
"... The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion. ..."
"... There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy is back at full employment. ..."
Given his history of promoting racism, xenophobia, sexism and his recently exposed boasts about sexual assaults, not many people
want to be associated with Donald Trump. However that doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong.
In the debate on Sunday Donald Trump made a comment to the effect that because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and
other trade deals, "we lost our jobs." The New York Times was quick to say * this was wrong.
"We didn't.
"Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic
growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office.
"David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly
one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that
such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago.
"And there's no evidence the North American Free Trade Agreement caused similar job losses.
"The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2015 that the 'net overall effect of Nafta on the U.S. economy appears to
have been relatively modest.' "
There are a few things to sort out here. First, the basic point in the first paragraph is absolutely true, although it's not
clear that it's relevant to the trade debate. The United States economy typically grows and adds jobs, around 1.6 million a year
for the last quarter century. So any claim that trade has kept the U.S. from creating jobs is absurd on its face. The actual issue
is the rate of job creation and the quality of the jobs.
Here there are three issues to consider.
1) The direct job loss – the jobs that were displaced due to imports substituting for domestically produced goods and services;
2) The wage effects – the downward pressure on the wages of workers that retain their jobs that can result from job loss and
also the threat of job loss;
3) The impact of a trade deficit on the level of demand in the economy.
Taking these in turn we now have some pretty solid evidence on some of the job loss attributable to trade. David Autor's work
** found that imports from China cost the economy more than 2 million jobs in the years from 2000-2007.
"Estimates of the net impact of aggregate demand and reallocation effects imply that import growth from China between 1999
and 2011 led to an employment reduction of 2.4 million workers" (page 29).
These are workers who are directly displaced by import competition. In addition, as the article goes on to note, there were
more workers who likely lost their jobs to the multiplier effect in the local economies most directly affected by imports.
The impact of trade with China was more dramatic than trade with Mexico and other countries because of the huge growth in imports
over a short period of time. However, even if the impact from trade with other countries was smaller, it still would have a substantial
effect on the communities affected.
It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently
been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an
average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related,
it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade.
Of course people lose jobs for other reasons also, like increased productivity. So the fact there is job loss associated with
trade doesn't make it bad, but it is not wrong to see this as a serious problem.
The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful
way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million
barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United
States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will
only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will
mean fewer jobs and lower pay.
This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest
reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured
goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages
in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported.
Kate Bronfenbrenner, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell, documented one way in which the potential to import can
have the effect of lowering wages. She found *** that employers regularly used the threat of moving operations to Mexico as a
way to thwart unionization drives. While most workers are not typically involved in unionization drives, it is easy to imagine
this dynamic playing out in other contexts where employers use the real or imagined threat from import competition as a reason
for holding down wages. The implication is the impact of trade on wages is likely to be even larger than the direct effect of
the goods actually brought into the country.
Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below
its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall
level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest,
but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the
manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive.
The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular
stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade
deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the
United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same
impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion.
From this perspective, the trade deficit is a major source of job loss. Our current trade deficit of $500 billion a year (@2.8
percent of GDP) is a major drag on demand and employment. For this reason, a politician would be absolutely right to cite trade
as a big factor in the weakness of the labor market.
It is worth noting that many economists (including many at the Federal Reserve Board) now believe that the economy is close
to its full employment level of output, in which case trade is not now a net cause of job loss even if it had been earlier in
the recovery. There are two points to be made on this view.
First, there are many prominent economists, such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, who argue that the economy is still well
below its full employment level of output. So this is at least a debatable position.
Second, if we accept that the economy is near full employment it implies that close to 2 million prime age workers (ages 25-54)
have permanently left the labor market compared to 2007 levels of labor force participation. (The gap is close to 4 million if
we use 2000 as our comparison year.)
There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like
working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing
sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers
can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy
is back at full employment.
In short, there are good reasons for a politician to complain about trade as a major source of our economic problems. There
is much research and economic theory that supports this position.
MOSCOW, November 28. /TASS/. Russian-Ukrainian gas consultations with the participation of
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, the Minister of Energy and Environmental Protection of
Ukraine Alexey Orzhel, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller, the heads of Naftogaz of Ukraine and LLC Gas
Transmission System of Ukraine were held in Vienna on Thursday.
This is according to statements by the Russian Energy Ministry and Gazprom. Read also
GECF believes Russia and Ukraine
will manage to agree on gas transit to EU this year "The parties discussed
Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the gas sector -- settlement of mutual claims for the
implementation of contracts, the terms for the transit of Russian gas to Europe from 2020, the
prospects for direct purchase of Russian gas for Ukrainian consumers," the statement said.
Russia, the European Commission and Ukraine have been holding consultations on gas transit
after 2020. The dialogue is complicated by the ongoing legal disputes between Russia's Gazprom
and Naftogaz of Ukraine. Moscow offers a "package solution" that includes a settlement
agreement on legal disputes and direct gas purchases at reduced prices. As a fallback, Russia
is ready to extend the current transit agreement for the whole year of 2020.
Ukraine considers the settlement agreement on legal disputes and the signing of a
short-term contract to be unacceptable. Earlier this month, Naftogaz' executive director, Yury
Vitrenko, announced that Ukraine would pump Russian transit gas to its underground storage
facilities (UGS), if this gas entered the country without an appropriate contract starting from
January 1, 2020.
The next round of trilateral consultations on the transit of Russian gas to Europe through
Ukraine from 2020 is scheduled for the first week of December.
The existing contracts for the supply and transit of Russian gas through Ukraine expire on
December 31.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter. KIEV, November 30. /TASS/. The gas price
for Ukrainians may increase to 12,000 hryvnias (about $500) per 1,000 cubic meters in the event
of the termination of transit from Russia from January 1, 2020, Minister of Energy and
Environment of Ukraine Alexey Orzhel said on Friday.
"The price of 12,000 hryvnia is possible in the absence of transit," he said speaking on the
national television.
Orzhel also recalled that the government had offered Ukrainians the so-called guaranteed
price of gas in the amount of 8,000 hryvnias (about $333) per 1,000 cubic meters in case the
gas transit is halted from the new year and the cost of gas increases significantly.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline in May
2017. The pipeline with a length of 930 km runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast
of Turkey. Further, a land section will stretch for 180 km to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream in May 2017,
managed by South Stream Transport B.V. (100% subsidiary of Gazprom). The offshore section of
the pipeline runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast of Turkey. Its length is 930
km. The pipeline will be continues by a 180-km land transit line to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries. The first line will be designed for the Turkish market, the second - for
gas supply to the countries of South and Southeast Europe. The capacity of each line is 15.75
billion cubic meters of gas per year. The first deliveries are scheduled for the end of 2019.
Gazprom announced the completion of deep-sea laying of the offshore section of the first
Turkish Stream in April 2018. Turkey is Gazprom's second largest export market. Currently,
Russian energy is supplied to this country through the Blue Stream pipeline and the
Trans-Balkan gas pipeline. In 2017, Gazprom exported a record volume of gas to the Turkish
market - 29 billion cubic meters, which is 17.3% more than in 2016, and 1.7 billion cubic
meters (6.2%) more than in 2014 when the previous maximum was set (27.3 billion cubic meters).
At the end of May, Gazprom and the Turkish government signed a protocol on the land section of
the Turkish Stream pipeline transit line to supply Russian gas to European consumers. Gazprom
and the Turkish company Botas concluded an agreement on the basic conditions and parameters for
the construction of the section. Joint venture TurkAkim Gaz Tasima A. S. will carry out
construction of the land section.
Earlier, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev said that
in the near future the company would finally determine the route of the second line of the
Turkish Stream for gas supply to countries in Southern and Southeast Europe. According to him,
two main options are being discussed in accordance with the procedures in the European Union
and the European Commission. Medvedev cited Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary as
potential markets.
Gazprom's investments in the construction of the Turkish Stream for 2018 are planned at the
level of 182.4 bln rubles ($2.76 bln) against almost 93 bln rubles ($1.4 bln) in 2017. The
company estimates the cost of laying the pipeline at 7 bln euro.
The Ukies imagine they are so clever! They will waive a claim they have pretty much no chance
of ever being awarded, in return for a lesser amount of guaranteed cold, hard cash plus a
transit deal which will commit Russia to giving them at least another $20 Billion in transit
fees over 10 years. Russia should pretend to consider it, just to wind them up, and run out
the clock on the signing of a new contract. Then say, "I've decided not to after all, old
chap".
Hal,
Could you please comment on Dylan Ratigan's comment about $128
Billion being automatically pumped into the banker's hands without
public comment by Dodd Frank?
Is it the same thing as a repo? I'm a non-economist, just a
simple fellow, that's getting the hang of this con game.
I watched the Ratigan video on your recommendation and agree
it is a fundamental retelling that pulls the elements together
better than anything I'd previously seen. And I completely
agree with his assessment that this was the biggest theft in
mankind's history.
The Fed's highest stated purpose is "the integrity and
stability of the banking system". Problem is, that mission
justifies anything and everything beneath it. They are not in
the business of ensuring a bank obeys the law, and if they
break the law, even the "business law" of making terrible
business decisions, all the Fed thinks they are required to do
is make them whole.
So you have a radically anti-capitalist structure at the
tippy top of a supposedly "capitalist" system. And that's even
before you even get to any discussion of secrecy, subterfuge or
malfeasance.
Why are we not allowed to know who the recipients were of
the *$21 trillion* (GAO number) of free Fed money after 2009?
All we can do is follow the bread crumbs: we do know, for
example, that 2/3rds of those dollars went to European
institutions, including non-bank corporations. Huh? Q: That
benefits the Main St U.S. economy how, again? A: It doesn't.
This means you can pay no attention whatsoever to the ancillary
Fed "missions" around U.S. employment and economic growth.
The $128B Ratigan mentions re Dodd-Frank is just a trickle
in the tsunami of funds reaching bank coffers. Free money of
course is funding massive share buybacks, the *only* cause of
stock "rises" since 2009, but what completely infuriates me is
what banks are doing around buybacks. It's one thing if
buybacks benefit *all* shareholders, but the latest trick (esp
by Jamie Dimon) is to take free money, buy back JPM shares,
*but those shares are only given to Jamie himself and his top
managers*.
(Of course until 1982 companies borrowing money to buy back
their own shares was completely illegal since it's effect is
stock price manipulation).
Repo is just a shorter term version of all of these other
diverted flows. Completely under all radars, with no
Congressional hearings or public scrutiny or oversight.
I always love to be wrong because it means I get to
be right again. I'm not a funding market expert either,
but I hope you're just correctlng Ratigan's views on
the $128B, not the entirety of my ramble? Thx Yves
I don't write about the repo mess because the commentary on it
is generally terrible. This is not "monetizing debt". This is
"providing liquidity to the money markets" which is what the Fed is
supposed to do!!!
The Fed got itself into a corner with super low rates and QE. It
also stupidly decided to manage short term rates via interest on
reserves. Prior to 2008, the Fed intervened in the repo markets
every bloody day to hit the target rate and no one cared.
The Fed drained liquidity too fast. It's been caught out and has
had to go into reverse big time. Its refusal to admit that is why
everyone is overreacting to the liquidity injections.
Yes, MMT proponents oppose a UBI (or BGI). They want a Job
Guarantee. They argue that setting a floor on the price of labor is a
much more important way to regulate the economy than diddling with
interest rates, plus it increases the productive capacity of an
economy, which increases prosperity.
The will accept a UBI that is lower than a JG as a sort of
disability income.
Thank you for that link. It certainly sounds like real life, and they say their
models predict inequality in various countries to within 1%. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch -- in fact, all
had equal odds if they began with equal wealth. In that sense, there was equality
of opportunity. But only one of them did become the oligarch, and all the others
saw their average wealth decrease toward zero as they conducted more and more
transactions. To add insult to injury, the lower someone's wealth ranking, the
faster the decrease. once we have some variance in wealth, however minute, succeeding transactions
will systematically move a "trickle" of wealth upward from poorer agents to richer
ones, amplifying inequality until the system reaches a state of oligarchy. If the
economy is unequal to begin with, the poorest agent's wealth will probably decrease
the fastest. Where does it go? It must go to wealthier agents because there are no
poorer agents. Things are not much better for the second-poorest agent. In the long
run, all participants in this economy except for the very richest one will see
their wealth decay exponentially.
the presence of symmetry breaking puts paid to arguments for the justness of wealth
inequality that appeal to "voluntariness" -- the notion that individuals bear all
responsibility for their economic outcomes simply because they enter into
transactions voluntarily -- or to the idea that wealth accumulation must be the
result of cleverness and industriousness. It is true that an individual's location
on the wealth spectrum correlates to some extent with such attributes, but the
overall shape of that spectrum can be explained to better than 0.33 percent by a
statistical model that completely ignores them.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
It will be interesting to see how China responds in reality to the naked hegemony of the US
law just passed and signed by Trump about HK. Is China ready to stand up to the bully of dying
empire or be cowed into slicing their response even thinner and thinner but not saying NO
MORE!
We do live in interesting times.
Transferring my post to this thread, about the decline of US fertility rates:
As we all know, constant population growth is essential for the survival of
capitalism, since it is one of the main factors that slow down its tendency of the profit
rate to fall. The article seems to agree with this:
Birthrates have been trending downward overall since 2005, sparking concern about
potential economic and cultural ramifications. Keeping the number of births within a
certain range, called the "replacement level," ensures the population level will remain
stable. A low birthrate runs the risk that the country will not be able to replace the
workforce and have enough tax revenue, while a high birthrate can cause shortages of
resources.
Another related article approaches the issue from another angle:
Virginia Commonwealth University professor Dr. Steven H. Woolf and Eastern Virginia
Medical School student Heidi Schoomaker analyzed life expectancy data for the years
1959-2016 and cause-specific mortality rates for 1999-2017. The data shows that the
decline in life expectancy is not a statistical anomaly, but the outcome of a
decades-long assault on the working class.
So, this is not an "anomaly". If it isn't, then there's an underlying cause, which the
same article hypothetizes:
Obamacare was part of a deliberate drive by the ruling class to lower the life
expectancy of working people. As far as the strategists of American capitalism are
concerned, the longer the lifespan of elderly and retired workers, who no longer
produce profits for the corporations but require government-subsidized medical care to
deal with health issues, the greater the sums that are diverted from the coffers of the
rich and the military machine.
A 2013 paper by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Washington think tank Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) frankly presented the increasing longevity
of ordinary Americans as an immense crisis for US imperialism. "The US does not face
any foreign threat as serious as its failure to come to grips with the rise in the cost
of federal entitlement spending," Cordesman wrote, saying the debt crisis was driven
"almost exclusively by the rise in federal spending on major health care programs,
Social Security, and the cost of net interest on the debt."
Meanwhile, conditions for the rich have never been better. This is reflected in the
growing life expectancy gap between the rich and the poor. The richest one percent of
men live 14 years longer than the poorest one percent, and the richest one percent of
women 10 years longer than the poorest.
I wasn't aware of this CSIS report. If true, then this is indeed a very interesting
hypothesis.
--//--
The thing I don't understand in the WSWS article linked above is this:
The first nodal point, in the early 1980s, corresponds to the initiation of the social
counterrevolution by the administration of Ronald Reagan, which involved union busting,
strikebreaking, wage-cutting and plant closings on a nationwide scale, combined with cuts
in education, health care and other social programs.
So, Ronald Reagan did a "counterrevolution". That means there was a revolution before
him, which I suppose is the post-war "Keynesian consensus", the "golden age of
capitalism" of 1945-1975.
I really can't understand the logic behind the Trotskyists: they condemn the USSR and
China as "stalinists", i.e. as counterrevolutionaries. But Harry Truman was a
revolutionary? Dwight Eisenhower was a revolutionary? Clement Attlee was a revolutionary?
De Gaulle was revolutionary?
What kind of nonsense is this?
What is most funny is that these same Trotskyists from the same WSWS website use the
rise of labor strikes in China to argue China is a capitalist empire -- but uses the same
strikes as evidence there was a revolution in the West during the post-war (by negative,
since Reagan's "counterrevolution" was characterized by "union busting, strikebreaking,
wage-cutting and plant closings on a nationwide scale, combined with cuts in education,
health care and other social programs").
I think Trotskyism is having an identity crisis. They don't know if they are
essentially a movement whose objective is essentially to tarnish Stalin's image or if
they are closeted social-democrats. They forgot Trotsky fought for the revolution, not
personal vendetta.
"... the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously close to making an enemy of Europe. ..."
"... There is nothing remotely fair about carving out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas. ..."
"... American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership, which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American investors. ..."
In the U.S. Senate, they have spoken about how to block "Nord stream -- 2"
06:37 24.11.2019 (updated: 06:54 24.11.2019)
MOSCOW, 24 Nov – RIA Novosti. The U.S. Congress intends to include sanctions
against the Russian gas pipeline "Nord stream -- 2" in the 2020 defence budget, says Jim
Risch, head of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, in the latest edition of "Defense
News".
Sanctions against companies involved in the construction of the pipeline have been
included in a draft law "On National Defense for 2020", said Rish. "The reason for this step
is that the window of opportunity is closings. Most of "Nord stream" has already been
constructed", said the Senator. However, he expressed the opinion that the sanctions "will
convince" the construction company to stop work on the project because the American
restrictions "will cost them dearly".
If sanctions are included in the US defence budget, companies involved in the
construction of Nord Stream 2 will close, and Russia will, supposedly, have to look for other
contractors, says Riesch.
However, he noted that the House of Representatives and the Senate have not yet reached a
final agreement on the bill as a whole.
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in late July to pass a bill on
sanctions against Nord Stream 2. It was prepared by Republican Senator Ted Cruise and
Democrat Gene Shahin, and, in particular, involves a ban on the entry into the United States
and the freezing of US assets under the jurisdiction of persons involved in the "sale, lease,
provision or assistance in providing" ships for laying at sea Russian pipelines at a depth of
30 metres.
For the bill to enter into force, it must be approved by the House of Representatives
and the US Senate, as well as US President Donald Trump.
Let the Liberty Bell ring out loud! -- albeit that it is cracked and was never rung on 4th
July, 1776, but, as usual, bullshit baffles brains!
And that'd be Jean Shaheen; the translation managed to get both her name and her gender
wrong.
As I have said before now, the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously
close to making an enemy of Europe. It has made it clear it is trying to restrict Europe's
energy choices to American LNG or American LNG.
There is nothing remotely fair about carving
out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say
it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across
Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not
restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas.
But Washington still aims to control Ukraine
and use it as a bastion against Russia, and if it can arrange things so that Russian gas must
pass across Ukraine under American control, why, it can conjure stoppages and interruptions
of service at its pleasure, as well as helping Ukraine to jack up transit fees so that Russia
must either raise its gas prices until American LNG is competitive, or sell at a loss.
American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no
choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership,
which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American
investors.
Except when he says "we all", he is talking about less than ten thousand people in a country
of 147 million. Yes, few Russians get to breathe the rarefied air of true mental clarity.
So far as I am aware, the latest offer on the table is still for a one-year extension of
the current contract, although Russia did agree to drop legal claims and counter-claims
between itself and Ukraine, in which Russia claimed Ukraine underpaid/did not pay at all for
gas it received. Ukraine has thus far not replied.
Moscow has made some concessions, but there has been no movement at all toward a long-term
contract that I have seen. I maintain that a cold winter of frozen bums in Europe would offer
a salutary effect. Russia is actually better-placed to deliver LNG by vessel than the USA, as
well, as it is much closer.
There must be a limit to European loyalty to the USA in the face of conditions so markedly
against its interests, a limit to how much shit it will smear on its own face to keep its
partner happy and amused.
Apparently U-ropean gas storage networks are full, not to mention that there has been heavy
investment in the Austrian Baumgarten storage network, Germany, France, infact just about
everywhere except the UK (coz the French will store it for them and sell the gas back at a
nice mark up)
Ukraine has already stated publicly that although its own gas storage bunkers are full, that
amount will not likely carry it through the winter if there is an interruption owing to
non-renewal of the gas contract, and if the winter is cold and harsh as usual. I imagine
Europe is the same; storage facilities are not so extensive that they could take the entire
region through a cold winter.
Not surprising that Navalny and his ilk oppose Nord Stream. They oppose anything that is good
for Russia. They don't seem to be interested in developing russia into a better place, but
tear it apart and ruin it from within. It is rather odd that Russia has these types of people
as "opposition politicians". People who hate their own country and don't even pretend to hide
their hatred.
I don't see them that dangerous though because they seem to lack wider support and Russia is
not currently facing any troubles that would turn people against the current rulers.
And I'm not saying that Russia is ruled by a very competent government currently. The economy
should be growing a lot faster than it has been growing for the past ten years. But the
current government is still 100x better than Navalny would be. He would probably bring down
Russia even worse than Yeltsin did.
"Naftogaz" has promised turn off the gas valve
03:01 28.11.2019 (updated: 10:45 28.11.2019)
KIEV, November 28 – RIA Novosti. The Ukraine does not intend to shut off the gas
valve, even if Russia fails to sign a new contract on gas transportation, Executive Director
of "Naftogaz of the Ukraine", Yuriy Vitrenko, has said in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
In his opinion, the valve will be turned off by Gazprom, not Naftogaz.
"But I remind you, that in a letter sent by Gazprom to Naftogaz, in black and white
[it states] that on January 1st at 10 am Moscow time Gazprom has no reason to keep the gas
flowing in the direction of the Ukraine", he said.
So you Russia is going to hold Europe to ransom, not the Ukraine, right?
What happened to all the leverage Ukraine gained by its blinding victory in Swiss
arbitration? They should be able to lead Moscow around by the nose now.
"... Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now, Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this amount through Ukraine, forever. ..."
"... The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure? ..."
The appeal court in Sweden has refused to satisfy the appeal of "Gazprom" in a dispute
with the Ukrainian concern "Naftogaz", according to Tass. Executive Director of "Naftogaz of
Ukraine" Yuriy Vitrenko on "Facebook" called the decision a "complete victory".
"Complete victory, Ukraine wins again! We won the appeal at the first complaint of
"Gazprom" the decision of the Stockholm arbitration!" said his statement.
It is anticipated that decisions in two other cases in court between the same parties
will be taken in 2020.
The Stockholm arbitration court in December 2017 and February 2018 issued decisions on
disputes between Gazprom and Naftogaz in respect of contracts for supply and transit of gas,
obliging as a result, Russian the Ukrainian company to pay more than $ 2.5 billion. Gazprom
appealed against the decision in March 2018, and in May demanded the complete abolition of
the "transient" solution.
Ukraine allegedly offered to do a deal in which they would not drop their claim of being
owed $2.5 Billion by Gazprom, but would take it in free gas. They say they have not had a
reply yet. The same article suggests Russia would be perfectly happy to just run out the
clock. Even happier now, I would think.
A few interesting figures are included in the article. For one, the author claims that in
order to completely circumvent Ukraine for gas delivery to Europe, it would need pipeline
capacity of 230 BcM. Here's how it breaks down – Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to
Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now,
Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining
at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's
requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this
amount through Ukraine, forever.
The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is
growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial
threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would
bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing
nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure?
The way I see it, Russia has a couple of options; it can just let the clock run out, carry
on with Nord Stream II, and pump everything it can right to capacity, without any going
through Ukraine. That would leave it about 5 BcM short, obviously with no reserve capability.
The USA could be invited to make that shortfall up with its Molecules of Freedom. But that
relies on Merkel not suddenly deciding to slap more restrictions on Nord Stream II so that it
could not pump to its full capacity – she has apparently said all along that Nord
Stream II will not be allowed unless some gas continues to go through Ukraine – the
obvious clash of wills is that Russia is trying to ensure that amount is as small as
possible, while the west and Ukraine are trying to ensure that amount is as large as
possible.
Another option is for Russia to speed up and intensify its own LNG-export capability, and
perhaps it can make up the shortfall with its own LNG carriers. Either way, it is plain the
Ukies think they have Russia by the balls, and can dictate terms as they like – perhaps
they will even add the return of Crimea to their demands for a gas deal, they seem to feel so
confident. Let's see how it plays out; only a couple of weeks remain to get a deal done, and
it's everyone against Russia.
The look on Vitrenko's face will be priceless if the Russians just close up their
briefcases and go home. Not to mention the look on Sefcovic's face. Not to mention the jump
in gas prices in Europe.
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... this is why the US went into Afghanistan, to get in between China & Iran ..."
"... The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from to dominate the region. ..."
From the moment that the U.S. re-imposed sanctions in earnest on Iran late last year,
Pakistan has been looking at ways to resuscitate a deal that had been agreed in principle
before the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) last
May. This deal involved moving as much gas as Pakistan needs from Iran's Asalouyeh into
Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah for further transit if required. At the same time,
China has been in long-running discussions with Pakistan over the specific projects that
Beijing wanted to place in Pakistan as part of its 'One Belt, One Road' (OBOR) programme. All
the while, the U.S. has been
trying to stymie any such arrangement but OilPrice.com understands that the
Iran-China-Pakistan deal is now back on, and with a vengeance.
China's covert strategic deals are virtually always buried in interminably long anodyne
statements that belie the true laser-focused intentions of Beijing and this time is no
different. Joint statements just over a week ago from both Pakistan and China sides laid out
four projects that are part of a 'broader co-operation' between China and Pakistan. They all
sound relatively run-of-the-mill affairs, although still major undertakings, and are: the
upgrading of the Pakistan Refinery Karachi, the building out of a coal to liquid engineering
plant based on Thar coal at Thar Sindh, the utilisation of Thar Block VI for coal gasification
and fertiliser projects, and the finalisation of the feasibility study on South-North Gas
Pipeline Project that traverses Pakistan.
The fact that they are much more significant to the global geopolitical balance was
evidenced by the U.S.'s furious warnings to Pakistan, based on the fact that all of these
projects are in reality a key part of Beijing's planned China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
(CPEC), which, in turn, is a cornerstone of the OBOR initiative. Even as it was, U.S. South
Asia diplomat, Alice Wells, warned that CPEC – which, vitally, includes heavy financing
from Beijing and, therefore, a massive debt obligation to China by the host country over time
– will only profit Beijing. As it stands, the cost of just the first round of CPEC
projects has risen from an initial costing of US$48 billion to at least US$62 billion right
now. "It's clear, or it needs to be clear, that CPEC is not about aid," said Wells. "[The CPEC]
corridor is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy, especially when the bulk of
payments start to come due in the next four to six years," she added. "Even if loan payments
are deferred, they are going to continue to hang over Pakistan's economic development
potential, hamstringing Prime Minister [Imran] Khan's reform agenda," she underlined.
The U.S.'s fury would have been much worse if it knew that, in fact, the 'finalisation of
the feasibility study on South-North Gas Pipeline Project' whilst true, is just proverbially
the tip of the iceberg. "The actual plan is to resuscitate the Iran-Pakistan oil and gas
pipelines over time, beginning with the gas pipeline, moving unlimited amounts of Iranian gas
to Pakistan, and then into China and the rest of Asia should it be needed," a senior source who
works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry told OilPrice.com last week. "It is being done in
conjunction with Russia, with the twin aims of firstly ensuring that China's 'One Belt, one
Road' initiative continues to run smoothly from the East through Pakistan and then Westwards
into Iran and onwards into Europe," he said. "And, secondly, to ensure for Russia that Iran's
gas does not start flowing freely into Europe as and when the U.S. sanctions are lifted, as
this would undermine Russia's power over Europe, which is founded on supplying over a third of
Europe's gas," he added.
For China, the new pipeline – integral to its plan of making Iran and Pakistan its
client states over time – has the added benefit of putting the U.S. on the backfoot in
the ongoing trade war. For Iran, the incentives of closer ties with China and Russia are
principally financial but also relate to China being just one of five Permanent Members on the
U.N. Security Council (the others being Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and France). For Pakistan
as well there is the added incentive that it is tired of being lambasted by the U.S. for its
duplicity in dealing with international terrorism. Not that long ago, the U.S. accused Pakistan
of supporting the Taliban (correct but it was catalysed by the U.S.'s key Middle Eastern
'ally', Saudi Arabia), Al Qaeda (correct but catalysed, funded and logistically supported by
the Saudis), the Haqqani network (correct but also funded and logistically supported by the
Saudis), and Islamic State (sort of correct but that was also mainly, of course, the Saudis)
against U.S. forces, despite taking hundreds of billions of dollars in aid payments.
Islamabad has also been an outspoken critic of renewed U.S.
sanctions against Iran. Just after the first wave of the new sanctions were rolled out on 7
August last year, Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Faisal said that: "We are
examining the implications of the U.S.'s re-imposed sanctions on Iran, however, Pakistan, being
a sovereign state, reserves the right to pursue legitimate economic and commercial interests
while respecting the international legal regime." Later, in his inaugural speech as Pakistan's
then-new Prime Minister, Imran Khan, called for improving ties with the country's immediate
neighbours, including Iran, from whose President, Hassan Rouhani, he also accepted an
invitation for an early state visit to Tehran. Bubbling back at that time to the top of the
list of practical initiatives that could be advanced quickly was the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline
(IPP), which, according to the Iran source: "[Imran] Khan personally backs and has made a
priority project."
In practical terms, Pakistan certainly needs all the sustainable energy sources it can get.
As it stands, the country has seen domestic natural gas production stagnate at around 4 billion
cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) against demand of more than 6 Bcf/d, which has led to repeated load
shedding in many major cities of up to 15 hours a day. Moreover, the supply and demand
disparity is set to become even worse very soon, as industry estimates project that Pakistan's
domestic gas production is set to fall to nearer 2 Bcf/d by 2020, due to aging infrastructure,
whilst demand will rise to around 8 Bcf/d by the same time, driven by rising demand from the
power, industry, and domestic sectors as the economy continues to grow by around 5% per year.
According to Pakistan's Ministry of Energy (MoE), the planned 0.75 Bcf/d of gas (for five
years, in the first instance) that would flow from Iran's supergiant South Pars natural gas
field would add around 4,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity into the Pakistan grid, via a direct
Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
The original agreement for the IPP, signed between Iran and Pakistan in 1995, was predicated
on the pipeline running from Iran's supergiant South Pars non-associated natural gas field into
Karachi but the most recent iteration of the route involves the gas running from Iran's
Asalouyeh and into Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah. The latest projection of the
cost of the pipeline is around US$3.5 billion, according to industry sources, although US$2.5
billion of this has already been invested in the 900 kilometre stretch on Iran's side that has
already been completed. Pakistan's 780 kilometre stretch has yet to be started.
Given the geopolitical importance of both Iran and Pakistan to Russia and China, though, as
analysed in greater depth in my
new book on the global oil markets , finding the money for the remainder of the project
will not be a problem at all For China, there is a threefold motivation. First, its plans to
integrate the IPP into the CPEC project means that Gwadar is earmarked to be a key logistical
node in China's 'One Belt, One Road' initiative. Second, it wants to keep Iran as one of its
key suppliers of oil and gas in the future. And third, it regards supporting those who the U.S.
opposes as being a central plank of its foreign policy, even over and above the short-term
tactic of wrong-footing the U.S. in the ongoing trade war. "One immediate reaction [of China to
the burgeoning trade war with the US], will be to seek to expand and broaden economic links by
offering improved market access to non-U.S. companies, by strengthening supply chain links and
by replacing American commodities with imports from emerging market nations," according to
Jonathan Fenby, China research chairman at TS Lombard, in London.
"There is a tectonic shift going on that goes well beyond the tariff war, as China
seeks to assert itself regionally and tries to establish a wider global role for itself while
the U.S. moves from the 'constructive engagement' of the Clinton, Bush and Obama
administrations to regarding China as a 'strategic competitor'," he added. The U.S. clearly
sees it the same way, not just based on the latest comments by Wells but also on the fact that
as long ago as January 2010, the U.S. formally requested that Pakistan abandon the project in
return for which it would receive assistance from Washington for the construction of a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and for the importing of electricity from Tajikistan
through Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor.
The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave
Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its
surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from
to dominate the region.
So in twenty years time we might see a story how some young soldier has just arrived
in-country to Afghanistan who will be proud that his grandfather took part in the original
invasion and that he is now following in his grandfather's and father's footsteps.
China, the new world-engineers, has gotta be looking at Pakistan as an industrial water
source. They're probably already building several dams to catch the runoff. Perhaps mining
too – same mountains as Afghanistan, just the other side, no?
China has the money and
manpower. Iran the energy. In fact, we could be thinking the same thing.
Ambassador Wells' warning "..is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy,
especially when the bulk of payments start to come due.." indicates the lack of a mirror in
the State Dept or a copy of the text of the 13th IMF 'bailout' signed last July.
The major forecasters see an oil supply surplus next year, but those bearish outlooks
largely depend on the health of U.S. shale growth in 2020, an assumption that is looking
increasingly fanciful.
Financial struggles are well-known, but the dominoes continue to fall. As Bloomberg
reported , some drillers have recently seen their credit lines reduced, limiting their
access to fresh capital. Twice a year in the spring and fall, banks reassess their credit lines
to shale drillers, and decide how much they will authorize companies to borrow. This time
around is expected to be the first time in roughly three years that lenders tighten up lending
capacities.
The curtailment in lending comes at a time when scrutiny on shale finances is increasing.
Share prices have fallen sharply this year as investors lose interest. The industry continues
to burn
cash , and lenders and investors shunning the industry.
Of course, if drillers cannot borrow to cover their financing gaps, they may be forced into
bankruptcy. The cutting of the borrowing base "can be a good precursor to potential bankruptcy
because as capital markets stay closed off for these companies, the borrowing base serves as
the only source of liquidity," Billy Bailey, Saltstone Capital Management LLC portfolio
manager, told Bloomberg.
Not every company is entirely cut off from capital markets. As Liam Denning
points out , Diamondback Energy was able to issue $3 billion in new bonds at low interest
rates, which highlights the case of "haves and have nots" within the industry.
But the financial stress helps explain the slowdown in U.S. oil production this year. The
U.S. added about 2 million barrels per day (mb/d) between January 2018 and the end of last
year; but output is only up a few hundred thousand barrels per day in 2019 from January through
August.
Confusingly, the IEA still forecasts a substantial increase in U.S. oil production in 2020
at 1.2 mb/d, but not
everyone agrees with that optimistic outlook. The credit crunch and financial stress in the
shale sector could lead to a disappointment in 2020.
It is against this bewildering backdrop that OPEC+ must decide its next move. The IEA says
that OPEC+ is in for some trouble as a supply glut looms – in large part because of shale
growth. Others agree, to be sure. Commerzbank said that OPEC's efforts to focus on laggards
such as Iraq and Nigeria will be insufficient. "It is a mystery why OPEC should believe that it
can avoid this oversupply by making just a few cosmetic adjustments," the investment bank said.
"By early next year at the latest OPEC thus risks being rudely awakened."
However, at the same time, the physical market is showing some slightly bullish signs. In
the oil futures market, front-month contracts for Brent are
trading at a premium to longer-dated ones. The six-month premium rose to $3.50 per barrel
recently, up from $1.90 last month,
Reuters reports. A large premium is typically associated with a tighter market.
Moreover, there is a chance of a thaw in the U.S.-China trade war, which could provide some
tailwinds to the global economy. It's become impossible to trust the daily rumors coming from
Washington and Beijing, but the two sides have shown some desire to at least call a truce and
not step up the tariffs.
Still, the economy has slowed. The OECD
warned that global GDP will decelerate to just 2.9 percent this year, and remain within a
2.9-3.0 percent range through 2021. This is the weakest rate of growth in a decade, and is down
sharply from the 3.8 percent seen last year. "Two years of escalating conflict over tariffs,
principally between the US and China, has hit trade, is undermining business investment and is
putting jobs at risk," the OECD said.
The U.S. and China, then, have a great deal of influence over the near-term prospects for
oil. As mentioned, there is still a wide range of opinions on the magnitude of the oil supply
surplus in 2020, but a breakthrough in the trade war would immediately shift growth
projections, oil demand trajectories, and, importantly, sentiment. Even the mere expectation of
an economic rebound would send oil prices rising, at least for a little while.
On the other hand, the thaw in the trade war is far from inevitable. The two sides have
shown little evidence, if any, that they are actually making progress on some of the structural
issues at hand. There is still the possibility that the talks fall apart and the trade war
marches on, or even grows worse.
Because it is generally assumed that the oil market has already factored in some degree of
optimism around tariff reduction, which has likely added a few dollars to the barrel of oil, a
reassessment to the downside would surely send oil prices tumbling.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
The problem is that the most lucrative deposits in the North Sea are already exhausted. What is left is higher cost oil, which
might not be economically feasable to extract with prices below at least $70 per barrel.
The uncertainty of the future of Brexit has left the United Kingdom's economy in stagnation
as business investment falters on the eve of the nation's December general election. While
Boris Johnson tries to rally voters to instill their confidence in him to usher in a new era of
economic prosperity and growth in Britain by way of leaving the European Union at any cost, the
economy is, in fact, doing just the opposite. This is just one of the great ironies of Brexit,
the separatist movement that just can't seem to cut the cord.
... ... ...
What 's more, with the complexity of modern transnational supply chains, nothing is simple
and absolutely nothing is isolated. This has led to hesitant investment in a great number of UK
industries including North Sea oil, since, as the UK's Press and Journal puts it, "
with Brexit looming, the North Sea supply chain is only as good as its weakest link ."
The
article goes on to say that "key factors such as licensing and taxation of oil and gas
exploration, development and production activities are already UK government responsibilities,
while the legal and regulatory regime under the Petroleum Act 1998 is generally regarded as
satisfactory. [...] While expectations for this year are optimistic, the added complication of
Brexit could impede recovery. As a consequence of the downturn the market is now oversupplied,
except in a few specialised areas."
As long as Brexit drama continues, uncertainty and a lack of trust in the British economy
will continue to fester, continuing the cycle of economic downturn and inflation in the UK.
This means that North Sea investors, one of the UK's more important economic sectors,
undoubtedly see the writing on the wall and are already looking for foreign failsafes if they
haven't secured them already.
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
Islam is not the angloamerican's problem, it's their creation (as in they made it into a
problem). It serves their interest in keeping the oil rich Middle Eastern countries divided
among tribal and sectarian lines and ruled by backward cryptotheocratic despotic dynasties.
The fundamentalist extremist jihadists can be sicked on Europe, Southern Russia and Western
China, to upset society when required by strategic interests.
You totally disregard my objection that there is no need for the Russians to become
aggressive towards (the rest of) Europe. Good trade relations are their best interest. If and
when Europe would socially and economically collapse, they would rather keep the problems
out, instead of getting sucked in themselves.
Brilliant! Acting Ambassador Bill Taylor's testimony today was unabashed and explicit: the
real issue is how best to bring Ukraine into the Western orbit–a bipartisan 30-year
effort.
For a follow-up, dig deeper into Burisma Holdings and its strange set of directors: Hunter
Biden, Devon Archer, Cofer Black, Alan Apter, and the former president of Poland, among
others. Then Google "Burisma and LNG," as in liquified natural gas.
That will lead to the
business press: Forbes 9/30/2019, Reuters 8/30/2019, and Petroleum Economist 8/8/2017.
The
apparent plan, still in process, is to ship U.S. LNG to Ukraine via a port on the Baltic
coast of Poland, thereby weaning Ukraine away from Russian natural gas and hurting Russia's
export-dependent economy. Cold War II stuff. Check it out.
The EU sees US leadership failing while the Russian beast to its east are getting stronger. The lessons of Russia wielding power
over Ukraine by cutting off energy supplies have been noted: energy security is a long-term threat to the EU and Russia is on the
verge of controlling Middle Eastern supplies as well. Furthermore, the lessons of China's economic successes through non-democratic
government control will also have been noted as something for European statists to emulate.
The EU's response to the energy threat from Russia has been to adopt a radical green agenda without reservation. Despite about
98% of transport and logistics being delivered by diesel and gasoline, some member states in the EU are banning the sales of internal
combustion engines as motive power from as soon as 2030 . This accelerated path to zero emissions will require massive investment.
Clearly this is being viewed as economically stimulative at a time of declining optimism over the general economic outlook.
These views are articulated in UNCTAD's Trade and Development Report 2019, Financing a Global Green Deal [iii]. The authors argue
that internationally coordinated action between governments pursuing reflationary monetary and fiscal policies, while restricting
international capital flows, will generate the economic growth and capture the resources to finance the investment. The charts below
are indicative of their thinking, and are copied from Page 56 of the report.
Excellent laying out of the situation but little in the way of digestible solutions. Demonizing Russia as "the Beast" is both
unhelpful and shows a prejudice of the author shared by the genuinely evil powers of the world. Russia has a huge interest in
keeping Europe as an energy trading partner. The troubles with Ukraine were due to the US / Globalist efforts in that country
to destabilize a competitor (Russia) in their global hegemonic bid.
Russia is well led and debt free. The gold backed crypto is well underway in that country but was not mentioned in this otherwise
breathy article. Crypto is a bridge too far at the moment for general consumption. I am betting on a return to a fractional gold
tie down. The mis-leaders and the bankers will not enjoy having their print-fest party spoiled but it is the only practical solution
and carries the much desired mechanism of tying their dirty hands.
Debt is the noose which will hang the central banks and this hanging needs to be done in public whether 5% or 50% of the people
understand it. Some people will only understand how the system works when Starbucks declines their cattle card.
Again pathetic assholes making plans against Russia.
It is a terrible shame: only two countries at the UN opposed Russia's resolution on the fight against Nazism.
The third committee of the UN General Assembly on social and humanitarian issues by a majority vote adopted a draft Russian
resolution to combat the glorification of Nazism. Thanks to this initiative, radical groups can have big problems.
Representatives of 121 countries supported the idea of Russian diplomats. As expected, only two countries voted against -
the United States and Ukraine. Another 55 countries abstained from voting.
No wonder. Americans are behind any Nazism. Hitler's fascism in particular, they grew up in the hope of inciting Hitler to the
USSR. Well, Ukro-Nazis today are the favorite Nazi whores of Americans. Therefore, such results: the owner and his whore.
As Nikita Khrushchev said, we did not finish you off near Stalingrad, but we will finish you off!
The US openly occupies parts of Syria, boasts of taking it resources and supported the
attempts of the Kurds to set up their own little state, until the Turks blew a hissy fit.
And
yet it has the gall to call out what Russia does in the Ukraine as a breach of international
law.
US military commanders overseeing Syria operations are still waiting for precise
battlefield orders from the White House and Pentagon on their exact mission to protect
oilfields in eastern Syria, according to a defense official directly familiar with the
matter.
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria,
publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers
to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their
mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission
is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still
being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in
the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against
in the oilfields.
Everything the Trump administration has done in Syria has been horribly confused, so it
makes sense that the latest version of the policy would be baffling to our own troops. U.S.
commanders lack clarity about the mission because it was cooked up to appeal to the president's
desire for plundering other countries' resources. It was thrown together on the spur of the
moment as an excuse to keep U.S. troops in Syria no matter what, and now those troops are stuck
there with no instructions and no idea what they are expected to do. This is the worst kind of
unnecessary military mission, because it is being carried out simply to keep a U.S. foothold in
Syria for its own sake. The "critical details" aren't being worked out so much as a plausible
justification after the fact is being conjured out of thin air. There is no reason for these
troops to be there, and there is nothing that they can do there legally, but the administration
will come up with some bad argument to keep them there anyway.
Meanwhile, Trump is very proud of his clownish, illegal Syria policy:
Trump labors under the delusion that the oil is ours to "distribute." which everyone else
knows to be false. The oil belongs to the Syrian government, and that oil can't be sold and
revenues from those sales cannot be used without the permission of the government that owns it.
Syria's oil resources are not that great, and the infrastructure of many of the fields has been
damaged or destroyed, so if it were legal to loot the spoils there wouldn't be very much to
loot. The president thinks that seizing Syrian oil is worth boasting about, but in reality it
is one of the most absurd and indefensible reasons for deploying troops abroad. In addition to
damaging the country's international standing with allied and friendly governments with this
open thievery, Trump's "take the oil" fixation is a propaganda coup for hostile governments and
groups. As Paul Pillar pointed out last week, it plays into the
hands of jihadist groups and aids them in their recruitment:
Trump's Sunday appearance before the press played right into this theme. Referring back to
the Iraq War, Trump described as his own view at the time that if the United States was going
into Iraq, it should "keep the oil." As for Syria's oil, he said it can help the Kurds but
"it can help us because we should be able to take some also. And what I intend to do,
perhaps, is make a deal with an Exxon Mobil or one of our great companies to go in there and
do it properly." A propagandist for ISIS or al-Qaeda would hardly have written the script
differently.
Keeping troops in Syria to "take the oil" is divorced from genuine American security
interests just like any other unnecessary military intervention. The president is exposing U.S.
military personnel to unnecessary risk, and he is also putting them in legal jeopardy by
ordering them to commit what is essentially the war crime of pillaging. The president has
managed to take a Syria policy that was already incoherent and chaotic and he has made it even
worse.
I agree with you 100% on Trump and Syrian oil. It is smoke and mirrors forced by the
resistance of the Elites. I think Trump knows - and accepts - that grabbing to oil is not
viable and that the US will be forced eventually to relinquish it, but it would be
domestically too difficult to do so at the moment.
i wonder if they're turkish or usa arms that were given these goons? the usa is being
attacked by weapons that gave to the friendly moderate headchoppers? the irony is rich if
so...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
yeah, perhaps. President Assad has an interesting perspective on occupation ...a
much more profound and apparently longer view (from a recent interview )
Journalist:returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular,
President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in
Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the
Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this
regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence
President Assad:Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the
Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is
the same. Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with
the reality. When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we
reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and
say that we will send the army to face the Americans. We are talking about a super power. Do
we have the capabilities to do that? I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. Do we
choose resistance? If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their
fate in Iraq. But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the
opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of
resistance. The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary
conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to
one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of
certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents
which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents
of foreigners – Syrian traitors. Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with
the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. We should be dealing with those
Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore
patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. To
ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a
mere difference over a political issue. We should all be united against occupation. When we
reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they
will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be
able to remain in Syria. This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq
at a later stage. I think this is the right solution
I think Trump has been being loud and blunt about America taking Syria's oil precisely
because he knows that it is neither legal nor viable. If he can establish the narrative that
all it is now about is oil then the US will be forced to do as Trump has wanted all along and
leave Syria.
Reverse psychology.
The role the American President is supposed to be playing for the empire right now
is pushing the narrative of a need for more humanitarian murder and
downplaying/dismissing any suggestion that the US is in Syria for any reason other than pure
altruism. Trump outright stating that the US is going to take the oil is utterly destroying
the only narratives that the US can use to stay in Syria.
That is much more clever than I had ever given Trump credit for being.
> [Lt.Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as
an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce
a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. <
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC staffer
who Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad
construct :
> Any involvement by Mr. Patel in Ukraine issues would signal another attempt by Mr.
Trump's political loyalists to go around American policymakers to shape policy toward Kiev.
<
Former U.S. supplied proxy forces kill other former U.S. supplied proxy forces with U.S.
supplied weapons (video):
Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ @CalibreObscura -
8:24
PM · Nov 2, 2019
TFSA hitting a YPG/SDF vehicle (Humvee?) with a likely originally US-supplied BGM-71 TOW
ATGM. video
> [Lt.Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as
an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to
coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. <
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC
staffer who Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad
construct :
> Any involvement by Mr. Patel in Ukraine issues would signal another attempt by Mr.
Trump's political loyalists to go around American policymakers to shape policy toward Kiev.
<
Former U.S. supplied proxy forces kill other former U.S. supplied proxy forces with U.S.
supplied weapons (video):
Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ @CalibreObscura
- 8:24 PM · Nov 2,
2019
TFSA hitting a YPG/SDF vehicle (Humvee?) with a likely originally US-supplied BGM-71 TOW
ATGM. video
From Caitlin Johnstone's piece...
"We were told that the US must intervene in Syria because the Syrian government was
massacring its people. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria in order to promote
freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria
because Assad used chemical weapons. We were told that the US must occupy Syria to fight
ISIS. We were told that the US must continue to occupy Syria to counter Iranian influence. We
were told the US must continue to occupy Syria to protect the Kurds. Now the US must continue
to occupy Syria because of oil."
US is in Syria for Israel. Keeping the Syrian oil now is about covering the cost of US
long term occupation of the Syrian border for Israel.
Now to see if Trump can come out of the Iraq color revolution holding Iraq's oil. Whatever
the outcome in Iraq, the current operation against it has prevented Iraq making any noises
about what US is doing in Syria and US access of border crossings into Syria.
Iran warned months ago it would take further action to free itself from JCPOA restrictions
if Europe was not going to stand up to USA bullying and that is supposed to happen later this
week. That would likely mean the initiation of the "snap back" process to reimpose UN
sanctions.
We should see some sort of resolution of the Israeli election. Netanyahu's former Defense
Minister is the key decision-maker. Will he bend the knee or force a third election?
I might be willing to explore how democracy is being endangered (by endorsing anything) if I
could find any example of democracy beyond a ham-radio club or boy scout patrol.
The deep state, and every state shallow deep or in-between, "limits" democracy... This is
the essence of all states. And this limitation means that the "democracy" is essentially a
fraud, a deception, a ringer, a method of "perception management" - a way of making the mark
believe in the con.
I don't mind this reality, it's normal and probably a good thing (think about it).
But I do object to the implications, such as, inter alia, that democracy exists in reality
on any significant scale, and that it's desirable - and worst of all, that's it's not a
costume - wizard of oz time boys and girls?
You bet... Now go watch the magic show and stop thinking...
Newer estimates bet on USD 1.7 trn -- much less than the earlier ones. The process will be
slow ("very cautious") and it's not disclosed if they will be negotiated at the LSE or Wall
Street.
The capitalists bet on China capitulating to a "capitalist reform" and opening up its
precious productive chains and financial sector to open exploitation by Western capital. It
didn't happen and now they will sack Saudi wealth. Saudi Arabia will have to "take one for
the team"; as a sweetener, they will probably receive nuclear energy technology from the
Americans (a technology which, as we already know, can be adapted to develop nuclear
weapons).
This notion of USA profiting from the oil is a smokescreen. It seems much more likely that
the oil will be used by, any profits received by, whatever local Syrian organization USA
approves of.
Notice that CJ doesn't cite Israel among the many reasons for USA to stay - despite
Trump's having done so (he did!). And, while she attacks USA's evil intentions, she's careful
not to support Assad ( "I'm not an Assadist -- he's a Caitlinist" ).
I see Joshua Landis' twitter says "In 2012, Erdogan asked al Assad to put Muslim Brothers
into his Cabinet. When al Assad refused, the former minister said, Erdogan made clear that he
would back all efforts to remove the president and replace him with Islamists."
"Turkey May Have Stepped Into Its Own 'Endless War' in Syria"
Ok... and now an entirely unrelated coincidence...Cosmic disaster: Massive fire ravages
astronomy center in Turkish capital (VIDEO)
Also worthy of note is Pat Lang's censorship of a comment that made about how bogus
Russiagate and Ukrainegate are.
Both the Left and the Right love the partisan food fight that distracts and entertains the
masses. LOL.
But it wasn't enough to simply delete the comment, he felt it necessary to smear me, first
as a bitter old pensioner, then as a marxist: A
rule about comments and commenters .
Gabbard. I read the OFF act today. Compared to AOC's Green New Deal, my take.
AOC is more mainstream than TG., third-wayer USA style, supports Sanders (OK.. in the pol
landscape..) and is more influential / accepted in the establishment. Gabbard far better, on
anti-war and other.
A brief look at climate + energy.
Both are pie-in-the sky and 'claim' meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the
United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.
AOC p.7.. TG similar.
Both propose an aim of "zero carbon emissions" or "net zero carbon" by 2035. (not the same
thing of course, but much is confused...)
AOC includes very sweeping societal aims (green jobs etc.), international collab,
education, and even:
ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair
competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies
Heh! in the US?
..but is prudent in its language, the phrase as much as technologically feasible is
used v. often. Ex.
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is techno-
logically feasible ..
AOC promotes removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere aka,'new' carbon
capture tech (p. 9.)
*Vs.* TG, the language is clear, the position hard and logically consistent, a "zero
carbon economy, using only renewable generation by 2035", > all electric, as nuclear power
is also verboten.
/ -- How and where the electric energy is produced, stored, delivered to the end user, is
not addressed by either bills. Both are against nuclear. These are pol. discourses, and not
based on any analysis of 'energy' -- /
TG OFF act is more sympathetic imho in the sense that it details impacts on poor
communities and that these must be adressed, reversed. Many of the points in it are excellent
(but only tangentially linked to energy policy.. or climate..), she wants to stop / reverse
harm, vs. AOC who touts fantastico green jobs.
Jackrabbit "And, while she attacks USA's evil intentions, she's careful not to support Assad
("I'm not an Assadist -- he's a Caitlinist")."
This seems common amongst those that identify as green or progressive and not just on
Syria and Assad. Assange was similar.
Not long back, I was reading the twitter accounts of a few young and foolish journalists that
believed the crap put out by the likes of bellingcrap, so went to Syria to report on the
'revolution'. They ended up featuring in snuff movies but their twitter accounts are still
open.
Robert Reich:
Thanks to Trump's trade wars, US farm bankruptcies in Sept. soared to 24% -- highest level
since 2011. Nearly 40% of projected farm profit this year will come from trade aid,
disaster assistance, & federal subsidies. Farm aid has now cost more than double the
2009 auto bailout.
thanks b! it's always interesting and thought provoking..
regarding the M. K. BHADRAKUMAR article on nord 2, it seems to me that the coming together
of russia and europe is only a matter of time.. as much as the usa would like to impede this,
i can't see them being successful.. fact is russia is a part of europe! trying to keep them
separate can't work.. new world order...
@7 jackrabbit.. i think where you and i differ is in that you will take a shred of truth -
a molehill - and make a mountain out of it.. that's what it looks like with the cj analysis..
i have to say it seems you do the same with the deep state too.. sure there is some truth to
what you say, but i think your conclusions are wrong mostly because who make a mountain out
of a mole hill.. but regardless, i still appreciate how attached you are to your mountains -
but i just don't see it like you..
@12 noirette... thanks for sharing your perspective on all that! it seems to me AOC has
been given the fast track hard sell in the msm, where as TG has been given the cold
shoulder... someone is really preening AOC for future exploitation as i see it.. i could be
wrong.. i have said this before as well..
Forgetful Biden gave an interview with the WSJ. He speaks for Israel. The same Israel's plan
of some 45 years ago: break up the surrounding countries into warring statelets and we can
live and steal in peace; piece by piece.
[.] Leaving troops behind like [Trump's] doing now – he says that what he wants to do
is we're going to occupy the oil fields and we're going to take 'em. That's like a giant
300-foot recruiting poster for ISIS," Biden said, speaking to the Wall Street Journal.[.]
"Russia's position in the region has just been strengthened. [Syrian President
Bashar] Assad's position has been strengthened. Iran now has a pathway all the way to Syria
and even to Lebanon. If I'm the Israelis I'm not going to be very happy about that. So the
whole thing has been turned upside down and we're in there alone now, basically," the
former vice president said.[.]
Timber Sycamore
During his tenure as Barack Obama's vice president, Biden was a key supporter of sending
US arms to the militants fighting against Damascus. He was involved in the Central
Intelligence Agency's classified weapons supply and training programme, known as Timber
Sycamore, which equipped and trained thousands of fighters between 2012 and 2017, when it
was closed down by the Trump administration.
Those lapel flag pins with the stars and stripes should be replaced by the blue and white
star of David flag pins because it is what it is.
Western/Central Europe coming to terms with Russia and settling down for good relations
between neighbours should've been the obvious path back in 1990. I mean, they did it between
UK-France and Germany after 1945, it was only logical that they would do the same with Russia
- I mean, there's less bad blood between them, overall. Of course, countries like Poland
wouldn't be as enthusiastic, for obvious reasons, so it would've been better to come to a
common understanding before the former Soviet bloc joined EU, and definitely way better to
set up some spheres of influence before the Ukraine mess.
Jackrabbit: Pat Lang can be quite the old thin-skinned "Commies - bad" curmudgeon, which
is at best frustrating. On the other hand, I always have a kick at seeing him campaigning for
the dissolution of CIA and FBI, like in his latest post. I get that he's also arguing from an
efficiency point of view, and I'd agree with him about the efficiency gains, even if I'd be
more interested by the mere fact that US agencies would greatly reduced their fucking-up with
the rest of the world, if these agencies were gone for good. Heck, I could live with a USA
with more efficient agencies this way, since it would still mean them having to get rid of
their Full Spectrum Dominance and Global Hegemon wet-dream, and instead focusing on fighting
against clear and present danger and genuine threats against the US as a country, not as a
global economic and political empire. Heck, I'd be already relieved if not glad if the US
went back to Monroe doctrine and were to submit to a reverse-Monroe (as in the US stops
messing with the Old World once and for all and doesn't interfer with any country outside the
Americas).
@14 US farmers appreciate the $28bn aid package and most of them probably still like Trump.
Aid like that would be called socialism if any other country did it.
It struck me how careful she was about not being viewed as supporting Assad ... while the
elevation of Max B. to be the equal of Assange is just an unimportant detail?
MANY journalists that have suffered much worse than Max B. They don't get elevated to
being the equal of Assange. A few of them:
There's the woman who reported about ISIS (I think she was Turkish) who was killed.
There's Hitchens.
There's the woman who just reported on the paper trail of weapons purchased for the
Syrian "rebels". She's from Bulgeria, I think.
There's Khashoggi.
Assange's struggle is for ALL journalists. It's offensive when used to elevate ONE
journalist. Especially, I might add, THIS journalist who 1) has a deep and abiding connection
to Assange's Deep State adversaries and 2) has previously demonstrated his willingness to act
in a way that furthers Deep State goals.
Regarding that post by Pat Lang so derogatory in image illustrating, and following mockery
he made of pensioners who receive their well deserved pension check, I wonder what this man
who during life long benefitted from such a socialist system like the USAF to enjoy a labour
life fixed job , from recruiting to retirement ( whose only requirement was fullfill
orders...) and limitless access to free of charge education, which allowed him once retired
at such privileged ( with respect the rest of working masses ) young age, be able to profit
in the private sector from the knowledge and experience he gained in the public duty, has
against public pensions, being himself beneficciary of one ( at least I have not notice he
has refused it...and I fear it is not meager...) along with a free of charge full coverage
social health system financed by Us taxpayers including those who he makes mockery of.
For the few I know him, he is still angry about the few taxes he has to pay under Trump
rule feeling that some of what he pays could go to this pensioners....Of course, like every
selfish far-right wing in the military, forgetting that it was those pensioners through their
taxes who payed for their education and salary while in the military.
The more I know the man, I have nowhere to catch him from, and it is not only hiss patent
arrogance and bigotry, nad hatred for everything which could sound social, it is the absolute
lack of solidarity with other human beings ( including those who contributed to what he
is...) except those who form his own close circle, unit, or his own, recently reached, upper
class.
To me it smells of a new rich all that way from Virginia to here...Un asco!
Honestly, I can not see that astounding value some here find in his site, unless the
astounding value to extend the Trump presidency for 4 years more...
Has he pronounced himself about the already recognized stealing of Syrian oil recently? No,
there they are he and that Larry Johnson focussed in what more matters ( for them...) the
shenanigans on fake theater ( and they both know it, because of insiders of the IC..)of the
bipartisan mafiosi system which they beneffit from.
Bhadrakumar "The amazing part has been the dogged resistance by Germany to the US pressure
tactic to abandon Nord Stream 2."
Think Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen plus the rest of the crap US has been pulling to keep
Germany down.
German business had to rebel against this at some point.
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is techno- logically
feasible ..
Someone needs to get out of their ivory tower once in a while. No diesel, no food. It's as
simple as that, unless farmers return to the days of huge crowds of cheap migrant workers and
millions of horses to pull small-scale equipment. I don't see many windmill and solar
promoters signing up to hoe cotton by hand. I wonder if all those horses would be allowed
because of horse farts. Maybe someone can invent a horse and cow fart collector.
Some of the first farm tractors were huge steam powered beasts. If steam tractors burned
wood pellets, would that be acceptable?. How big a battery it would take to operate a 300 Hp
tractor for 12 or more hours per day - as big as a house?
Well the good news is there is no actual evidence the sky is falling (Correlation is not
Causation). Man-made global warming is like "democracy" and "freedom". If any of these
actually existed, would the propaganda machines have to tell us a hundred times a day, every
day? In the end, reality has a tendency to shred fanciful plans and it doesn't care what
anybody believes.
@ Hoarsewhisperer who wrote at the end of the last Open Thread
"
I can't shake off the suspicion that cosmology is more about beating around the bush and
obfuscation than about fact-finding - especially the more recent Dark Matter trope...
"
I have only had one college course in Astronomy but I found a sure fire way to stop the
cosmologists in their tracks is to posit that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not just "out
there" but just as much part of us as well...and where are the studies about that stuff in
us?
another climate change denier troll? the science isn't based on a "propaganda machine". you
know what is? the fossil fuel company funded propaganda campaign that pretends the science is
based on correlation.
" US farmers appreciate the $28bn aid package and most of them probably still like Trump.
Aid like that would be called socialism if any other country did it."
- And aid like that would be called socialism by farmers if it went to people with dark
complexions who live in large cities.
@Posted by: Trailer Trash | Nov 3 2019 17:13 utc | 22
Not to mention that all the allegedly "ecologic" measures which have been promoted so far
result equally if not more polluting than the existing ones. As a sample, this article about
the pollution which will come from solar pannels and electric cars batteries and their costs
of production and elimination who will push the carbon footpirnt to stratospheric levels.
The new "ecocapitalism" is a new form of oblying the working masses to change car more
often that they will be able to aforrd due the frozen wages and increasing of prices, and pay
more for basic goods like electricity and water, plus adding taxes that will be difficult to
justify in a coming environment of recession and economic crisis. This is only the new niche
of gainings some "smart" people of always have found to continue increasing their tax of
profit.
@pretzelattack
So, if one asks questions : 1) Is the climate actually changing (warming), rather than going
through a temporary cycle as in the thirties?
2) If there is a climate change is it totally due to human activities, or only partially, or
is it due to natural factors?
3) If the climate changes, ie warms by a degree or two centigrade, is that change a
catastrophic event or is it benign and requiring
minor adaptations by humans?
Does that make one a troll in your estimation?
These remarks about climate change are a reminder that, as a society, we have lost our
ability to reason together. The discussion is poisoned, largely, by vested
interests-including the fossil fuel industry- using enormous amounts of money to prevent us
from reaching conclusions based upon the objective measurement of empirical data and taking
action accordingly.
Instead of reason "the market" rules: the market buys scientists and publicists, controls
presses and dominates the media. In Congress or Parliament it owns majorities.
My guess is that climate change is real and represents a real threat but that ought not to be
a licence for every demagogue and chancer to impose 'solutions' through government or public
pressure. The future of humanity is too important a subject to be left to liars and
narcissists to play with; it is a matter for serious, considered, unpolluted discussion at
every level. In such discussion idiots will be revealed as such, loudmouths discovered to be
empty and irresponsible and the weight of truth, revealed in masses of observations testable
and available for examination, will lead to popular decision making on a matter too important
to be left to others.
Unlike Greyzone reporting, here we are given specific information about Max's arrest,
including the identify the person who made the charge, the statement that they made, and the
alleged existence of video evidence.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
And now thegreyzone.com is out with a follow-up to their reporting last week. Aaron
Maté interviews Max B.
Max B.: It's highly unusual, the whole thing is highly unusual, it's an obvious case of
political persecution and it should be a source of outrage but of course we've heard
nothing from the press ngo's. I guess Press Freedom Track, I just saw them say that uh, I
wasn't involved in reporting at the time so I was .. um .. so I don't count; they said
something like that on twitter in a response to Margret Kimberly. So it's revealing to see
the response but it's also encouraging to see the really organic grassroots solidarity that
I'm getting.
Aaron Mate: Well, you were involved in reporting at the time, broadly, 'cause you were
covering that protest; at the time, specifically, of the incident, you were around when
some food was being delivered inside, right?
Max B.: Well, all I can say is that I'm completely innocent, the charges are fake,
they're phony ...
The shadowproof reporting and this dodge from Max B. suggests to me that Max B. had
decided to help outside activists to deliver food to the activists inside. Thus, he had
joined the activists and was no longer acting as a reporter !
Max B.: The second component [the first being the arrest] of how I was treated - that's how
poor people in Washington D.C and across America are typically treated in the criminal
justice system. People were ALL denied phone calls, they were shackled for long periods. We
were held in cages in extremely cold temperatures for long periods ...
Persecution? Nah, just another day in the US criminal justice system.
Even if the charges against him are false, it's not clear that this is really a matter of
press freedom.
Peter...re the reason for US troops staying Syria...
I think the Al Tanf presence is for Israel's benefit...
But in northeast Syria I think another dynamic is at play...I think Trump really wanted to
get out completely and I think he still does...but he simply has not had the power to pull
this off...
The entire 'foreign policy' establishment plus their media servants went totally berserk
and Trump had to walk back at least some of his plan...
I don't think Syria's oil has much to do with it...Trump simply latched onto that [quick
improvisation there] to justify his reversal to his own base that is feeling frustrated that
their hero can't even fulfill one of his major promises...
As for the establishment's idea for Syria, I think it has more to do with the Kurds...they
are howling about 'betraying' the Kurds...but really it is about USING the Kurds for their
own dream of partitioning Syria...
They just can't let go of that...even as the taillights get dimmer and dimmer in the
distance...these people are not big on reality...
Plus, they do see a situation with the Kurds that they can exploit...some among the Kurds,
like their military commander Mazloum Abdi are totally devoted to the US and will play a
willing spoiler role in the northeast if given half a chance...
If this opportunity to continue at some level with the Kurds was not there, the US
military command would not go along with a harebrained scheme like staying in a region of
Syria that is now more or less controlled by the Syrian government...the shrunken US
footprint means you are isolated and really quite meaningless...
So the situation is still in flux...but here's the thing...the Kurdish political
leadership is a little smarter than people like Mazloum...they see that they have already
lost huge swaths of their heartland to Turkey...not just in the latest incursion, but also
Afrin before that and Euphrates Shield etc...
They realize they will lose everything if they do not start playing ball...with Russia
especially, the only honest broker in Syria...
So today we have a
report that a joint SDF-Russian 'coordination and operations center' has been established
in northern Raqqa province...
Notably, the SAA isn't included in this...probably at the insistence of the SDF, which
like I said is still not on board with reconciling with the SAA...although we note that in
the periphery of the Turkish 'Peace Spring' incursion zone the SDF fighters are fighting
alongside the SAA to repel Turkish-backed militants...
SAA has now also moved heavy weapons to the vicinity of the Ras al Ayn border town which
is in Turkish hands...
So the dynamics of the fighting are already forcing the SDF to throw in their lot with the
SAA...at some point the break will come and the shrinking US influence in the area is not
going to be worth anything tangible to the SDF fighters...
We see also that the US has now evacuated its biggest base with the longest airfield...
Sarrin...
That's where that huge convoy of empty trucks headed to...
So the situation on the ground does not bode well for some kind of continuing partnership
between the SDF and the remaining US forces...especially as the SAA consolidates its control
over the areas in which it has already entered...
So the way I see it, this is a desperate Hail Mary from the die-harders in the
regime-change business...they are grasping at straws, literally...the US footprint has
already shrunk so dramatically, and the SAA footprint taken its place that there is no going
back...
For now the US still have some support among the SDF fighters, as exemplified by that
Mazloum character...but as things progress neither the Kurd population in general, nor the
Arabs in the area are going to continue partnering with the US...for the simple reason that
the US has nothing to offer them...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC staffer who
Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad construct
As Rumsfeld once claimed, "We create our own reality". However there is nothing real about
that so-called reality. More accurate would be "We create our own fantasy, are deluded by it,
and cling desperately to our belief in the reality of it".
@31 flankerbandit.. good overview.. i tend to see it in a similar manner.. thanks!
i got a kick out of one of the commenters on that southfront link -
"Latest News: Even though Vladimir Putin has promised to withdraw all Russian troops from
the US, Russian forces still does not want to leave the US completely, arguing that it wants
to secure oil fields in Texas from ISIS supported by Canada and Mexico, while helping Indians
and Indian Democratic Forces (IDF) who did not want to rejoin the US government and refused
an offer to dissolve the IDF and join the US army. Although initially Russian troops stopped
their support for the IDF.
Wait, there seems to be something wrong with this news! :)"
These remarks about climate change are a reminder that, as a society, we have lost our
ability to reason together. The discussion is poisoned, largely, by vested
interests-including the fossil fuel industry- using enormous amounts of money to prevent us
from reaching conclusions based upon the objective measurement of empirical data and taking
action accordingly.
Posted by: bevin | Nov 3 2019 18:37 utc | 29
Thanks for your well articulated remarks, Bevin. Climate-change science is not something
that can be researched by every Tom Dick and Harry in their kitchen, but, well, some people
still think they can. As a very wise person once remarked: The fool who thinks he is wise is
a fool indeed; but the fool who knows he is a fool, to that extent at least is wise.
Posted by: flankerbandit | Nov 3 2019 18:43 utc | 31
I agree with you 100% on Trump and Syrian oil. It is smoke and mirrors forced by the
resistance of the Elites. I think Trump knows - and accepts - that grabbing to oil is not
viable and that the US will be forced eventually to relinquish it, but it would be
domestically too difficult to do so at the moment.
i wonder if they're turkish or usa arms that were given these goons? the usa is being
attacked by weapons that gave to the friendly moderate headchoppers? the irony is rich if
so...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
yeah, perhaps. President Assad has an interesting perspective on occupation ...a
much more profound and apparently longer view (from a recent interview )
Journalist:returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular,
President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in
Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the
Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this
regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence
President Assad:Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the
Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is
the same. Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with
the reality. When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we
reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and
say that we will send the army to face the Americans. We are talking about a super power. Do
we have the capabilities to do that? I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. Do we
choose resistance? If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their
fate in Iraq. But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the
opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of
resistance. The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary
conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to
one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of
certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents
which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents
of foreigners – Syrian traitors. Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with
the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. We should be dealing with those
Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore
patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. To
ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a
mere difference over a political issue. We should all be united against occupation. When we
reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they
will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be
able to remain in Syria. This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq
at a later stage. I think this is the right solution
>Does that make one a troll in your estimation?
> Posted by: erik | Nov 3 2019 18:05 utc | 27
As in any religion, questions are not allowed. The constant shouting about oil company
anti-"The Sky Is Falling" campaigns is particularly silly. I have never seen a single ad or
even a spokesman on TV or radio saying man-made global warming isn't real. Not this year. Not
last year. Not ever. Global warming promoters have a giant podium and use it all day every
day to shout that they have no voice and drown out everyone else. It's not a good look.
I am no fan of oil companies. I very much resent that people who happen to live on top of
the oil are exposed to sometimes awful conditions. There's no need to make a mess, and not
cleaning up after oneself, harming people in the process, is unforgivable. That's something
oil company managers should have learned in kindergarten.
Currently there is no way to replace petroleum in many applications. People burning whale
oil lamps while watching whale populations decline knew they needed a better way, but would
have had no way to predict that better way would be petroleum. Funding basic research might
find a better way. Building more useless low-density intermittent windmills won't move
anybody off petroleum, except in a few unique situations.
I think Trump has been being loud and blunt about America taking Syria's oil precisely
because he knows that it is neither legal nor viable. If he can establish the narrative that
all it is now about is oil then the US will be forced to do as Trump has wanted all along and
leave Syria.
Reverse psychology.
The role the American President is supposed to be playing for the empire right now
is pushing the narrative of a need for more humanitarian murder and
downplaying/dismissing any suggestion that the US is in Syria for any reason other than pure
altruism. Trump outright stating that the US is going to take the oil is utterly destroying
the only narratives that the US can use to stay in Syria.
That is much more clever than I had ever given Trump credit for being.
>the weight of truth, revealed in masses of observations
> testable and available for examination, will lead to popular
> decision making on a matter too important to be left to others.
> Posted by: bevin | Nov 3 2019 18:37 utc | 29
Yes, actual observations, please, instead of models that don't work. The paleo record
seems to show that temperatures rise before CO2 increases. The modern record shows no
correlation, as in the recent multiyear "pause" in warming while CO2 was steady
increasing.
Claims that global warming causes every kind of unpleasant weather are silly. Too hot, too
cold, too wet, too dry, more snow, less snow, it's all caused by an increase in a trace
molecule. If the weather is unpleasant, it's "carbon". If the weather is good, there's no
comment. That's not very scientific.
regarding "securing syrian oil" - I'd say it was always more about blocking a possible
Iraq-Syria pipeline, which would give Iraq and potentially Iran a route to the Mediterranean
without either Saudi Arabia or Turkey or perhaps a Kurdistan being in the way.
flankerbandit
I have tossed this around myself when thinking about what is happening.
"I don't think Syria's oil has much to do with it...Trump simply latched onto that [quick
improvisation there] to justify his reversal to his own base that is feeling frustrated that
their hero can't even fulfill one of his major promises..."
Ending endless wars, expensive wars, bring the troops home, vs extra US military spending,
vetoing the congress resolution to pull out of the Yemen war, then there is the US deep state
aspect. And then Trumps past statements on the countries US has attacked.
Easy enough to pass off as as a person no deeper than his twitter persona for the seeming
inconsistencies.
Trump is overturning the norms or what developed as norms in the post WWII era. One of those
norms is that the US must try to give an appearance of moral leadership of the world.
Thinking outside the box of the post WWII era, a strategy can be seen in what Trump is
doing.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trumps focus is on oil and Israel. China ties in with the
focus on oil. Russia may well block what I believe to be Trump's strategy in the middle east
and if they do, I may never know for sure if I am right or wrong about the Trump admins
intentions.
But at the moment, I have to take it that Trump's moves are based around 'energy dominance'
and that includes owning other countries oil.
What you posit echoes what Climatologist Michael Mann wrote in Climate Wars .
In Assad's recent interview, on the Outlaw US Empire's illegal occupation and theft of
Syrian property, he's willing to be patient and take care of those areas Syria and its allies
can return to the national fold. Russia, Iran and Assad are all on the same page and of the
same mind when it comes to dealing with the illegal occupation, which they know is untenable
in the long run. In fact, it actually serves an excellent purpose in providing the impetus
for nations to dedollarize and beware of accepting any sort of aid it offers--this is
particularly important in Africa and Latin America. Monthly like clockwork, Lavrov or another
top Russian official calls for the Outlaw US Empire to remove its illegally deployed troops,
which reminds the world of what the Outlaw US Empire is and its aims being opposite of its
rhetoric--Truth is far more potent than propaganda.
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria –
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
Good historical rundown of
Uncle Sam's blatant theft of resources in Syria .. has historical precedent too I believe;
the wars in Southeast Asia (the golden triangle and the drug trade). Afghanistan (heroin and
the poppies); imagine, we come and destroy your country and then steal your resources in the
aftermath. Sickening
@joost #33 I like to think that Trump's saying that the US army are going to steal Syria's
oil is very much the same strategy. What better way to turn world opinion against US
occupation of Syria?
Good historical rundown of
Uncle Sam's blatant theft of resources in Syria .. has historical precedent too I believe;
the wars in southeast asia (the golden triangle and the drug trade). Afghanistan (heroin and
the poppies); imagine, we come and destroy your country and then steal your resources in the
aftermath. Sickening
@49 Tim Glover. Exactly, imagine Obama saying that. Trump seems to have a habit of using
reverse psychology on people. This strategy works very well when nobody likes you and you
have the power of Twitter at your disposal.
People tend to overestimate the power of the US president. Every one of them, being democrat
or republican, gets assimilated by the borg. Resistance is futile, unless you are perceived
to be an idiot and do just enough to please your overlords. The Borg likes what he says, "we
are there for the oil" and they are getting reckless, exposing themselves for what they are.
Group think distorts perception and that is their weak spot. The borg will get more open
about their crimes and their true intentions. This breaks global support for the petrodollar
and that will be the end of the "outlaw" US empire.
I am surprised that I've not seen any commentary regarding the US's announcement that they
will continue to steal Syria's oil, and more importantly what anyone - Syria, Russia or
anyone else - might do about this blatant crime.
Clearly this challenges Syria's sovereignty as well as Russia's declared aim to restore
Syrian territory in full.
Any thoughts how this situation might evolve? IMO Russia has to remain a facilitator
rather than an actor. A "no-fly zone" enforced by Syrians and SAA ground troops?
Stripes: Carolina Army Guard troops move into eastern Syria with Bradley Fighting Vehicles
WASHINGTON – National Guard members from North and South Carolina began moving into
eastern Syria with heavy armored vehicles on Thursday as part of the Pentagon's new mission
to secure oil fields wrestled from the Islamic State, a military spokesman said.
Soldiers with the North Carolina-based 4th Battalion, 118th Infantry Regiment and the
South Carolina-based 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade were deployed to Deir al-Zour to
protect American-held oil fields around that city, Army Col. Myles Caggins, the spokesmen
for the U.S.-led anti-ISIS mission known as Operation Inherent Resolve, tweeted Thursday.
Caggins' tweet included photos of soldiers loading M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles onto Air
Force C-17 Globemaster cargo jets to be used on the mission. . . .
For now, the new deployment will not include M1 Abrams tanks, the Pentagon official said
Thursday.
here
Why use regulars when we can call up the National Guard?
US hold on the oilfields depends mostly on Iraq. The oilfields of Deir Ezzor are in open
country with few towns and apart from the Euphrates flood plain is sparsely populated.
The only cover for guerrilla style attacks against US or its proxies on the oilfields will
be the occasional dust storm.
Apart from Iraq, syria setting up S-300 at deir Ezzor and taking control of the airspace
would also be a game changer but this may not happen.
Lebanon and Iraq are both undergoing US color revolutions at the moment so its a matter of
waiting for the dust to settle on both these moves to see where US is positioned in the
region.
Yet the US military is overwhelmingly the #1 most trusted US institution among Americans,
despite it forcibly wasting their hard earned money to kill tens of millions of innocents
abroad. At the same time the US is also filled to the brim with draft dodgers.
If anybody thinks Bolton and his chickenhawking buddies isn't representative of the whole
US, think again.
Don Bacon 73 "Really? I thought the protests were like many other protests around the world,
over economic issues."
As was the Syrian 'revolution'. Plenty of small US companies willing to go in. US already
has buyers as they have been shipping oil out of east Syria for some time. Turkey, Israel ect
plus many more willing to buy at a discount. And considering the oilfields are simply stolen,
oil can be sold at a discount.
U.S. efforts to derail Nordstream 2 have failed. Hehehe. All those sanctions were bypassed;
the partnerships of Nordstream 2 - Wintershall, Austria's OMV, France's Engie, and the
Netherlands' Royal Dutch Shell - were converted to loans and Gazprom owns it all.
COPENHAGEN/BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Denmark on Wednesday gave the go-ahead to the Nord Stream 2
gas pipeline, removing the last major hurdle to completion of the Russian-led project that
has divided opinion in the European Union.[.]
For the past three years the U.S. has fought the construction of the Nordstream 2
pipeline from Russia to Germany every inch of the way.
The battle came down to the last few miles, literally, as Denmark has been withholding the
final environmental permit on Nordstream 2 for months.
The U.S., especially under Trump, have committed themselves to a 'whole of government
approach' to stop the 55 bcm natural gas pipeline from making landfall in Germany.[.]
In a sense, this pipeline is Germany's declaration of independence from seventy-plus years
of U.S. policy setting. Never forget that Germany is occupied territory with more than
50,000 U.S. troops stationed there.
So it is supremely rich of President Trump call Nordstream 2 something that could make
Germany a "hostage of Russia" when it's been a hostage of the U.S. since 1945.
Then again, history isn't one of Trump's strong suits.[.]
How is that song again? do not know much about geography or geology.
@23 Thanks for the Nordstream 2 news. The Danish objections were critical to completing the
pipeline. Apparently the problem was more environmental than political as far as the Danes
were concerned.
@23 Likklemore.
Northstream II is a gift from Trump. Remember how he insulted the Danes by suggesting to buy
Greenland and then again insulted the Queen by
cancelling his trip to the country because she refused to discuss the offer? It was that
moment back in August when I thought "Thank you Trump, you just gave us Northstream II". This
is how Trump defeats the Borg so now and then.
@ Likklemore 23
There's also UNCLOS as a factor on the Denmark decision for Nordstream 2:
In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject
to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87
["freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines"] of navigation and overflight and of the
laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea
related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft
and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this
Convention. . . here
@30 The Danes had geographic and economic reasons for sure. I like joost's theory too.
Offering to buy Greenland and insulting the Queen was no way to get the Danes to block the
pipeline.....if that's what Trump really wanted. That would be sheer genius on Trump's part.
But I don't think the Danes will say that was the reason. I'm guessing they'll say they
had environmental concerns.
Nordstream II follows Nordstream I closely near Bornholm, which makes one wonder what the
environmentally based objections were to the second pipeline's route. The pipeline can be
laid down in three to four weeks so construction issues would not appear to be a major
problem.
Posted by: Breadonwater | Oct 31 2019 20:05 utc | 45
Why is Denmark's approval needed for Nordstream 2? Is it due to the Danish island of
Bornholm?
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave countries
the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental impact
assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the treaty does it
say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms of the seas.
NordStream 2 will NOT pass through Danish territorial waters, as Russian and Western media
often falsely impliy.
Denmark was instructed to delay the European/Russian Nordstream2 approval. The delay
forced the consortium to redirect the pipeline to avoid Danish waters and so now whatever
they decide is completely moot and irrelevant. They are only trying to save face because they
recently approved a pipeline to Poland for expensive US freedom gas. This is how it works,
small countries like Denmark and Poland have no say of their own when the US wants
something.
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
Read the transcript of Trump's announcement this morning. He explicitly says he is keeping
the oil, and might invite in Exxon to use it. Logistics are sketchy, because who will buy it?
The pipelines will go through Syrian controlled territory. But he also says that a deal might
be possible. It's ridiculous.
Revenue from Syria's oilfields is about a $million/day. That is a small fraction of what it
costs to maintain even one little US military base in Syria.
Try to hold tight to a sense of perspective, folks. Trump is a businessman. Not a very
good one, perhaps, but certainly not so stupid that he cannot see that as an incredibly bad
deal. This "keeping the oil" nonsense is empty posturing intended to appeal to shallow
thinkers who don't know the difference between Syria and Venezuela and who don't really care
what American foreign policy is so long as it is done with an arrogant swagger. Now that may
be the majority of the US population, but these kinds are not even going to remember the
tweet this time next week, much less even care.
"Keeping the oil" is not only tactically, strategically, and logistically
untenable, it is such a baldfaced violation of so many US and international laws, treaties,
and agreements that even America's fig leaf of last resort, Canada, would have to condemn it.
This is just childish posturing to throw the appearance of bravado on America's exit from the
theatre. People functioning at the level of many posters here need to stop taking it so
seriously.
Revenue from Syria's oilfields is about a $million/day. That is a small fraction of what it
costs to maintain even one little US military base in Syria.
Try to hold tight to a sense of perspective, folks.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 27 2019 18:18 utc | 45
The point of "keeping the oil" is not to profit from it, but to deny it to the Syrians.
That's what Bibi wants.
@ 53
"Keeping the oil" is also meant to send a political message that you-know-who is still in
charge here, a Carter Doctrine policy that has been in tatters recently.
On the Syrian oil, US apparently was raking in 30 million a month in an operation that was
small enough to be kept from the public. If they take over the oilfields publicly and boost
oil infrastructure, the monthly take will rise considerably.
The oil fields on the east bank of the Euphrates produced the bulk of Syrian oil. If
production there was only 50% of Syrian production, the figures in dollar terms would still
be high.
200,0000 BPD would be just over half Syria pre war oil production, so 200,000 X say $40
per barrel brings the take up to $8 million per day. Not bad when its money for nothing.
William Gruff
Trump has made no effort or even noises to pull out of Tanf. I think he wants to continue
holding the Syrian border where he can. Denying the oil to Syria is a plus for him and that
also has the bonus of partly paying the cost of stationing the US along that border.
Zionism, oil, getting returns on military expenditure seems to be Trump's foreign policy or
as foreign policy is termed in the US 'War Policy"
"Keeping the oil" is also meant to send a political message that you-know-who is still in
charge here, a Carter Doctrine policy that has been in tatters recently.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 27 2019 18:51 utc | 60
Sure, that's also true. The NeoCon warmongers only got convincing very late in the game,
when US Special Forces were already withdrawing from most of Rojava, and could not be
stopped, except for this massively mounted late defence of the oil-fields. As the NeoCons
were resisting from the beginning, what was it that changed Trump's mind? Bibi sounds like
the answer, but I'm open to others.
"So why did Trump state so emphatically that Russia and China love U.S. presence
there???"
Reverse psychology. If Trump can get that narrative to fly then the mindless Russophobic
and Sinophobic brainwash victims in the US will start screaming for the US to get out. After
all, jello-brained Americans believe they must do the opposite of whatever China and Russia
think is good. The USA certainly cannot do anything that China or Russia might approve of,
right? So if they want us to stay then we have to leave.
Russia loves the US stealing Syria's oil. Listen, Russia delivered a beat down to murican
regime change policy the likes of which the world has never seen before. It is epic
humiliation beyond all endurance! The Syrian state is saved and the prospects of a Libya just
a few hours from Russia's border are now gone! The US is scared shittless to attack Iran head
on, so the status quo is returning to this region faster than murica's tiny brain can
process. So what to do? Grab the oil! Be a thug and criminal! No more pretense, just sin
proudly like the evil turd you are! Lol! And Russia can point at that turd and condemn it on
the world stage for the whole world to see. No excuses...no sympathy. Of course that bravado
wont last long. When push comes to shove, murica will fold like the dodgy piece of toilet
paper it is and go home. Be patient and enjoy the Evil Empire's death agony a while
longer...make popcorn...
The Redirection, Mar 5, 2007
Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
By Seymour M. Hersh
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are
intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has
also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of
these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. . . here
InsurgeIntel, May 22, 2015
Pentagon report predicted West's support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS
Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to 'isolate' Assad, rollback 'Shia
expansion'
by Nafeez Ahmed
The newly declassified DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency -- headed by General Flynn!] document
from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time
comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS.
Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and
their regional allies. . .
here
Some more history on how Russia's changed the US attitude toward Syria oil shipments to
foreign customers. Specifically, whereas until 2015 US air force pilots were not given
permission to fire on ISIS oil shipments, that policy changed when Russia entered the war.
In September 2015, the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament authorised
the Russian president to use armed forces in Syria.[9][10] Russia acknowledged that Russian
air and missile strikes targeted not only ISIL, but also rebel groups in the Army of Conquest
coalition like al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, and even FSA.
On 30 September 2015, Russia launched its first airstrikes against targets in Rastan,
Talbiseh, and Zafaraniya in Homs province of Syria. Moscow gave the United States a one-hour
advance notice of its operations. The Homs area is crucial to President Bashar al-Assad's
control of western Syria. -- wiki here
CBSNEWS, Nov 23, 2015
U.S. airstrikes against ISIS target oil tanker trucks
Two airstrikes, the most recent over the weekend, have destroyed almost 500 tanker trucks
ISIS uses to smuggle oil and sell it on the black market.
By one estimate, these attacks have destroyed roughly half the trucks ISIS uses to bring in
$1 million a day in revenues.
Until now, the U.S. has not gone after the tankers for fear of killing the civilian drivers.
. . here
That's the first time (and probably the last time) ever that the US military had any
consideration for civilian casualties. But they were ISIS employees so. . .cut 'em some
slack. Still, only half the trucks were destroyed at that time (more were destroyed much
later).
"... The below analysis is provided by " Ehsani " -- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment . ..."
"... An M1 Abrams tank at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait, via Army National Guard/Military Times. ..."
Here's
Why Trump's "Secure Syria's Oil" Plan Will Prove Practically Impossible
by
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 23:30
0
SHARES
The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
" -- a Middle
East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes
for the influential geopolitical analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.
Much has been debated since President Trump tweeted that
"The U.S has secured the oil"
in Syria. Is this feasible? Does it make any sense? The below will
explain how and why
the answer is a resounding
NO
.
Al-Omar and Conoco fields are already secured by Kurdish-led SDF and U.S forces. Some of the oil
from these fields was being sold through third parties to Syria's government by giving it in crude
form and taking back half the quantity as refined product
(the government owns the
refineries).
Syria's government now has access to oil fields inside the 32km zone
(established
by the Turkish military incursion and subsequent withdrawal of Kurdish forces). Such fields can produce
up to 100K barrels a day and will already go a long way in terms of meeting the country's immediate
demand.
So the importance of accessing oil in SDF/U.S hands is not as pressing any longer.
SDF/U.S forces can of course decide to sell the oil to Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
but Syria's government now has control over the border area connecting Syria to KRG territory through
both Yaaroubia and Al-Mallkiya.
The Syrian government also now has control over supply of electricity. This was made possible by
taking control of the Tishreen and Furat dams.
Operating those fields needs electric power
supply and the state is now the provider.
Securing and operating these fields also entails paying salaries to those operating the fields.
International companies would be very reluctant to get involved without legal backing to operate
the fields.
"Securing the oil" therefore
can only mean preventing the Syrian state from accessing al-Omar/Conoco
only (not oil in the north)
. It's unlikely anything can be sold or transported.
And let's not forget "securing" this oil would need
ready air cover, and all for what?
SDF composition included Arab fighters and tribes who accepted Kurds in leadership since they had
American support and key cities in north. Many of those Arabs are already switching and joining the
Syrian Army.
"Securing" oil for benefit of the Kurds is likely to antagonize the Arab fighters
and tribes in the region.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more
than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
The psychopaths destroyed the last secular country in the ME. Same
with Lybia. Now all we get are extremists on all sides. Mossad doing
what it knows best, bringing chaos for the psychopaths.
By withdrawing from Northern Kurdistan and by making an exception
for the oil fields, Genius President Trump just told the world a number
of things:
To trust the U.S.A. as an ally is sheer stupidity
The "alternative media" theory that it is all about oil (and
possible gas) has been proven true
The U.S.A. is being ruled by a hobbyist who has no strategic
plans, replacing them with a "random walk" concept
Of course, the European allies (except Turkey) are still refusing
to learn from this experience. "Duck and cover until November 2020"
is their current tactics. Not sure if this is a good idea.
Turkey has learned to go their own ways, but I don't think it is
a good idea to create ever more enemies at one's borders. Greece,
Armenia, the Kurdish regions, Syria, Cyprus, not sure how their stance
is towards Iran. Reminds me of Germany before both World Wars. Won't
end well.
"America/The US", a label, is
actually just a location on a map and is not a reference to the actual
identities of those who start wars for profit.
Also it is hilarious to use that label as if an area of the planet
is or has attacked another area. Land can not attack itself, ever,
just as guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trump is not claiming posession of oil in syria by leaving some
troops behind. Just as he did not declare war, nor start any EVER.
Every conflct on earth has it's roots with very specific individuals,
none of whom are even related to Trump.
Syria was a conflicting mess before he took office and he is dutifully
attempting to pull US soldiers out of a powder keg of nonsense he
wants no part of. Nor does any sane American want more conflict in
battles we can't afford, in countries we'll never even visit.
Like I said before, Trump can't just abruptly yank all our troops.
It's simply not that simple. And for those pretending he is doing
syria a disservice, I dare any one of you to go there yourselves and
see if you bunch of complete dipshits can do better. Who knows, maybe
you'll find the love of your life, ******* idiots.
First, the US invades Syria in violation of the Geneva Convention
on War making it an international criminal. Then it funds and equips
the most vile terrorists on the planet which leads to the killing
of thousands of innocent Syrians. And now it has decided to stay and
steal oil from Syria. The US is now the Evil American Empire owned
and run by crooks, gangsters and mass murderers. The Republic is dead
along with morality, justice and freedom.
Let's limit the culprits to: The Obama regime... and
not all the US. This is why these devils need to be brought
to trial and their wealth clawed out of their hiding places to
pay reparations to some of the victims.
The US has been an Evil American Empire for a long time, since
at least the Wilson administration, and Republican or Democrat...it
make little difference. World wars, the Fed, IRS, New Deal,
Korea, Vietnam, War OF Terror, assassinations, coups, sanctions,
Big Pharma, Seeds of Death and Big Agri...and the list goes
on and on. Please understand that America is not great and one
day all Americans will have to account for what their country
did in their name. If you believe in the Divine, then know that
their will be a reckoning.
The Obama regime was merely a continuation of the Chimpy Bush
regime, which was merely a continuation of the Clinton regime,
which was merely a continuation of the Pappy Bush regime, which
was merely a continuation... etc.
More chinks in the petrodollar armor will be the outcome of this. The credibility of murica is withering
away as every day passes. Iraqi pressure upon foreign troops there
to leave and/or drawdown further will also make this venture even
more difficult to manage.
The Kurds
may not be the smartest with regards to picking allies, but even they
may by now have learned that sticking to murica any longer will destroy
any semblance of hope for any autonomy status whatsoever once the
occupants have left. Likewise, the Sunni tribes around this area don't
want to become another Pariah group once things revert to normal.
Assad will eventually retake all his territory and
this is speeding up the process of eventual reconciliation in Syria.
They've spent far more on these wars than they've made back by stealing
other countries' resources. Trillions wasted in exchange for mere
billions in profit, to say nothing of the massive loss of life and
destruction incurred.
'The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
"
-- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst
who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical
analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.'
this quote was my first red flag.
so POTUS outsmarts Erdongan, takes out ISIS leader BAGHDADI along
with Erdongan MIT agents meeting with him. sorry, Ehsani, i think
your full of sh*t.
CIA & MOSSAD LLC
friends ISIS is just the excuse the american
an israeli terrorists used and use in order to keep trying to remove
Assad from the Government.
They just can't accept defeat and absolute failure. What's worse
than an american/israeli terrorist destroyed ego?!
All info needs verification. US sources are not trustworthy including
anyone where money originates from the usual fake info instigators/
players.
POTUS is so misled by the deep state MIC /CIA/ FBI et al and their
willing fake media cohorts that he agreed to give the White Helmets
more public money for more fake movies, as has been properly proven
and widely reported.
Either they have taken control of his mind with a chip insert or
they have got his balls to the knife.
The false flags have been discredited systematically and only a
very brainwashed or a very frightened person would believe anything
from the same source until after a thorough scourge is proven successfully
undertaken.
It is evident that even the last hope department has been got at
by the money-power.
If they can do 9/11 and get away with it, as they have, then they
will stop at nothing to remain entrenched.
90% of oil is traded in U.S. dollars if that stops living standards
will drop in the U.S.. We dropped from 97% look how bad its now
with 7% imagine going down to 50% life would be unlivable
here.
...meanwhile, both according to
russia today
as well as the
(otherwise lying rag of a newspaper)
guardian
, the russian
government seems to take a different position to the views expressed
here by "a middle east expert".
russian state media is reporting that US troops are in the process
of taking control of syrian oil fields in the deir el-zour region
and have described such actions as "banditry". the crux of the matter
is this: if the US were not actually illegally taking control of Syrian
oil, then Russia would not be reporting this. Contrary to western
mainstream media, Russian sources have repeatedly shown themselves
to be factual.
Shame the "withdrawl" from Syria is tainted with "securing the oil".
US doesnt need that oil at all. So Orwellian! Unless the Kurds somehow
get rights to it.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
Trump
is
securing
the
oil
not
for
the
Kurds
or
anything
in
the
middle
east-
his
doing
it
as
a response
to
the
media
backlash
he
received
when
he
announced
he's
abandoning
the
Kurds.
this is nonsense. thinking of the kurds and their interests is the absolutely last thing on trump`s mind: what counts for trump is how he is viewed by his voter base, no more, no less.
As is usually the case in theaters of combat, reality on the ground differs widely from the
sharp and clear lines that are presented to uninformed outside observers. Good case in point is
the state of Syrian oil. I am told by a well-informed source that the Syrian Democratic Forces
led by the Kurds have been selling much of the oil in northeast Syrian territory they
controlled until recently to the Syrian National Oil Company--the Assad government.
Some of that oil has also been sold to the Turks,,,
As we know, in the past, when ISIS controlled some of the Syrian oil, they were trucking it
across the border to Turkey and selling it to Erdogan's minions at a steep discount. The SDF
has continued doing that.
... Those tanker lines that Daesh was running into Turkey were done with the blessing of the
US. It was the resistance and in particular Russia that blew all that up.
What Harper meant to say is that some of the oil goes by tanker TRUCK from Turkey to Iran.
The oil thus trans-shipped to Iran is sold on as refined product to North Korea. The Turks
have been getting it at a very cheap prices from the SDF The Iranians add these products to
domestic production shipped east.
So, an oil-swap deal? Just like the currently defunct gas-swap deal that used to obtain
between Iran and Turkmenistan a few years back. Kurds and Turks acting like middlemen; how
very Middle-eastern!
The SDF/SNOC oil deal was negotiated by Russia 18 months ago. The SDF does NOT sell the oil
to the SNOC. Under the Russian deal, they get a share of the oil. The rest is turned over to
a broker from Raqqa who transports it in tanker trucks to Baniyas and Homs refineries.
If any oil is being diverted to Turkey, the it is the Raqqa brokers doing so. They are the
reportedly the brokers that used to deliver ISIS oil to Turkey via Erdogan's son-in-law.
... it was a deal negotiated by Russia with full agreement of Assad and his government and
the SNOC. My understanding is also that they did not choose the middleman from Raqqa.
Apparently he was the only one with tankers and with drivers who had no problem driving
through areas controlled by SDF, other areas controlled by SAA, and a few risky areas where
Daesh hijackings were a possibility.
"... StateImpact Pennsylvania noted that costs to reclaim a well could add up to $20,000, and DEPspokesperson Fraley said they could be "much, much higher." The GAO report noted that "low-cost wells typically cost about $20,000 to reclaim, and high-cost wells typically cost about $145,000 to reclaim." ..."
"... The Western Organization of Resource Councils summarized bonding requirements by state, and none of them came even close to being adequate to cover estimated costs to deal with old wells. In North Dakota, a $50,000 bond is required for a well. But a $100,000 bond can cover up to 6 wells, which comes out to $16,667 per well -- or approximately one tenth of the estimated cost to reclaim a well in that state. ..."
"... By any measure, the amount of private money currently allocated in the U.S. to plug and reclaim oil and gas wells is a small fraction of the real costs. That means oil and gas wells -- and the U.S. had one million active wells in 2017 , and even more abandoned -- will either be left to fail and potentially contaminate the surrounding water, air, and soil, or the public will have to pick up the tab. This represents just one of the many ways the public subsidizes the oil and gas industry. ..."
"... The mineral extraction business model in the U.S. is set up to maximize profits for executives, even as they lose investor money and bankrupt their companies. That is true of the coal industry and that is true of the shale oil and gas industry . ..."
Increasingly, U.S. shale firms appear unable to pay back
investors for the money borrowed to fuel the last decade of the fracking boom. In a similar
vein, those companies also seem poised to stiff the public on cleanup costs for abandoned oil
and gas wells once the producers have moved on.
"It's starting to become out of control, and we want to rein this in," Bruce Hicks,
Assistant Director of the North Dakota Oil and Gas Division,
said in August about companies abandoning oil and gas wells. If North Dakota's regulators,
some of the
most industry-friendly in the country , are sounding the alarm, then that doesn't bode well
for the rest of the nation.
In fact, officials in North Dakota are using Pennsylvania as an example of what they want to
avoid when it comes to abandoned wells, and with good reason.
The first oil well drilled in
America was in Pennsylvania in 1859, and the oil and gas industry has been drilling -- and
abandoning -- wells there ever since. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) says that while it only has documentation of 8,000 orphaned and abandoned wells, it
estimates the state actually has over a half million.
"We anticipate as many as 560,000 are in existence that we just don't know of yet," DEP
spokesperson Laura Fraley told
StateImpact Pennsylvania . "There's no responsible party and so it's on state government to
pay to have those potential environmental and public health hazards remediated."
According to StateImpact, "The state considers any well that doesn't produce oil and gas for
a calendar year to be an abandoned well."
That first oil well drilled in Pennsylvania was 70 feet deep. Modern fracked wells, however,
can be well over 10,000 feet in total length (most new fracked wells are drilled vertically to
a depth where they turn horizontal to fracture the shale that contains the oil and gas).
Because the longer the total length of the well, the more it costs to clean up, the funding
required to properly clean up and cap wells has grown as drillers have continued to use new
technologies to greatly extend well lengths. Evidence from the federal government points to the
potential for these costs being shifted to the tax-paying public.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
released a report this September about the risks from insufficient bonds to reclaim wells
on public lands. It said, "the bonds operators provide as insurance are often not enough to
cover the costs of this cleanup." The report cited a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official's
estimate of $10 a foot for well cleanup costs.
StateImpact Pennsylvania noted that costs to reclaim a well could add up to $20,000, and
DEPspokesperson Fraley said they could be "much, much higher." The
GAO report noted that "low-cost wells typically cost about $20,000 to reclaim, and
high-cost wells typically cost about $145,000 to reclaim."
In North Dakota, where state regulators have raised concerns about this growing problem, one
of the top industry regulators, State Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms, estimated that
wells there cost
$150,000 to plug and reclaim.
And this problem isn't just in the U.S. Canada is facing a similar cleanup crisis.
Financial Bonding Requirements for Well Cleanup
Legally, oil and gas companies are required to set aside money to pay for well cleanup
costs, a process known as bonding. These requirements vary by state and for public lands, but
in all cases, the amounts required are so small as to be practically irrelevant.
The GAO report reviewed the bonds held by the Bureau of Land Management for wells on public
lands and found that the average bond per well in 2018 was worth $2,122.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils summarized bonding requirements by
state, and none of them came even close to being adequate to cover estimated costs to deal with
old wells. In North Dakota, a $50,000 bond is required for a well. But a $100,000 bond can
cover up to 6 wells, which comes out to $16,667 per well -- or approximately one tenth of the
estimated cost to reclaim a well in that state.
North Dakota has a history of bending to oil and gas industry pressure when it comes to
regulations. While North Dakota's bonding rules fall far short of what's needed to actually
cover full cleanup costs, the reality on the ground is much worse. Regulators allow companies
to
"temporarily abandon" wells, which requires no action from companies for at least seven
years. Wells can hold this "temporary status" for decades. And another practice in the state
allows a company to sell old, under-performing wells to another company, passing along the
liability but not the bonding funds.
By any measure, the amount of private money currently allocated in the U.S. to plug and
reclaim oil and gas wells is a small fraction of the real costs. That means oil and gas wells
-- and the U.S. had one million
active wells in 2017 , and even more abandoned -- will either be left to fail and
potentially contaminate the surrounding water, air, and soil, or the public will have to pick
up the tab. This represents just one of the many ways the public subsidizes the oil and gas
industry.
A South Dakota Case Study
South Dakota allows companies to post a $30,000 bond for as many wells as the company
chooses to drill. Spyglass Cedar Creek is a Texas-based company that was operating in South
Dakota and recently
abandoned 40 wells, which the state has estimated will have a cleanup cost of $1.2
million.
However, there is a twist to this story. That $30,000 bond doesn't really exist. The owners
of the company had put $20,000 of it into a Certificate of Deposit. But when the state went
looking for that money, the owners said they had cashed it in 2015 because, as reported by the
Rapid City Journal , "company officials did not remember what the money was for."
Spyglass Cedar Creek does not have the money set aside that was required to clean up these
wells, the state does not have recourse to get that money, and some of the wells are reportedly
leaking. So, what can be done?
According to Doyle Karpen, member of the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment, the
answer is for the taxpayers of that state to cover the cost.
" I think the only way we can correct this is go to the Legislature and ask for money,"
Karpen
said earlier this year.
Following the Coal Industry Business Model
What is starting to unfold with the oil and gas industry is very similar to what has already
been playing out with the U.S. coal industry.
The paper notes how the bankruptcy process is used by coal companies to rid themselves of
environmental cleanup liabilities and pension costs "in a manner that has eviscerated the
regulatory schemes that gave rise to those obligations."
This summer, Blackjewel famously failed to pay its coal miners, and even pulled funds out of
their bank accounts, after the company suddenly declared bankruptcy in July. That prompted
workers to sit on train tracks in Kentucky, blocking a $1 million shipment of coal, in a
two-month protest . And Blackjewel is poised to leave behind
thousands of acres of mined land in Appalachia without adequate reclamation.
Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Losses
The mineral extraction business model in the U.S. is set up to maximize profits for
executives, even as they lose investor money and bankrupt their companies. That is true of the
coal industry and that
is true of the shale oil and gas industry .
At the same time, the regulatory capture by these industries at both state and federal
levels allows private companies to pass on environmental cleanup costs to the public, and the
inadequate bonding system for oil and gas well reclamation represents just one more
example.
The so-called fracking revolution in America has resulted in many new records: record
amounts of U.S. oil and gas exported (to the detriment of a livable climate), new levels of
human
health impacts on surrounding communities, record numbers of industry-induced earthquakes , record amounts of flaring
natural gas
in oil and gas fields, and record-breaking
depths and lengths of wells.
And the cleanup costs for the fracking boom are also poised to be staggering.
The answer to the question posed is yes. History confirms this. Present laws allow
companies to get away with this. I don't see this changing in the future.
Socializing the cost of cleanup/decommissioning was one of the reasons the people in our
township fought, and won, to stop Duke Energy's wind power project which would have put a few
hundred industrial turbines over three townships.
I was offered a contract and it was truly toxic. Duke would not have been required to fund
decommissioning until 20 years into what is a 25 year lifespan for the generators and that
bond would have been held in Duke's accounts. Duke could have merely walked away before 20
years leaving a liability for any landowner. My expectation would be a $250,000 escrow for
each tower/generator and held by the landowner so that Duke would have no access to it until
decommissioning.
My reaction to seeing the headline was "is the Pope Catholic?"
Of course, the public will pay. Texas govt already pays to cap abandoned wells.
As for decommissioning costs, utilities typically keep decom accounts, and include the costs
of decom in their revenue requirement, when coming in for a rate case. The money should be
there, when needed. (Of course, anything can happen – but if that were the case, we'll
have bigger things to worry about than the decommissioning of wind turbines.)
Rich Texans like small government when they can profit from governmental smallness.
Rich Texans like big government when they can profit from governmental bigness. If Rich
Texans can make the Texas government pay bigly for capping abandoned privately profitable
frack well, such Texas big government payments to cap the abandoned wells just make the Rich
Texans richer by relieving them of paying themselves for the costs they themselves caused by
fracking those wells.
1. Increase the EPA budget tenfold or more for cleanup, adding fracksites to the superfund
list. This will provide much-needed jobs for millions of Americans as they help in greening
Earth.
2. Require that Native American tribes get busy recovering natural resource damages. If
they refuse, this would provide a much-needed opportunity to establish military bases on
reservations to quell rebellions against superfund cleanup.
3. Some alarmists have alleged that cleanup of toxic superfund sites can pose health
risks, which is a well-known talking point of enemies of Earth. Even so, Congress can require
healthcare providers to deliver all necessary treatments to superfund workers in order to
assuage any concerns of the workforce.
4. Congress can relax labor laws so that undocumented migrants and their children are
allowed to participate in healing Earth by joining the superfund cleanup workforce.
These measures will ensure Full Employment, Earthhealth, Native Pacification, and
Demographic Diversity throughout the nation.
>>>Require that N<ative American tribes get busy recovering natural resource
damages. If they refuse, this would provide a much-needed opportunity to establish military
bases on reservations to quell rebellions against superfund cleanup.<<<
It has been a decade since I have done any research, but that said, requiring the
destitute to demand that they somehow get the money needed to get recompense from the Feds
and corporations is silly. Many tribes are dirt poor and others are marginal, even though
many nations have been trying for decades, perhaps longer than anyone alive, to get the
payments owned from the mineral and oil extraction from their lands. Records and payments
that the federal government are supposed to manage, but never have. Records go missing, the
decision making process is obfuscated, and billions have gone missing.
One of the big reasons I just loathe Identity Politics, victim blaming, and other current
dodges is that the current political establishment and all their little minions in social
media and nonprofits pay no mind to the continuing financial, political, legal and social
rape, impoverishment, and degradation of millions of Americans have and do endure is just
ignored. Although Standing Rock was a nice blip. At least the Disposables are worthy of
conscious contempt. The Indians are sent to oblivion where they can go finish
dying.
Well, yes and no. Yes, the public will pay for any 'cleanup' that is actually done (ie,
YOOGE dollars to 'remediation' companies), but really, my bet is that most of these orphan
wells and mines will just be left as they are.
Exactly what I was about to say. The wells will leak their toxins, the rich will escape to
some idyllic bunker, while the poor are offered oxycodone or fentanyl to alleviate their
suffering.
Cleveland is an example not one of the dying industries that once flourished here cleaned
up after themselves before they shut down most of the former degraded sites don't rise to the
level of a superfund problem, but they are virtually irredeemable nonetheless
do not know how the figure for abandoned well cleanup is derived. In Canada, estimates by
the industry friendly Fraser Institute and the CD Howe Institute claim those figures:
C.D. Howe estimates there are more than 155,000 wells with no economic potential that
must be reclaimed, with cleanup costs for an orphan well ranging from $129 million to $257
million, with a total provincial cleanup bill of $8 billion. Glen cites a far higher
estimate from the Orphan Well Association -- $47 billion.
And the problems regarding financing are the same as in the USA – although the
Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of clean-up cost coverage before debtor
payout:
Glen quotes Daryl Bennett of My Landman Group who observes that not only are the funds
on deposit insufficient, but "the cost to reclaim all these assets is now far higher than
the value of those assets." With the oil and gas sector unable to shoulder these costs, the
costs look likely to land in two places -- the pockets of landowners with land dotted with
abandoned wells, and the taxpayers who will pay those landowners to ensure the land is kept
in productive use.
Energy companies must fulfil their environmental obligations before paying back creditors
in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy, Canada's Supreme Court has ruled.
The top court's ruling released Thursday overturns two lower court decisions that said
bankruptcy law has paramountcy over provincial environmental responsibilities in the case
of Redwater Energy, which became insolvent in 2015. That meant energy companies could first
pay back creditors before cleaning up old wells. In practical terms, that means energy
companies could walk away from old oil and gas wells, leaving them someone else's
responsibility.
I live in the hills of SE Ohio. Gas is everywhere down here, but (fortunately) not in the
commercial quantities needed for major fracking operations. Small gas wells dot the
landscape. Due to the crash and the oversupply of the fracking boom, gas prices fetch a small
fraction (about 20%) of their previous peak. No new wells have been placed in years.
A neighbor of mine has a has well that has ceased commercial operation. He still gets free
gas from it as per the lease agreement, but the small local gas company no longer wants to
pay to maintain and operate it, as in no longer yields any appreciable commercial output. The
gas company initially said that they would sell him the well for $7,000, and he agreed
(verbally, I believe) to that price. The gas company then said it wasn't even worth that, and
would just give him the well.
It struck me as decidedly odd that a business, which by all accounts is cash-strapped and
barely getting by, would voluntarily forgo any amount of money. It makes me think that there
must be certain laws and regulations that apply to a commercial transaction that do not apply
to what is in effect a donation.
Does anyone know if there are reasons why someone would give away as opposed to sell an
asset, particularly one that has clear and significant liabilities and/or associated cleanup
expenses? I know that the landowner should be responsible for cleanup and capping costs
whether they bought for money or were given the gas well for free, but does the gas company
get out of something by giving as opposed to selling the asset? They certainly did not do it
out of the kindness of their hearts; they hate that landowner. He opened up a business and a
commercial kitchen and hooked it to his gas well, which was almost certainly responsible for
its commercial depletion.
Can't give you that answer but have a similar observation. My homeplace is just up the
road a bit–bought sans Mineral Rights in the 1960's–and had a well placed just
off the property line on a pad located in the swamp/drainage next door in 1981.
We got no free gas–but hundreds in the Township couldn't resist. Too good to be true.
Lots of wells installed–with FREE GAS and a Royalty Check which helped many heat
through winter and constant Lay-offs in that churning, rust-belting economy of late 80's and
90's
It was a 90 day drill–24/7, then pumped with an electric skip jack until early 2000s
when production petered out.
Still idled–however that swampland finally sold 2 months ago–and Seller was
insistent that well ownership transferred with the sale. No transfer–No Sale. There was
a token of 1,000$ for the well included in the Land Price. The five adjoining landowners (all
No Mineral Rights and 2 with located wells) all looked at purchase and walked
away–partly because of the Lay(2 of 7 acres high ground) but all because you had to
take the "dead well" with the land.
Locals thought that was just plain "fishy" about something.
Ohio EPA isn't very effective–note the Mud Spill at the Tuscarawas R–and as more
and more well plays are petering out and Service Co.'s going out of business concern IS
rising among landowners.
I won't say my Homesteads neighbors are environmentalists as much as PO'd that the access
roads have not been graded and graveled and that inconsistent gas flows are causing them to
go Propane
It might come under Real Estate full disclosure laws, which require a seller to notify
buyers of any liabilities – like the cost of closing and cleanup of a well. Might not
apply to a "gift."
If course, if the owner keeps it operating for their own use, they don't have to cap and
restore it – but it will run out some day.
Not well understood is the fact that:
State taxpayers fund state spending, and
County taxpayers fund county spending, and
City taxpayers fund city spending, but
Federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending.
The federal government neither needs nor uses tax income for anything. In fact, federal
taxes are destroyed upon receipt.
The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, by
spending.
Thus, all the federal spending to remediate any polluted sites in America add dollars to
the economy, and thereby benefit taxpayers.
Benefits natural-person taxpayers just how? By underwriting the looting behaviors of
corporations and their executives, sparing them from having to internalize the "costs" that
leavings from industry impose on "neighbors" and all the natural persons, and nature,
downwind and downstream and living next to those industrial and extractive spots? Not much
healthy incentive or public benefit in that formulation.
The federal "Superfund" was funded by a tax on feedstock chemicals, and "responsible
parties" that caused or contributed to the release of hazardous substances, anyone related by
contract to them, and site owners, were to pay all removal and remedial response costs. Why
not that model, which sought to force the costs back into the calculus? And yes, the
Superfund program had its share of problems, still does -- contractor gold-plating,
goldbricking, and fraud, corruption of the processes, and others, and of course the exemption
of "petroleum products" from the definition of hazardous substances. But it did effect some
significant changes, along with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, in
generation and disposal of hazardous substances.
Its pretty simple. Most governments have been collecting royalties on the extracted oil
and gas. They can just repurpose that past and future money to cleanup. The politicians said
it would pay for schools and firemen but future politicians will likely need to repurpose
money. At least Superfund exists, so there is a mechanism to do it.
In Colorado there are 60,000 active oil and gas wells and 20,000 that are abandoned. That
count is from 2017. Several thousand more wells have been permitted and drilled since
then. https://corising.org/colorado-map-oil-gas-wells/
A more-to-the-point question in response to this title is; When has Big Oil, Big Mineral,
Big any natural resource exploiter ever paid to clean up their mess? The answer is only when
there is a gun at its head and all the owners have not yet run off with their booty.
Beulah, North Dakota, has a coal gasification plant, open for free public tours. It's a
closed loop – shallow strip mining on their property, has sold to a single nearby
customer. The size of the equipment is mind-boggling. They are required to recontour the land
to exact pre-mining measurements and to replace every shrub and tree. The reclaimed land
looked lovely.
As a passing tourist, I know nothing in depth, but I was impressed and see no reason why
the same is not required of any resource extraction.
I think it's time we take a long hard look at this country's bankruptcy laws. For as long
as I can remember, bankruptcy has been a "tool" of business to escape what is most often the
responsibility of the business and/or business owner. See DJT et.al. The idea that a business
like the ones in this article can declare bankruptcy , dump the debt owed to creditors, and
continue to give huge bonuses to management members is foolish. When a business like the
fracking industry operators can't pay it's debts, the doors should close, the assets sold and
the creditors (in this case, the state involved) receive everything necessary to "clean up"
the mess. Most cases involving fracking wells would need more in funds than the company has
in assets. Bottom line, that's it folks. The state gets it all (which will almost never be
enough) and the folks go home, no bonus, no car, end of story. Many things would change in a
system that does not allow the dumping of debt onto society so people who were very bad at
running a business can continue to be rewarded. Just sayin ..
In many cases, the state could impose a unit royalty dedicate to future clean-up. The
royalties could go into a dedicated trust fund. The cash flow of producing wells would set
aside the means to cleanup many wells.
If by "the public," the author is referring to federal taxpayers, the answer is, "NO." Not
well understood is the fact that:
State taxpayers fund state spending, and
County taxpayers fund county spending, and
City taxpayers fund city spending, but
Federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending.
But, but, but we are "energy-independent!". Surely a small price to pay for massive
environmental despoliation in the era of late-capitalism, where "externalities" are booked on
the public ledger.
Yes, so Dubya invades Iraq to make sure the supply of black gold to the US is not
interrupted (and hey Dad – look, we got Saddam .), then the pendulum swings and Obama
mostly pulls out of the ME and " encourages" fracking to get domestic oil security. In the
meantime the political vacuum caused allows the rise of ISIS, so Syria is destroyed and
millions of refugees overwhelm Jordan, Turkey and Europe. Then along comes Trump and doubles
down, allowing the Saudis to commit unfettered genocide in Yemen (with a nice little side in
US arms sales), and now the Turks to indulge in a bit of "ethnic cleansing" of their Kurds
– you know that mob who have fighting for a bit of their own country for a hundred
years since they were unfortunately overlooked when the British and French divided up the
Middle East.
We all really need to get off this addiction to fossil fuels ASAP and convert to electric
cars and road transport and household and industry power derived from solar, wind and hydro
electricity.
It is not just climate change which is the " collateral damage" of fossil fuel use.
And in my country we have to do the same, and STOP MINING F .. COAL and allowing new coal
mines to be run by environmental vandals like Adani. AAAAAAAGH!
Obama pulled out of the ME? I must missed that during the US invasion/occupation of parts
of Syria as part of its illegal regime change war, that provided safe haven for jihadists and
ISIS in Syria
Skip-As I read it Obama pulled many, but not all obviously ,of the troops from Afghanistan
and Iraq, – and was widely criticised for doing so "prematurely" by the media and
commentariat.
Mind you, that could have been just " fake news" .
Of course that the Public will pay for the environmental cleanup of the pollution of dead
fracking wells. Just as they will pay for dead oil platforms in high seas, or
"decommissioning" of spent nuclear fuel (when someone figures out how that's done), or
underfunded pension plans or any other such scam that was advertised as doing something for
greater good but which always was, and always will be, extraction of something out of
presumed public ownership (earth) for benefit of those who figured out what to extract.
Bottled water comes to mind too.
How will public pay? Entropy, of course. No need to involve printed papers masquerading as
"money". Public will simply work harder and harder, but will have less and less of
everything, firstly less hospitals and schools, then less police and firefighters, then less
judiciary and then less water, less food and less air suitable for breathing.
The sad part is, we taxpayers, continue to live in an imaginary world where we expect that
"government" will do "something for us, the people". Governments do not look at it that way.
"Governments" are just an extraction apparatus, by which those that can extract, extract, and
those that cannot, provide the extracted material.
I looked at governments and economical systems all over the world and there is no
exceptions to this. The conundrum is, what to do about it and how?
I apologise to the commentariat but I simply must enclose two links to my favourite brain
washing outlet, BBC, here in UK. While our parliament continues to work for everyone else but
the British People, the Big Brother outfit goes on to disseminate dross like this:
Former national security officials fight back as Trump attacks impeachment as 'deep
state' conspiracy
"What is happening currently is not normal," said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who served as
a U.S. intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia before stepping down in 2018. "This
represents a deviation from the way that these institutions regularly function. And when the
institutions don't work, that is a national security threat."
She was among 90 national security veterans who signed an open letter published Sunday
in support of the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint that Trump had acted
improperly in asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden in a July phone
call.
Trump has attempted to intimidate other government officials into not cooperating by
casting those who offered information to the whistleblower as "close to spies." The open
letter emphasized that the whistleblower "is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
Saudi Aramco has fully restored the damaged production from the Abqaiq and Khurais
facilities from just a few weeks ago, an impressive turnaround in such a short period of
time.
But now, Riyadh faces another challenge that could prove more daunting.
The oil market has demonstrated its inability to sustain a price rally as market
traders are giving no premium to geopolitical risk. Instead, weak demand dominates, and
oversupply looms. Brent fell below $60 per barrel this week as a wave of dismal economic news
deepened fears of a global economic slowdown.
Oil demand forecasts have already been slashed several times this year, and the IEA's
executive director said this week that another downward revision was likely. "Looking at the
global economy weakening China, the driver of global oil demand, experiencing the lowest
economic growth since 30 years. The advanced economies are slowing down. We may well revise
down our demand numbers in the next days or months to come," the IEA's Fatih Birol
said.
Top officials from OPEC and the non-OPEC partners recognize the predicament. "Of
course, demand is affected by the status of the global economy, and the economy is slowing
down," Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in Moscow. But for now, there appears to
be no change of strategy. "There are no crisis events that call for an emergency
meeting."
That may change if things continue to worsen. In a report on October 3, Standard
Chartered marveled at how oil demand growth has plunged to a 10-year low. "This is the third
consecutive month of y/y demand falls according to our disaggregated monthly balance model,
the first time this has happened since 2009," the investment bank wrote. "Over the past 10
years, oil demand has risen y/y in 113 months and fallen in just seven. However, five of
those seven falls have occurred in the past eight months.
In short, not since the global financial crisis has oil demand growth been this weak.
Standard Chartered estimates that seven countries have posted year-on-year declines in demand
of at least 100,000 bpd – Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey
and Korea.
There are a few surprising and notable aspects about the current slide in oil prices.
First, it comes just a few weeks after the largest supply disruption in oil market history.
After a brief spike, prices fell back and the lasting impact has been negligible.
But another intriguing issue with the current downturn is the fact that the U.S. shale
industry is being squeezed by poor financials, and production has already slowed
dramatically. The recent fall in prices will put even more pressure on embattled
drillers.
One would think that oil traders would begin factoring shale production growth
undershooting expectations, which, all things equal, would put upward pressure on prices. But
that is not the case.
That brings the focus back to demand. "For the market to be pushing prices lower at a
point when the US oil industry is already in distress implies a more pessimistic market view
of the global economy than is currently priced in most other asset markets in our view,"
Standard Chartered said. WTI is not far away from a sub-$50 price.
Saudi energy minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman drew a similar conclusion in comments
to reporters in Moscow this week, but seemed more confident that the market would wake up to
the fact that shale will disappoint. "There are things that are real, and things that are
perceived. We are driven by negative expectations," Prince Abdulaziz said. "On the demand
side, yes it's been lower, but people need to understand that supply also may become
lower."
For now, lower-than-expected shale output is not sowing the seeds of a price rebound,
not with the global economy slamming on the brakes.
If oil continues to lurch downwards, OPEC+ may have to revisit its plan of staying the
course. As of now, the production cut agreement is set to expire in March, but an economic
downturn may require deeper production cuts, or at a minimum, an extension of the current
arrangement.
"how oil demand growth has plunged to a 10-year low. "This is the third consecutive month of
y/y demand falls according to our disaggregated monthly balance model, the first time this
has happened since 2009"
Remarkable to me, is how this demand growth decrease for oil has occurred despite any
significant economic slowdown- the global GDP growth has been over 2% since 2010.
Yes a recession will reduce oil consumption, World Bank forecasted 2.6 % World economic
growth in June 2019 and the IMF forecasted 3.2% World economic growth in 2019 in July
2019.
From 2015 to 2018 World real GDP growth ranged from 2.6% to 3.1% according to World
Bank
For the IMF using real GDP growth at market exchange rates they predict 2.7% growth in
2019 (similar to World Bank) and World Real GDP growth was 2.5% to 3.2% at market exchange
rates from 2015 to 2018 based on IMF estimates.
Bottom line, at the World level a recession was not expected by major international
agencies midyear 2019. Forecasts often change.
Yes predictions can be too high or too low, one only knows which after the fact, your
guess may be good or it may not, time will tell.
Keep in mind the "consumption" numbers are often a combination of output estimates and stock
estimates, the stock estimates in particular are notoriously bad especially at the World
level.
We don't really know what recent consumption has been, so the "slowdown" in consumption
may not be real. In addition "consumption" of all liquids is of little interest, the
important numbers are C+C, light and middle distillates, and residual fuel (aka fuel oil),
the propane and ethane and other NGL output (with the exception of C5) is of little
importance for transportation, the EIA's C+C and OPEC's crude output numbers are the only
important numbers.
Based on EIA C+C data the long term trend in the rate of increase in oil output is 811
kb/d from Jan 1982 to July 2019. Over the long term consumption increase is the same as
output increase because if that were not the case stocks would either build to beyond
capacity or be drawn to zero it consumption and production were not balanced over the long
run.
The other consumption predictions thrown around such as 1200 kb/d or 1400 kb/d are all
liquids numbers including biofuel, NGL, and other oils not used for transportation, I ignore
those estimates a they are of little consequence.
It is obvious that C&C consumption has stalled for many months. I think a lot of GDP
growth is due to luxury things being bought by the super rich, and GDP driven by ordinary
people has stalled.
In the short run, consumption can be higher than output by drawing from oil stocks. We
have output data that is pretty good, we do not have very good oil stock data for the World,
consequently it is far from clear that oil consumption has stalled, we do not know.
An alternative view of income (real GDP per capita), average rate of growth over past 5
years is 2.3% per year for the US.
Hugo- certainly we all expect global recession to cut into demand for all industrial
materials, like in 2009.
But there has not been a global recession lately, with over 2% gdp growth/yr since 2010.
The sources you quote anticipate growth slowdown upcoming, but this does not relate to the
oil consumption growth slowdown already experienced in the recent past.
China growing at about 6% annually and India at 8%, so a slowdown could mean 5% and 7% in
those nations. Advanced economies are growing more slowly, especially Japan with shrinking
population, per capita real GDP growth was close to 2% for the World in 2017 and 2018,
average rate of growth in real GDP per capita (2010 US$) at market exchange rates from 1975
to 2018 was 1.46% per year.
For China, real GDP per capita grew at 8.9% per year from 1990 to 2012, from 2012 to 2018
the rate of growth slowed to 6.2%. India's real GDP per capita growth has been 6.1% from 2012
to 2018 (an increase from the 4.6% annual growth rate of real GDP per capita from 1993 to
2013.)
The piece on India is an opinion piece, growth has slowed from 7% to 6%.
For China consumption growth (typically about 2/3 of GDP) was 7%, down from a blistering
9.8%. Industrial growth is not the only measure that is important, in fact consumption growth
is what drives an economy especially in a huge market like China with almost 1.4 billion
people.
Denise,the info on India is incorrect . The last quarter growth was 5 % . Core sector growth
was -0.5% yes negative . It is in a slowdown of MASSIVE proportion . By the way an ex member
of the prime ministerial economic council has said that the government is inflating growth by
anything from 1.5-2% . He resigned because he would not toe the govt line .
I only have annual data from World bank and in 2018 growth using PPP measure was 6.98% for
real GDP. IMF has 2018 real GDP growth at 7.3% and projects 7.5% for 2019. RBI is saying 6.1%
for real GDP growth.
You ignore the fact that the ex chief economic adviser admitted that growth is overstated by
1.5-2.0 % . So it could be anything between 3-3 .5% ,which is paltry for the nation of it^s
size and a sizable decline from peak of 9.8% .
Most estimates are around 7%, so if it is overstated by 2% we would be at 5%, nobody has
said it is overstated by 4%. Forecasts change and sometimes there are recessions, just the
way capitalism works.
Capitalism is not perfect, but when properly regulated and combined with a highly
progessive tax system, it is likely better than any other economic system humans have come up
with.
"Dennis has talking about the world consuming less oil. We are starting to see the reality
of how global oil consumption is reduced."
Is it strange, with so much consumer debt and economies on steroids by what the central
banks are doing ?
Somehow the monetary system is sick and a bubble is waiting to burst. That's my simple view
of it.
Last weeks low on the Brent price chart touched the major supporting trendline that supports
the entire up trend since lows of 2016. WTI is still 4-5 $ away from it's major supporting
trendline from 2016. That little bounce we got last week was just a technical bounce. The
only way to $20's oil is through these trendline. Do they hold or not? I think they both have
to give way to get to $20's not just one of them. Brent can break below it's trendline and be
a false break if WTI never confirms the move.
Can't imagine $20/bo would last more than a week or two. All oil development will cease at
that price level and shortages would develop within a month. Only people that believe the
Saudi America hype think $20/bo is possible. Perhaps there are enough fools who believe that
hype to make $20/bo a reality before 2050. Some day we might get to $20/bo, but it will be 20
or 30 years down the road, before we see a 12 month average Brent oil price under $30/b0 in
2019 US$, perhaps even 50 years when we consider the difficulty of replacing petroleum liquid
fuel in air and water transport.
I don't think 20$ for more than a month even in 30 or 50 or 100 years. More wells will be
closed, there is less economy of scale, oil field equipment and service will be much more
expensive than now, enviromental regulations will be more strict to the black stuff since
it's less important. So less and less lobby influence.
And running all these injections on old wrestled out Saudi oil fields will cost much, so
the few barrels being squeezed out won't be cheap. Fracking a few D-Class Permian wells with
old museum-equipment won't come cheap, too.
Piplelines will be stopped, so only rail and truck transport – all adds up.
If you need oil as an exotic chemical feedstock and fuel for ancient museum cars and
planes in 100 years (normal energy is perhaps mainly from fusion plants and deep geothermal
power plants) it doesn't matter it costs 100$ a barrel. It will be produced from old stripper
wells – no oil industry left to explore new fields (and collapse price with this).
There isn't any application that truly requires oil. Hydrocarbons (and therefore diesel, jet
fuel, etc.) can come from biomass, coal, kerogen, or from electrolytic H2 and carbon
extracted from air and water.
As you point out, as volumes fall economies of scale will reverse and the true costs of
pollution will be recognized, and oil will no longer be burnt.
Petrochemicals might grow, but oil will have trouble competing with coal and natural gas
– they'll no longer be burnt as fuel, so they'll be dirt cheap. China is already using
coal as a chemical feedstock.
There may come a time after 2040 (possibly not until 2050) where OPEC nations compete with
each other for market share and the price of oil might fall to the marginal cost of the
cheapest middle east barrels, which might be as low as $20/bo in 2017 US$. In any case I
doubt it would be higher than $40/bo in 2017$, much depends on if it is possible to replace
fossil fuels in air and water transport, if not then oil prices might rise as oil demand for
petrochemical, air transport and water transport might be higher than oil supply by 2065
which would drive oil prices higher. Guesses for 2020 are not good, guesses for 2065 are
pretty ridiculous and are likely to be far wide of the mark.
Maybe trendlines hold Dennis. The Brent chart is very clean. Meaning price touched the
underneath side of the original trendline coming off of Jan 2016 during Saudi attacks. Price
kissed the underneath side and got rejected. And went straight down to the secondary
trendline coming off Jan 2016 and bounced a bit.
We should find out fairly soon if this trendline hold. I've been telling you since April
that price was going to revisit these trendline before either gathering enough support to
move higher or break lower opening the way up to the $20's
WTI still has a ways to go to reach it's supporting trendline. If Brent has a break below
here. WTI should reach it's trendline.
Wed. should be a important day. No trade deal is not good for oil. A trade deal of some
sorts is not really good for oil as the dollar will rocket higher on a trade deal. 10y Bond
yields will go higher on a deal. Unless market views a trade deal as bad for US equities.
Since a deal probably means no more rate cuts any time soon. That could very well happen.
And if US equities happen to have a negative reaction to a trade deal i can't see it being
any good for the price of oil.
If you need lower bond yields to roll over a bunch of debt yet you know making a trade
deal will in fact send them higher. Do you make the deal? Personally i think stocks are going
to get taken to the woodshed sooner or later in order to save government bonds.
This is where Watcher tells me they can just QE it and have both.
$100 pops every bubble created in wake of 2009. That is what will happen if QE is done again
like it was done before.
It seems as if ole David Hughes, which I have a lot of respect, decided to come on the
website and leave a few comments. Basically, Hughes's reply was, "WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL IN
2018?" He went on to say that we all know these wells decline 50+% in the first year, so why
start to make a STINK about it now?
I also had several email replies from some other folks. And then we had a bit of a TIT for
TAT here in this blog with HUNTY.
However, what is going on in the Permian is only a small part of the overall situation.
Regardless if we bicker about the future Permian revisions due to the incomplete TRRC data,
the fact remains, if you look at the "Annual Compounded Decline Rate" presently, it resembles
a 70-75% STEEP CLIFF. And, the Permian isn't the only one that looks like that. You can add
the Bakken and Eagle Ford to varying degrees.
So, while a portion of the "OIL FOLKS" and a large percentage of the "DUMBED DOWN PUBLIC"
believe there is NOTHING TO SEE HERE, they couldn't be more wrong.
Furthermore, the U.S. public debt just ballooned by $227 billion in less than two weeks
and $814 billion since August 1st. While everyone has seemingly become NUMB to the amount of
these figures, the rate at which debt is being added in the United States and globally is
heading up in an exponential trend. But, there is nothing to see here.
And, then we have the fun taking place in the REPO MARKETS when, according to a specialist
in the field, a large BLOCK of CASH has been removed from the market and hasn't come back, I
gather it's just another sign that EVERYTHING IS OKAY . .nothing to see here.
Also, ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, had to borrow $7 billion in August to
repay the huge $11 billion in short term paper it borrowed 1H 2019 in order to pay dividends
and fortify its balance sheet as its Permian stake is destroying its bottom line.
And today, we see that ExxonMobil just sold its $4.5 billion upstream assets in Norway.
Yes, this is part of Exxon's plan to sell $15 billion by 2021 to focus on KEY ASSETS. I
gather that really means, they are going to have to fill in the RED they will be suffering in
the Permian as its U.S. upstream earnings continue to suffer. But again nothing to see
here
Lastly while the NOTHING TO SEE here mentality will continue even as the U.S. and global
economy heads over the cliff, taking the highly leveraged debt-based financial system down
with it, I'll make sure that I schedule some time from my day to come in here and read all
the "I TOLD YOU SO" comments.
OPEC sells oil under the free market equilibrium theory, expressing the belief that there
should be a single price for oil (more or less) at any given time, and that members interests
are common enough to work together towards that one price of oil. But maybe the interests of
poor producers (who need to sell anyway) and rich producers are not exactly the same. I think
it was either Watcher or HHH who pointed that when Argentina introduced fixed oil prices, it
thus decoupled from supporting the illusion of one oil price by equilibrium. Argentina is not
an oil exporter and it still seems to have already been perceived as a problem.
But what if some rich exporter, UAE or Brunei for example, wanted to sell oil for
substantially higher price, like 120$, for example? Could they just stop selling oil for 60$
and say "we are not going to labour towards some incremental price increase anymore, from now
on only 120$ for our oil please" ? What would happen?
The astonishing lack of economical diversification in countries of OPEC (significantly,
besides Iran) is a bit suspicious and may be the expression of attempts to force them to rely
on selling oil by NOT having a choice of not selling oil (something like that was depicted in
"Syriana" movie where the progressive prince was taken down). Therefore, it is not only Saudi
Arabia that props petrodollar but the entire OPEC, by its very exsitence and policy, does so
too.
It evolves from the fundamental concept that there is nothing negative for a country that
is self-sufficient to decide to leave the oil underground for their grandchildren.
Norway is the obvious example of this. They are self-sufficient. They do not leave the oil
underground for their grandchildren. Instead it has grown the largest Sovereign Wealth Fund
in the world.
At some point it may occur to some people that oil underground is a Sovereign Wealth Fund
in and of itself. Why produce and export that oil merely to convert wealth from one form into
another? And dare I note the original form is likely quite a bit superior to the new form
that is defined by unelected officials at central banks.
In the case of KSA, people think they produce oil to become wealthy, since they are
producing far beyond their domestic consumption. But in their case it's not quite that. They
produce because a choice noted above would generate invasion in the pre shale days. Anyone
without an army who chooses to leave their oil underground and has a big portion of global
supply would likely have their oil taken away from them.
Think about that. If someone decides so just keep their own oil there's probably no price
you can offer them to change their minds because they have made the correct decision that oil
is far more important than money. Such a decision would have to be changed by military
force.
That's why Argentina's declaration of its own price is such a dangerous thing. It
introduces all of the above thinking into too many minds -- many of which are sitting on
billions of barrels.
Well, Norway is not self-sufficient. It must import a lot of food, like KSA. It does not
produce enough food even for its 5 milion citizens (like KSA, they tried, and failed). It
must import a lot of other things, too. The biggest industry there is still oil and gas.
Likewise, the biggest industry in KSA and UAE is oil and gas. Difference or similarity?
The largest sovereign fund, by the very fact of being 'largest' is certainly a hostage of
global economy.
So Norway is not a good example. It is a virtue signaling country par excellence. They
signal virtue, not wisdom.
The interesting example would be Russia. Russia is self-sufficient, and can defend
herself. Why not to decouple from global economy? Why pump 11 mbd, and not 6 mbd like in the
nineties?
Precious! After all those years Ukraine tried to force Gazprom to prolong transportation
contracts, including in western Courts, now it is EUROCOMMISSION that plays their 3rd Energy
Package card, but how!
After Zelensky so daringly kissed up to Trump and talk dirt about Merkel and Macron
– EC says the prolongation of Gazprom-NaftaGaz contract is "not legally possible" and
that Ukraine has to kill and "unbundle" NaftaGaz, and when they done – only then the
new pipes-only company would be free to try negotiate a new unrelated contract for gas
transportation.
The Holy Grail of Ukrainian foreign economics is dead, backstabbed by EU.
What a fine present to President Ze :-DDDD
There is trouble underlying when the US military does something because of good partner
relations rather than obvious contribution to a clearly defined strategy. See Vietnam and
dominoes.
US is sending more "deterrent" equipment and military personnel [as targets also to
improve ARAMCO IPO oil assets] into the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
New SecDef says Saudi princes have been "good partners", especially as the ARAMCO IPO is
coming on. If you and I protect the ARAMCO facilities in the kingdom the IPO may go based on
$2T instead of $1.5T, as some investment bankers might suggest.
Two fighter squadrons (likely F-15's, F-35 too slow, F-16 too low cost), two more Patriot
missile batteries, a THAAD warning and control system (the H in THAAD is high altitude, not
so good on drones and cruise missiles), etc. And prince bone Saws may pay the freight to keep
them in the kingdom.
Most obvious and least reported is 1800 more US soldiers and airmen to be
tripwires/excuses if they are harmed.
Deterrent and escalation; terms that go together when the new SecDef speaks.
"... George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game: ..."
"... This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end of his days. ..."
"... DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity. From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power." ..."
"... There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect. ..."
"Comedian Ellen DeGeneres loves to tell everyone to be kind. It's a loose word, kindness; on her show, DeGeneres customarily
uses it to mean a generic sort of niceness. Don't bully. Befriend people! It's a charming thought, though it has its limits
as a moral ethic. There are people in the world, after all, whom it is better not to befriend. Consider, for example, the person
of George W. Bush. Tens of thousands of people are dead because his administration lied to the American public about the presence
of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and then, based on that lie, launched a war that's now in its 16th year. After Hurricane
Katrina struck and hundreds of people drowned in New Orleans, Bush twiddled his thumbs for days. Rather than fire the officials
responsible for the government's life-threateningly lackluster response to the crisis, he praised them, before flying over
the scene in Air Force One. He opposed basic human rights for LGBT people, and reproductive rights for women, and did more
to empower the American Christian right than any president since Reagan.
George W. Bush's presidency wasn't just morally bankrupt. In a superior reality, the Hague would be sorting out whether
he is guilty of war crimes. Since our international institutions have failed to punish, or even censure him, surely the only
moral response from civil society should be to shun him. But here is Ellen DeGeneres hanging out with him at a Cowboys game:
And here is Ellen DeGeneres explaining why it's good and normal to share laughs, small talk, and nachos with a man who has
many deaths on his conscience:
Here's the money quote from her apologia:
"We're all different. And I think that we've forgotten that that's okay that we're all different," she told her studio
audience. "When I say be kind to one another, I don't mean be kind to the people who think the same way you do. I mean be
kind to everyone."
This is what we say to children who don't want to sit next to the class misfit at lunch. It is not -- or at least it
should not -- be the way we talk about a man who used his immense power to illegally invade another country where we still
have troops 16 years later. His feet should bleed wherever he walks and Iraqis should get to throw shoes at him until the end
of his days.
Nevertheless, many celebrities and politicians have hailed DeGeneres for her radical civility:
There's almost no point to rebutting anything that Chris Cillizza writes. Whatever he says is inevitably dumb and wrong,
and then I get angry while I think about how much money he gets to be dumb and wrong on a professional basis. But on this occasion,
I'll make an exception. The notion that DeGeneres's friendship with Bush is antithetical to Trumpism fundamentally misconstrues
the force that makes Trump possible. Trump isn't a simple playground bully, he's the president. Americans grant our commanders-in-chief
extraordinary deference once they leave office. They become celebrities, members of an apolitical royal class. This tendency
to separate former presidents from the actions of their office, as if they were merely actors in a stage play, or retired athletes
from a rival team, contributes to the atmosphere of impunity that enabled Trump. If Trump's critics want to make sure that
his cruelties are sins the public and political class alike never tolerate again, our reflexive reverence for the presidency
has to die.
DeGeneres isn't a role model for civility. Her friendship with Bush simply embodies the grossest form of class solidarity.
From a lofty enough vantage point, perhaps Bush's misdeeds really look like minor partisan differences. Perhaps Iraq seems
very far away, and so do the poor of New Orleans, when the stage of your show is the closest you get to anyone without power."
...I am all in favor of Tulsi Gabbard's anti-war stance, but this comment shows me she is too childish to hold any power.
Tulsi Gabbard
Verified account @TulsiGabbard
22h22 hours ago
.@TheEllenShow msg of being kind to ALL is so needed right now. Enough with the divisiveness. We can't let politics tear
us apart. There are things we will disagree on strongly, and things we agree on -- let's treat each other with respect, aloha,
& work together for the people.
There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect.
I did not vote for Trump, or for Hillary, but I firmly agree with analysis of Bacevich here:
> Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental hubris. When it comes to tallying
up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include thousands
of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands
of non-Americans killed or injured; millions displaced; trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and
in its case even formed inside a US prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it has yet to
recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
> The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the administration of President Bill Clinton
and continued by his successor. Deregulating the banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet,
as a direct result of the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment shot up to
10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock market cratered and millions saw their life
savings evaporate. Again, the question must be asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
"secular stagnation" is the result of systemic crisis of neoliberalism which started in 2008.
Larry Summers:
"Secular Stagnation – a prolonged period in which satisfactory growth can only be
achieved by unsustainable financial conditions –- may be the defining macro-economic
challenge of our times. "
It is similar to the period of stagnation the USSR experienced in starting with 70th till
its dissolution.
The causes are systemic, stemming from a perverted way neoliberalism organizes the society
("Greed is good" "free market", "I am from the government... " "Individual responsibility",
shareholder values and other pseudo-religious symbols of faith ) as well as hypertrophy, lack
of control and the level of political power of the financial sector under neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism, like Bolshevism before it is a Catch 22 and can't be reformed only
abolished.
In any case due to deregulation of the financial sector and decimation of New Deal
safeguards (thanks to Clinton) the US society stepped on the same rake as before Great
Depression.
As Galbraith aptly said "The man who is admired for the ingenuity of his larceny is almost
always rediscovering some earlier form of fraud. The basic forms are all known, have all been
practiced."
"... One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very top. ..."
"... To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD? ..."
One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in
Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical
subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on
the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very
top.
To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And
what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD?
This brings us to Hunter Biden's appointment to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. After the
coup in 2014, why wouldn't Biden want a trusted asset on the board of the biggest natural gas
producer in Ukraine? IOW it was unpublicized standard operating procedure.
Last week total crude inputs to US refineries 17.495 Mbbl/day. Domestic sourced crude 12.4
Mbbl/day.
US imported 6.725Mbbl/day of crude oil.
The small net import you hear on TV news is from refining imported crude 4.626 Mbbl/day in
finished product for export and 3.295 Mbbl/day in crude exported.
As to "isolationist" I would rather not "run amok" in the Middle East. The US has been
acting like a 'Juramentado........' whom US soldiers encountered fighting Moros in the
Philippines.
I think the EU may have just fucked Nord Stream II. An EU General Court overturned the 2016
EU Commission decision to allow Gazprom to use more than 50% of the Opal pipeline, a critical
choke point for both legs of Nord Stream II to get gas to the hub. If that decision can't be
reversed again, a reasonable argument will be made that Nord stream II is not necessary, as
Nord Stream alone can easily supply 50% capacity. The kicker is they do not have any other
exporter who could make up the other 50% to use the pipeline to capacity. But this is a very
shrewd move, as the Opal pipeline was always the weak link.
Ukraine, of course, will be dancing in the streets with delight. But I wouldn't be too
quick to do that. Russia might still decline to renew the contract with Ukraine, and just let
Europe go short, to teach it a lesson. Past time, in my opinion. Of course Uncle Sam will see
that as the opportunity long looked for, and offer to step up with LNG imports. And that
might be good, too, for a couple of years – let the Yurrupeans pay extortionate gas
prices, and learn to be wary of America's temper tantrums translated to supply 'problems'
which can only be resolved by making political concessions. Russia has always pretty much let
Europe do its thing without pressuring it much, despite the hysterics you see in the media
about weaponization of energy.
It is absolutely typical of Europe to wait until the pipeline is almost complete to
offload that bomb. I suppose they figure Russia will have to agree to anything they say so as
not to waste all that work and money. It also showcases Europe's complete unreliability in
any business relationship, exactly in lock-step with American unreliability.
I saw that news too. But then remember the original Nord Stream had a cap that was then
lifted. If the EU insists on paying top $$$ for imported LNG from the US rather than lifting
any sort of cap, I'd be interested to see how they justify that to EU citizen consumers.
I think the point is, again, not to react immediately to whatever outrage Brussels or its
friends pick out of their ass. I could well imagine that NSII partners may well sue Brussels
about this, actually file the papers. Brussels would argue 'But it's not us, it's the court',
to which the lawyers would say 'We specifically asked you, and you came up with nothing in
law'.
I think we will find the general court has taken a certain 'interpretation' of competition
law that was 'advised' by Brussles. How NSII could get this far after all of these years and
have a court come out with such a ruling. Expect egg on face and 'It's not me!'. I don't see
how this 'ruling' can stand.
"The Europeans apply antitrust legislation, which is designed to develop the competition.
Why it is necessary to free up 50% of the gas pipeline's capacity? According to the idea of
the legislators, it has to allow competition to arise. But when nobody can physically come to
the start point of the OPAL gas pipeline, alternative suppliers have nowhere to come from.
There physically isn't and can't be another supplier in OPAL!!! It's like banning water from
being carried in full buckets!"
The very inspiration of competition is the introduction of anti-monopoly procedures to
establish a lowest price by pitting the competitors against one another. I am pretty
confident that Russia has always had the lowest prices, and can usually be induced to do a
deal for lower prices yet in exchange for other considerations. When other countries do it,
it's what dealing's all about – when Russia does it, it's weaponizing energy.
If you have a reliable supplier who has access to years of reserves and who consistently
sells to you at a reasonable price, why do you have to impose a raft of new rules to bring in
competitors who cannot match its prices and do not have access to plentiful supplies? Once
again, for Yurrupeans who do not get it, competition is to arrive at a low price. If you
start from a low price, it is stupid to mandate room for competitors who cannot get under
it.
I suspect the Poles are behind this latest charade. But why is Germany going along with
it? Opal lies entirely within Germany, and anything that risks constraining available supply
risks Germany's status as a gas hub.
Anyway, as I suggested earlier, it would do Europe a world of good for Russia to short
them gas for a little while and let them pay prices for outside supplies that would have
their hair on fire. A period of throwing money away when you know there is a cheaper supply
to which you cannot get access can be extremely educational. Uncle Sam would jump at the
chance to sell Europe LNG and, at least in the beginning, would cut prices to the bone in
order to establish market share. But it would still insist on making a profit, and it can't
do that and match Russian prices, while its lengthy logistic chain depends on a lot of
factors. If it became confident that its market share was both secure and relied upon,
Europeans would quickly see how it was leveraged against them to American advantage.
Helping the Ukraine in it's gas talks fit in my opinion. This 50% cap can be lifted,
reintroduced/whatever and whenever by Brussels. It's a gangsta move.
Well, actually, it can't. Be lifted and re-imposed willy-nilly, I mean. If it is, it would be
pointless to build the pipeline in the first place, as Opal would merely take the place of
Ukraine. The western tacticians want to keep Ukraine in the mix because they can use it to
introduce complications and problems in gas delivery from Russia, which can at the same time
be used to paint Russia as an unreliable partner. If Opal can't be relied upon to supply the
opportunity to transit major volumes, Russia will have to make a deal with Ukraine so as to
preserve a Plan B option. It would have been better to not build the pipeline, and still
cease transit through Ukraine, labeling it instead as the unreliable part of the logistics
chain, and Europe would just have to be satisfied with what it could get out of existing
pipelines – minus Ukraine – running flat-out. After all, Europe maintained that a
twin line for Nord Stream was not needed; mind you, when they said that, they were
envisioning continued transit through Ukraine, complete with the prima donna antics Ukraine
exhibits when it believes it has leverage.
The price of gas would go through the roof, and Russia would probably make just as much
money, while the Europeans were weeping and tearing out their hair.
Ukraine's offer for the gas talks is 60 Billion Cubic Meters transit annually for 10
years. Russia will tell them to go fuck themselves. They're basically asking for a contract
to transit the same amount they're transiting now, when there is no alternative, for ten more
years.
I wish I could be so sure. Brussels likes to think it is kleva (sic 'field pipes'/TAP
exemptions). I've looked for more details, and it is appealable (is that a word)?
For several years, Russia could use only 50% of the pipeline's capacity, as prescribed
in the EU's Third Energy Package. Gazprom asked for permission to use OPAL's 100%
capacity,
.In the summer of 2017, the Dusseldorf Higher Regional Court decided to remove interim
measures on Gazprom's use of Opal's facilities imposed by the lawsuit. Poland finds that now
the decision of the European Court of Justice will not allow Gazprom to abandon gas transit
through the territory of Ukraine.
On September 10, on considering Poland's lawsuit, the EU Court of Justice overturned
the European Commission's decision of 2016, according to which Gazprom could fully use the
capacities of the OPAL gas pipeline. The Russian company reserves the right to use 50% of
OPAL's capacity, but it will no longer be able to participate in auctions for the remaining
40%.
####
So it is a continuation of previous legal ding-dongs.
The ruling is also important because of the reasoning behind it. The justices said the
main reason for their decision was not to preserve third-party access to pipelines that run
through Europe but to maintain the EU's energy-solidarity policy. This opens the door to
future litigation based on such policy
####
WTF? So it's not about allowing 3rd party access after all. The Court is ruling on
a completely different aspect! So this is about a different rule of the EU's Third Energy
Package that a) post dates the original Nord Stream; b) ignores that NSII follows the
same route and is not substantially different to NS1. The Third Energy Package entered in to
legislation in September 2009.* Excuse me, but 10 years late?
So it looks to me that the multipronged offensive against NSII though it has failed to
stymie off-shore NSII because it is almost completely outside the EU (well, we'll see what
happend with Denmark), it's temporarily struck gold with OPAL because it is on-shore EU.
Buuut, in leverageing against Russia to the benefit of Ukraine, it will directly impact
Russia-EU-Ukraine talks:
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak "I think that, in terms of negotiations, this
situation will be taken into account," **
Yet: Šefčovič said the decision was still very fresh, that his
services were still studying it, and that it underlined how important the principle of energy
solidarity is for Europe.
The ECJ ruled that the 2016 decision is "in breach of the principle of energy
solidarity" because it failed to properly assess how to balance Germany's interests against
the negative impacts on other EU member states .
Šefčovič avoided a direct answer, but insisted in the need of
long-term contracts with Gazprom .
He explained that the Ukrainian side was willing to apply European law, saying this
would bring clarity, transparency and efficiency. The letters sent by the Commission to both
parties also stressed the importance of long-term contracts, he said . ***
Cake and eat it, Brussels? Kiev complying with 'European Law' when even EU member states
do not? Ha ha ha! It all rather looks like vague horseshit to me. Open to creative
interpretation a la Marcel Marceau.
When I said, "Actually, it can't", I didn't mean Europe can't do it, I meant that the
uncertainty it introduces will not likely prove satisfactory for Russia to play the game,
since Brussels could arbitrarily decide to apply the cap any time it wishes Russia to transit
more gas through Ukraine, and pay it more money. The only real solution for Russia is to make
it crystal clear to Brussels that it is not going to sign a big fat transit contract with
Ukraine, and then business as usual, with Ukraine getting up to its monkeyshines and
demanding cheaper gas against the possibility of restricting exports to Europe. Ukraine has
demonstrated that it is just like the United States in the sense that if it has any leverage
over you, it will use it for its own ends. The west has made it clear it approves of these
tactics, even when they cause a temporary shutdown of gas exports to Europe.
Brussels thinks it is being cute, and that Russia will now have to do as Brussels wants it
to. Russia has little choice but to play hardball, and let it be known that it has no
intention of signing a long-term agreement with Ukraine to transit the same volumes of gas it
always did – what the fuck was Nord Stream II all about? If Europe – and
especially those perfidious krauts – want to cap the amount going through the Opal line
at 50% of capacity, so be it. Europe will just have to adjust to 60 BcM less supply; maybe
Uncle Sugar can send a fleet of LNG tankers to make up the difference, at double the cost.
But if Russia signs on to transit 60 BcM annually through Ukraine, it is right back where it
started, and built an expensive pipeline for nothing. Stand firm, Russia. Europe does not
have an alternative gas supplier, and nothing would teach it that lesson like a year or so of
scraping to find enough gas, and paying through the nose for it. It's always chunnering about
alternative suppliers – go and find them!
Absolutely insane. The EU/Anglo/US fascists are making their last stand and forcing Russia
into a corner with the only way out to continue transit through Ukraine. Oh, the humiliation
will be so sweet!
I think the Russian reaction will be a big Fuck You. Its all about LNG and the need to
save the US gas frackers and their debt. Oh, and to drive a wedge to further separate Russia
from Europe. Perfect, Russia can now focus on its future and forget that rotting corpse of
Western civilization.
Oh, I think Nord Stream II will still go through anyway, in the end. But a great deal depends
on Russia not signing another 10-year gas deal with Ukraine for 60 BcM annually. If it does
that, then there really is no difference from today, and Nord Stream II would just be an
extra line for use in emergencies. I can't believe any of the partners want that, as there
would be little opportunity for them to profit, which is why I wonder why Germany is being so
passive. Have they been persuaded to take one for Team Ukraine? Again, I find that hard to
believe. It is essentially a question of Ukraine being Europe's gas hub, or Germany. And it
should be more than plain to Europe by now that Ukraine will happily toss a wrench in the
transit works any time Washington tells it to.
Europe needs Russian gas. But it wants it on entirely its own terms, with Brussels in
control. Apparently it is not obvious that Europe is already in control – it is the
buyer. If it doesn't want gas, it doesn't need to buy it. But it does want it. It just wants
to wave the rule-book around every time it makes a purchase. Which would be obvious to it, if
ever there came a time when it wanted it and couldn't get it.
Yes it is, but only for couples with low level of marital satisfaction.
Notable quotes:
"... They also looked at marital breakup more generally, focusing on when couples decided to end their relationships (not necessarily if or when they got divorced). Their findings revealed that when men were unemployed, the likelihood that either spouse would leave the marriage increased. What about the woman's employment status? For husbands, whether their wife was employed or not was seemingly unimportant-it was unrelated to their decision to leave the relationship. It did seem to matter for wives, though, but it depended upon how satisfied they were with the marriage. ..."
"... When women were highly satisfied, they were inclined to stay with their partner regardless of whether they had employment. However, when the wife's satisfaction was low, she was more likely to exit the relationship, but only when she had a job. ..."
The first study considers government data from all 50 U.S. states between the years 1960 and 2005.1 The researchers predicted
that higher unemployment numbers would translate to more divorces among heterosexual married couples. Most of us probably would have
predicted this too based on common sense-you would probably expect your partner to be able to hold down a job, right? And indeed,
this was the case, but only before 1980. Surprisingly, since then, as joblessness has increased, divorce rates have actually
decreased.
How do we explain this counterintuitive finding? We don't know for sure, but the researchers speculate that unemployed
people may delay or postpone divorce due to the high costs associated with it. Not only is divorce expensive in terms of legal fees,
but afterward, partners need to pay for two houses instead of one. And if they are still living off of one salary at that point,
those costs may be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is not that uncommon to hear about estranged couples who can't stand
each other but are still living under the same roof.
The second study considered data from a national probability sample of over 3,600 heterosexual married couples in the U.S. collected
between 1987 and 2002. However, instead of looking at the overall association between unemployment and marital outcomes, they considered
how gender and relationship satisfaction factored into the equation. 2
They also looked at marital breakup more generally, focusing on when couples decided to end their relationships (not necessarily
if or when they got divorced). Their findings revealed that when men were unemployed, the likelihood that either spouse would leave
the marriage increased. What about the woman's employment status? For husbands, whether their wife was employed or not was seemingly
unimportant-it was unrelated to their decision to leave the relationship. It did seem to matter for wives, though, but it depended
upon how satisfied they were with the marriage.
When women were highly satisfied, they were inclined to stay with their partner regardless of whether they had employment.
However, when the wife's satisfaction was low, she was more likely to exit the relationship, but only when she had a job.
"... A good economy compensates for much social dysfunction. ..."
"... More than that, it prevents the worst of behaviors that are considered an expression of dysfunction from occurring, as people across all social strata have other things to worry about or keep them busy. Happy people don't bear grudges, or at least they are not on top of their consciousness as long as things are going well. ..."
"... This could be seen time and again in societies with deep and sometimes violent divisions between ethnic groups where in times of relative prosperity (or at least a broadly shared vision for a better future) the conflicts are not removed but put on a backburner, or there is even "finally" reconciliation, and then when the economy turns south, the old grudges and conflicts come back (often not on their own, but fanned by groups who stand to gain from the divisions, or as a way of scapegoating) ..."
"... "backwaters of America, that economy seems to put out fewer and fewer chairs." ~~Harold Pollack~ ..."
"... Going up through the chairs has become so impossible for those on the slow-track. Not enough slots for all the jokers within our once proud country of opportunities, ..."
"... George Orwell: "I doubt, however, whether the unemployed would ultimately benefit if they learned to spend their money more economically. ... If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly." ..."
"... Perhaps you are commenting on the aspect that when (enough) job applicants/holders define down their standards and let employers treat them as floor mats, then the quality of many jobs and the labor relations will be adjusted down accordingly, or at the very least expectations what concessions workers will make will be adjusted up. That seems to be the case unfortunately. ..."
A good economy compensates for much social dysfunction.
A bad economy moves people toward the margins, afflicts those
near the margins and kills those at the margins.
This is what policy makers should consider as they pursue policies that do not put the citizen above all else.
cm -> Avraam Jack Dectis...
"A good economy compensates for much social dysfunction."
More than that, it prevents the worst of behaviors that are considered an expression of dysfunction from occurring, as
people across all social strata have other things to worry about or keep them busy. Happy people don't bear grudges, or at least
they are not on top of their consciousness as long as things are going well.
This could be seen time and again in societies with deep and sometimes violent divisions between ethnic groups where in
times of relative prosperity (or at least a broadly shared vision for a better future) the conflicts are not removed but put on
a backburner, or there is even "finally" reconciliation, and then when the economy turns south, the old grudges and conflicts
come back (often not on their own, but fanned by groups who stand to gain from the divisions, or as a way of scapegoating)
Dune Goon said...
"backwaters of America, that economy seems to put out fewer and fewer chairs." ~~Harold Pollack~
Going up through the chairs has become so impossible for those on the slow-track. Not enough slots for all the jokers within
our once proud country of opportunities, not enough elbow room for Daniel Boone, let alone Jack Daniels! Not enough space
in this county to wet a tree when you feel the urge! Every tiny plot of space has been nailed down and fenced off, divided up
among gated communities. Why?
Because the 1% has an excessive propensity to reproduce their own kind. They are so uneducated about the responsibilities of
birth control and space conservation that they are crowding all of us off the edge of the planet. Worse yet we have begun to *ape
our betters*.
"We've only just begun!"
~~The Carpenters~
William said...
"Many of us know people who receive various public benefits, and who might not need to rely on these programs if they made
better choices, if they learned how to not talk back at work, if they had a better handle on various self-destructive behaviors,
if they were more willing to take that crappy job and forego disability benefits, etc."
George Orwell: "I doubt, however, whether the unemployed would ultimately benefit if they learned to spend their money
more economically. ... If the unemployed learned to be better managers they would be visibly better off, and I fancy it would
not be long before the dole was docked correspondingly."
cm said in reply to William...
A valid observation, but what you are commenting on is more about getting or keeping a job than managing personal finances.
Perhaps you are commenting on the aspect that when (enough) job applicants/holders define down their standards and let
employers treat them as floor mats, then the quality of many jobs and the labor relations will be adjusted down accordingly, or
at the very least expectations what concessions workers will make will be adjusted up. That seems to be the case unfortunately.
"... In a recent interview Mr. Deaton suggested that middle-aged whites have "lost the narrative of their lives." That is, their economic setbacks have hit hard because they expected better. Or to put it a bit differently, we're looking at people who were raised to believe in the American Dream, and are coping badly with its failure to come true. ..."
"... the truth is that we don't really know why despair appears to be spreading across Middle America. But it clearly is, with troubling consequences for our society... ..."
"... Some people who feel left behind by the American story turn self-destructive; others turn on the elites they feel have betrayed them. ..."
"... What we are seeing is the long term impacts of the "Reagan Revolution." ..."
"... The affected cohort here is the first which has lived with the increased financial and employment insecurity that engendered, as well as the impacts of the massive offshoring of good paying union jobs throughout their working lives. Stress has cumulative impacts on health and well-being, which are a big part of what we are seeing here. ..."
"... Lets face it, this Fed is all about goosing up asset prices to generate short term gains in economic activity. Since the early 90s, the Fed has done nothing but make policy based on Wall Street's interests. I can give them a pass on the dot com debacle but not after that. This toxic relationship between wall street and the Fed has to end. ..."
"... there was a housing bubble that most at the Fed (including Bernanke) denied right upto the middle of 2007 ..."
"... Yellen, to her credit, has admitted multiple times over the years that low rates spur search for yield that blows bubbles ..."
"... Bursting of the bubble led to unemployment for millions and U3 that went to 10% ..."
"... "You are the guys who do not consider the counterfactual where higher rates would have prevented the housing bubble in 2003-05 and that produced the great recession in the first place." ..."
"... Inequality has been rising globally, almost regardless of trade practices ..."
"... It is not some unstoppable global trend. This is neoliberal oligarchy coup d'état. Or as it often called "a quite coup". ..."
"... First of all, whether a job can or is offshored has little to do with whether it is "low skilled" but more with whether the workflow around the job can be organized in such a way that the job can be offshore. This is less a matter of "skill level" and more volume and immediacy of interaction with adjacent job functions, or movement of material across distances. ..."
"... The reason wages are stuck is that aggregate jobs are not growing, relative to workforce supply. ..."
"... BTW the primary offshore location is India, probably in good part because of good to excellent English language skills, and India's investment in STEM education and industry (especially software/services and this is even a public stereotype, but for a reason). ..."
"... Very rough figures: half a million Chicago employees may make less than $800 a week -- almost everybody should earn $800 ... ..."
"... Union busting is generally (?) understood as direct interference with the formation and operation of unions or their members. It is probably more common that employers are allowed to just go around the unions - "right to work", subcontracting non-union shops or temp/staffing agencies, etc. ..."
"... Why would people join a union and pay dues when the union is largely impotent to deliver, when there are always still enough desperate people who will (have to) take jobs outside the union system? Employers don't have to bring in scabs when they can legally go through "unencumbered" subcontractors inside or outside the jurisdiction. ..."
"... Credibility trap, fully engaged. ..."
"... The anti-knowledge of the elites is worth reading. http://billmoyers.com/2015/11/02/the-anti-knowledge-of-the-elites/ When such herd instinct and institutional overbearance connects with the credibility trap, the results may be impressive. http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2015/11/gold-daily-and-silver-weekly-charts-pop.html ..."
"... Suicide, once thought to be associated with troubled teens and the elderly, is quickly becoming an age-blind statistic. Middle aged Americans are turning to suicide in alarming numbers. The reasons include easily accessible prescription painkillers, the mortgage crisis and most importantly the challenge of a troubled economy. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention claims suicide rates now top the number of deaths due to automobile accidents. ..."
"... The suicide rate for both younger and older Americans remains virtually unchanged, however, the rate has spiked for those in middle age (35 to 64 years old) with a 28 percent increase (link is external) from 1999 to 2010. ..."
"... When few people kill themselves "on purpose" or die from self-inflicted but probably "unintended" harms (e.g. organ failure or accidental death caused by substance abuse), it can be shrugged off as problems related to the individual (more elaboration possible but not necessary). ..."
"... When it becomes a statistically significant phenomenon (above-noise percentage of total population or demographically identifiable groups), then one has to ask questions about social causes. My first question would be, "what made life suck for those people"? What specific instrument they used to kill themselves would be my second question (it may be the first question for people who are charged with implementing counter measures but not necessarily fixing the causes). ..."
"... Since about the financial crisis (I'm not sure about causation or coincidence - not accidental coincidence BTW but causation by the same underlying causes), there has been a disturbing pattern of high school students throwing themselves in front of local trains. At that age, drinking or drugging oneself to death is apparently not the first "choice". Performance pressure *related to* (not just "and") a lack of convincing career/life prospects has/have been suspected or named as a cause. I don't think teenagers suddenly started to jump in front of trains that have run the same rail line for decades because of the "usual" and centuries to millennia old teenage romantic relationship issues. ..."
"There is a darkness spreading over part of our society":
Despair, American Style, by Paul
Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: A couple of weeks ago President Obama mocked Republicans who are "down on America," and reinforced
his message by doing a pretty good Grumpy Cat impression. He had a point: With job growth at rates not seen since the 1990s, with
the percentage of Americans covered by health insurance hitting record highs, the doom-and-gloom predictions of his political
enemies look ever more at odds with reality.
Yet there is a darkness spreading over part of our society. ... There has been
a lot of comment ... over a new paper by the economists Angus Deaton (who just won a Nobel) and Anne Case, showing that mortality
among middle-aged white Americans has been rising since 1999..., while death rates were falling steadily both in other countries
and among other groups in our own nation.
Even more striking are the proximate causes of rising mortality. Basically, white Americans are, in increasing numbers, killing
themselves... Suicide is way up, and so are deaths from drug poisoning and ... drinking... But what's causing this epidemic of
self-destructive behavior?...
In a recent interview Mr. Deaton suggested that middle-aged whites have "lost the narrative of their lives." That is, their
economic setbacks have hit hard because they expected better. Or to put it a bit differently, we're looking at people who were
raised to believe in the American Dream, and are coping badly with its failure to come true.
That sounds like a plausible hypothesis..., but the truth is that we don't really know why despair appears to be spreading
across Middle America. But it clearly is, with troubling consequences for our society...
I know I'm not the only observer who sees a link between the despair reflected in those mortality numbers and the volatility
of right-wing politics. Some people who feel left behind by the American story turn self-destructive; others turn on the elites
they feel have betrayed them. No, deporting immigrants and wearing baseball caps bearing slogans won't solve their problems,
but neither will cutting taxes on capital gains. So you can understand why some voters have rallied around politicians who at
least seem to feel their pain.
At this point you probably expect me to offer a solution. But while universal health care, higher minimum wages, aid to education,
and so on would do a lot to help Americans in trouble, I'm not sure whether they're enough to cure existential despair.
bakho said...
There are a lot of economic dislocations that the government after the 2001 recession stopped doing much about it. Right after
the 2008 crash, the government did more but by 2010, even the Democratic president dropped the ball. and failed to deliver. Probably
no region of the country is affected more by technological change that the coal regions of KY and WV. Lying politicians promise
a return to the past that cannot be delivered. No one can suggest what the new future will be. The US is due for another round
of urbanization as jobs decline in rural areas. Dislocation forces declining values of properties and requires changes in behavior,
skills and outlook. Those personal changes do not happen without guidance. The social institutions such as churches and government
programs are a backstop, but they are not providing a way forward. There is plenty of work to be done, but our elites are not
willing to invest.
DrDick -> bakho...
The problem goes back much further than that. What we are seeing is the long term impacts of the "Reagan Revolution."
The affected cohort here is the first which has lived with the increased financial and employment insecurity that engendered,
as well as the impacts of the massive offshoring of good paying union jobs throughout their working lives. Stress has cumulative
impacts on health and well-being, which are a big part of what we are seeing here.
ilsm said...
Thuggee doom and gloom is about their fading chance to reinstate the slavocracy.
The fever swamp of right wing ideas is more loony than 1964.
Extremism is the new normal.
bmorejoe -> ilsm...
Yup. The slow death of white supremacy.
Peter K. -> Anonymous...
If it wasn't for monetary policy things would be even worse as the Republicans in Congress forced fiscal austerity on the economy
during the "recovery."
sanjait -> Peter K....
That's the painful irony of a comment like that one from Anonymous ... he seems completely unaware that, yes, ZIRP has done
a huge amount to prevent the kind of problems described above. He like most ZIRP critics fails to consider what the counterfactual
looks like (i.e., something like the Great Depression redux).
Anonymous -> sanjait...
You are the guys who do not consider the counterfactual where higher rates would have prevented the housing bubble in 2003-05
and that produced the great recession in the first place. Because preemptive monetary policy has gone out of fashion completely.
And now we are going to repeat the whole process over when the present bubble in stocks and corporate bonds bursts along with
the malinvestment in China, commodity exporters etc.
Peter K. -> Anonymous...
"liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate... it will purge the rottenness out of the system.
High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted,
and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people."
sanjait -> Anonymous...
"You want regulation? I would like to see
1) Reinstate Glass Steagall
2) impose a 10bp trans tax on trading financial instruments."
Great. Two things with zero chance of averting bubbles but make great populist pablum.
This is why we can't have nice things!
"3) Outlaw any Fed person working for a bank/financial firm after they leave office."
This seems like a decent idea. Hard to enforce, as highly intelligent and accomplished people tend not to be accepting of such
restrictions, but it could be worth it anyway.
likbez -> sanjait...
" highly intelligent and accomplished people tend not to be accepting of such restrictions, but it could be worth it anyway."
You are forgetting that it depends on a simple fact to whom political power belongs. And that's the key whether "highly intelligent
and accomplished people" will accept those restrictions of not.
If the government was not fully captured by financial capital, then I think even limited prosecution of banksters "Stalin's
purge style" would do wonders in preventing housing bubble and 2008 financial crush.
Please try to imagine the effect of trial and exile to Alaska for some period just a dozen people involved in Securitization
of mortgages boom (and those highly intelligent people can do wonders in improving oil industry in Alaska ;-).
Starting with Mr. Weill, Mr. Greenspan, Mr. Rubin, Mr. Phil Gramm, Dr. Summers and Mr. Clinton.
Anonymous -> Peter K....
"2003-2005 didn't have excess inflation and wage gains."
Monetary policy can not hinge just on inflation or wage gains. Why are wage gains a problem anyway?
Lets face it, this Fed is all about goosing up asset prices to generate short term gains in economic activity. Since the
early 90s, the Fed has done nothing but make policy based on Wall Street's interests. I can give them a pass on the dot com debacle
but not after that. This toxic relationship between wall street and the Fed has to end.
You want regulation? I would like to see
1) Reinstate Glass Steagall
2) impose a 10bp trans tax on trading financial instruments.
3) Outlaw any Fed person working for a bank/financial firm after they leave office. Bernanke, David Warsh etc included. That includes
Mishkin getting paid to shill for failing Iceland banks or Bernanke making paid speeches to hedge funds.
Anonymous -> EMichael...
Fact: there was a housing bubble that most at the Fed (including Bernanke) denied right upto the middle of 2007
Fact: Yellen, to her credit, has admitted multiple times over the years that low rates spur search for yield that blows bubbles
Fact: Bursting of the bubble led to unemployment for millions and U3 that went to 10%
what facts are you referring to?
EMichael -> Anonymous...
That FED rates caused the bubble.
to think this you have to ignore that a 400% Fed Rate increase from 2004 to 2005 had absolutely no effect on mortgage originations.
Then of course, you have to explain why 7 years at zero has not caused another housing bubble.
Correlation is not causation. Lack of correlation is proof of lack of causation.
pgl -> Anonymous...
"You are the guys who do not consider the counterfactual where higher rates would have prevented the housing bubble
in 2003-05 and that produced the great recession in the first place."
You are repeating the John B. Taylor line about interest rates being held "too low and too long". And guess what - most economists
have called Taylor's claim for the BS it really is. We should also note we never heard this BS when Taylor was part of the Bush
Administration. And do check - Greenspan and later Bernanke were raising interest rates well before any excess demand was generated
which is why inflation never took off.
So do keep repeating this intellectual garbage and we keep noting you are just a stupid troll.
Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century
By Anne Case and Angus Deaton
Midlife increases in suicides and drug poisonings have been previously noted. However, that these upward trends were persistent
and large enough to drive up all-cause midlife mortality has, to our knowledge, been overlooked. If the white mortality rate for
ages 45−54 had held at their 1998 value, 96,000 deaths would have been avoided from 1999–2013, 7,000 in 2013 alone. If it had
continued to decline at its previous (1979‒1998) rate, half a million deaths would have been avoided in the period 1999‒2013,
comparable to lives lost in the US AIDS epidemic through mid-2015. Concurrent declines in self-reported health, mental health,
and ability to work, increased reports of pain, and deteriorating measures of liver function all point to increasing midlife distress.
Abstract
This paper documents a marked increase in the all-cause mortality of middle-aged white non-Hispanic men and women in the United
States between 1999 and 2013. This change reversed decades of progress in mortality and was unique to the United States; no other
rich country saw a similar turnaround. The midlife mortality reversal was confined to white non-Hispanics; black non-Hispanics
and Hispanics at midlife, and those aged 65 and above in every racial and ethnic group, continued to see mortality rates fall.
This increase for whites was largely accounted for by increasing death rates from drug and alcohol poisonings, suicide, and chronic
liver diseases and cirrhosis. Although all education groups saw increases in mortality from suicide and poisonings, and an overall
increase in external cause mortality, those with less education saw the most marked increases. Rising midlife mortality rates
of white non-Hispanics were paralleled by increases in midlife morbidity. Self-reported declines in health, mental health, and
ability to conduct activities of daily living, and increases in chronic pain and inability to work, as well as clinically measured
deteriorations in liver function, all point to growing distress in this population. We comment on potential economic causes and
consequences of this deterioration.
ilsm -> Sarah...
Murka is different. Noni's plan would work if it were opportune for the slavocracy and the Kochs and ARAMCO don't lose any
"growth".
Maybe cost plus climate repair contracts to shipyards fumbling through useless nuclear powered behemoths for war plans made
in 1942.
Someone gotta make big money plundering for the public good, in Murka!
CSP said...
The answers to our malaise seem readily apparent to me, and I'm a southern-born white male working in a small, struggling Georgia
town.
1. Kill the national war machine
2. Kill the national Wall Street financial fraud machine
3. Get out-of-control mega corporations under control
4. Return savings to Main Street (see #1, #2 and #3)
5. Provide national, universal health insurance to everyone as a right
6. Provide free education to everyone, as much as their academic abilities can earn them
7. Strengthen social security and lower the retirement age to clear the current chronic underemployment of young people
It seems to me that these seven steps would free the American people to pursue their dreams, not the dreams of Washington or
Wall Street. Unfortunately, it is readily apparent that true freedom and real individual empowerment are the last things our leaders
desire. Shame on them and shame on everyone who helps to make it so.
DeDude -> CSP...
You are right. Problem is that most southern-born white males working in a small, struggling Georgia town would rather die
than voting for the one candidate who might institute those changes - Bernie Sanders.
The people who are beginning to realize that the american dream is a mirage, are the same people who vote for GOP candidates
who want to give even more to the plutocrats.
kthomas said...
The kids in Seattle had it right when WTO showed up.
Why is anyone suprised by all this?
We exported out jobs. First all the manufacturing. Now all of the Service jobs.
But hey...we helped millions in China and India get out of poverty, only to put outselves into it.
America was sold to highest bidder a long long time ago. A Ken Melvin put it, the chickens came home to roost in 2000.
sanjait -> kthomas...
So you think the problem with America is that we lost our low skilled manufacturing and call center tech support jobs?
I can sort of see why people assume that "we exported out jobs" is the reason for stagnant incomes in the U.S., but it's still
tiresome, because it's still just wrong.
Manufacturing employment crashed in the US mostly because it has been declining globally. The world economy is less material
based than ever, and machines do more of the work making stuff.
And while some services can be outsourced, the vast majority can't. Period.
Inequality has been rising globally, almost regardless of trade practices. The U.S. has one of the more closed economies in
the developed world, so if globalization were the cause, we'd be the most insulated. But we aren't, which should be a pretty good
indication that globalization isn't the cause.
cm -> sanjait...
Yes, the loss of "low skilled" jobs is still a loss of jobs. Many people work in "low skilled" jobs because there are not enough
"higher skill" jobs to go around, as most work demanded is not of the most fancy type.
We have heard this now for a few decades, that "low skilled" jobs lost will be replaced with "high skill" (and better paid)
jobs, and the evidence is somewhat lacking. There has been growth in higher skill jobs in absolute terms, but when you adjust
by population growth, it is flat or declining.
When people hypothetically or actually get the "higher skills" recommended to them, into what higher skill jobs are they to
move?
I have known a number of anecdotes of people with degrees or who held "skilled" jobs that were forced by circumstances to take
commodity jobs or jobs at lower pay grades or "skill levels" due to aggregate loss of "higher skill" jobs or age discrimination,
or had to go from employment to temp jobs.
And it is not true that only "lower skill" jobs are outsourced. Initially, yes, as "higher skills" obviously don't exist yet
in the outsourcing region. But that doesn't last long, especially if the outsourcers expend resources to train and grow the remote
skill base, at the expense of the domestic workforce which is expected to already have experience (which has worked for a while
due to workforce overhangs from previous industry "restructuring").
likbez -> sanjait...
"Inequality has been rising globally, almost regardless of trade practices."
It is not some unstoppable global trend. This is neoliberal oligarchy coup d'état. Or as it often called "a quite coup".
sanjait -> cm...
"Yes, the loss of "low skilled" jobs is still a loss of jobs. Many people work in "low skilled" jobs because there
are not enough "higher skill" jobs to go around, as most work demanded is not of the most fancy type.
We have heard this now for a few decades, that "low skilled" jobs lost will be replaced with "high skill" (and better
paid) jobs, and the evidence is somewhat lacking. "
And that is *exactly my point.*
The lack of wage growth isn't isolated to low skilled domains. It's weak across the board.
What does that tell us?
It tells us that offshoring of low skilled jobs isn't the problem.
"And it is not true that only "lower skill" jobs are outsourced. Initially, yes, as "higher skills" obviously don't exist
yet in the outsourcing region."
You could make this argument, but I think (judging by your own hedging) you know this isn't the case. Offshoring of higher
skilled jobs does happen but it's a marginal factor in reality. You hypothesize that it may someday become a bigger factor ...
but just notice that we've had stagnant wages now for a few decades.
My point is that offshoring IS NOT THE CAUSE of stagnating wages. I'd argue that globalization is a force that can't really
be stopped by national policy anyway, but even if you think it could, it's important to realize IT WOULD DO ALMOST NOTHING to
alleviate inequality.
cm -> sanjait...
I was responding to your point:
"So you think the problem with America is that we lost our low skilled manufacturing and call center tech support jobs?"
With the follow-on:
"I can sort of see why people assume that "we exported out jobs" is the reason for stagnant incomes in the U.S., but
it's still tiresome, because it's still just wrong."
Labor markets are very sensitive to marginal effects. If let's say "normal" or "heightened" turnover is 10% p.a. spread out
over the year, then the continued availability (or not) of around 1% vacancies (for the respective skill sets etc.) each month
makes a huge difference. There was the argument that the #1 factor is automation and process restructuring, and offshoring is
trailing somewhere behind that in job destruction volume.
I didn't research it in detail because I have no reason to doubt it. But it is a compounded effect - every percentage point
in open positions (and *better* open positions - few people are looking to take a pay cut) makes a big difference. If let's say
the automation losses are replaced with other jobs, offshoring will tip the scale. Due to aggregate effects one cannot say what
is the "extra" like with who is causing congestion on a backed up road (basically everybody, not the first or last person to join).
"Manufacturing employment crashed in the US mostly because it has been declining globally. The world economy is less
material based than ever, and machines do more of the work making stuff."
Are you kidding me? The world economy is less material based? OK maybe 20 years after the paperless office we are finally printing
less, but just because the material turnover, waste, and environmental pollution is not in your face (because of offshoring!),
it doesn't mean less stuff is produced or material consumed. If anything, it is market saturation and aggregate demand limitations
that lead to lower material and energy consumption (or lower growth rates).
In the aftermath of the financial crisis, several nations (US and Germany among others) had programs to promote new car sales
(cash for clunkers etc.) that were based on the idea that people can get credit for their old car, but its engine had to be destroyed
and made unrepairable so it cannot enter the used car market and defeat the purpose of the program. I assume the clunkers were
then responsibly and sustainably recycled.
cm -> sanjait...
"The lack of wage growth isn't isolated to low skilled domains. It's weak across the board.
What does that tell us?
It tells us taht offshoring of low skilled jobs isn't the problem."
This doesn't follow. First of all, whether a job can or is offshored has little to do with whether it is "low skilled"
but more with whether the workflow around the job can be organized in such a way that the job can be offshore. This is less a
matter of "skill level" and more volume and immediacy of interaction with adjacent job functions, or movement of material across
distances. Also consider that aside from time zone differences (which are of course a big deal between e.g. US and Europe/Asia),
there is not much difference whether a job is performed in another country or in a different domestic region, or perhaps just
"working from home" 1 mile from the office, for office-type jobs. Of course the other caveat is whether the person can physically
attend meetings with little fuss and expense - so remote management/coordination work is naturally not a big thing.
The reason wages are stuck is that aggregate jobs are not growing, relative to workforce supply. When the boomers
retire for real in another 5-10 years, that may change. OTOH several tech companies I know have periodic programs where they offer
workers over 55 or so packages to leave the company, so they cannot really hurt for talent, though they keep complaining and are
busy bringing in young(er) people on work visa. Free agents, it depends on the company. Some companies hire NCGs, but they also
"buy out" older workers.
cm -> cm...
Caveat: Based on what I see (outside sectors with strong/early growth), domestic hiring of NCGs/"fresh blood" falls in two
categories:
Location bound jobs (sales, marketing, legal, HR, administration, ..., also functions attached to those or otherwise preferring
"cultural affinity") - which are largely staffed with locals, also foreigners (visa as well as free agent (green card/citizen))
"Technical functions" and "technical" back office (i.e. little or no customer contact) - predominantly foreigners on visa
(e.g. graduates of US colleges), though some "free agent" hiring may happen depending on circumstances
Then there is also the gender split - "technical/engineering" jobs are overweighed in men, except technical jobs in traditionally
"non-technical/non-product" departments which have a higher share of women.
All this is of course a matter of top-down hiring preferences, as generally everything is either controlled top-down or tacitly
allowed to happen by selective non-interference.
cm -> sanjait...
"You could make this argument, but I think (judging by your own hedging) you know this isn't the case. Offshoring of
higher skilled jobs does happen but it's a marginal factor in reality. You hypothesize that it may someday become a bigger
factor ... but just notice that we've had stagnant wages now for a few decades."
I've written a lot of text so far but didn't address all points ...
My "hedging" is retrospective. I don't hypothesize what may eventually happen but it is happening here and now. I don't presume
to present a representative picture, but in my sphere of experience/observation (mostly a subset of computer software), offshoring
of *knowledge work* started in the mid to late 90's (and that's not the earliest it started in general - of course a lot of the
early offshoring in the 80's was market/language specific customization, e.g. US tech in Europe etc., and more "local culture
expertise" and not offshoring proper). In the late 90's and early 2000's, offshoring was overshadowed by the Y2K/dotcom booms,
so that phase didn't get high visibility (among the people "affected" it sure did). Also the internet was not yet ubiquitous -
broadband existed only at the corporate level.
15-20 years ago it was testing and "low level" programming, perhaps self contained limited-complexity functions or modules
written to fairly rigid specifications, or troubleshooting and bug fixes implemented here or there.
Then 10-15 years ago it advanced to offshore product maintenance, following up on QA issues, small development projects,
or assisting/supporting roles in "real" projects (either conducted offshore or people visiting the domestic offices for weeks
to months).
This went on in parallel with domestic visa workers from the first 15-20 years ago wave either being encouraged or themselves
expressing a desire to go back home (personal, career, family reasons etc.) and "spread the knowledge" and advancing into technical/organization
management roles.
Then 5-10 years ago with clearly grown offshore skills (my theory is that people everywhere are cut from the same cloth,
and we are now at 10+ years industry experience in this narrative), the offshore sites started taking on ownership of product
components, while all the "previous" functions of testing, R&D support, tech pub (which I didn't mention earlier), etc. remained
and evolved further. Also IT (though IT support is more timezone bound and is thus present in all time zones).
Since then there has been little change, it is pretty much a steady state.
BTW the primary offshore location is India, probably in good part because of good to excellent English language skills,
and India's investment in STEM education and industry (especially software/services and this is even a public stereotype, but
for a reason).
Syaloch -> sanjait...
Whether low skilled jobs were eliminated due to offshoring or automation doesn't really matter. What matters is that the jobs
disappeared, replaced by a small number of higher skill jobs paying comparable wages plus a large number of low skill jobs offering
lower wages.
The aggregate effect was stagnation and even decline in living standards. Plus any new jobs were not necessarily produced in
the same geographic region as those that were lost, leading to concentration of unemployment and despair.
sanjait -> Syaloch...
"Whether low skilled jobs were eliminated due to offshoring or automation doesn't really matter. "
Well, actually it does matter, because we have a whole lot of people (in both political parties) who think the way to fight
inequality is to try to reverse globalization.
If they are incorrect, it matters, because they should be applying their votes and their energy to more effective solutions,
and rejecting the proposed solutions of both the well-meaning advocates and the outright demagogues who think restricting trade
is some kind of answer.
Syaloch -> sanjait...
I meant it doesn't matter in terms of the despair felt by those affected. All that matters to those affected is that they have
been obsoleted without either economic or social support to help them.
However, in terms of addressing this problem economically it really doesn't matter that much either. Offshoring is effectively
a low-tech form of automation. If companies can't lower labor costs by using cheaper offshore labor they'll find ways to either
drive down domestic wages or to use less labor. For the unskilled laborer the end result is the same.
Syaloch -> Syaloch...
See the thought experiment I posted on the links thread, and then add the following:
Suppose the investigative journalist discovered instead that Freedonia itself is a sham, and that rather than being imported
from overseas, the clothing was actually coming from an automated factory straight out of Vonnegut's "Player Piano" that was hidden
in a remote domestic location. Would the people who were demanding limits on Freedonian exports now say, "Oh well, I guess that's
OK" simply because the factory was located within the US?
Dan Kervick -> kthomas...
I enjoyed listening to this talk by Fredrick Reinfeldt at the LSE:
Reinfeldt is a center-right politicians and former Swedish Prime Minister. OF course, what counts as center-right in Sweden
seems very different from what counts as center-right in the US.
Perhaps there is some kind of basis here for some bipartisan progress on jobs and full employment.
William said...
I'm sure this isn't caused by any single factor, but has anyone seriously investigated a link between this phenomena and the
military?
Veterans probably aren't a large enough cohort to explain the effect in full, but white people from the south are the most
likely group to become soldiers, and veterans are the most likely group to have alcohol/drug abuse and suicide problems.
This would also be evidence why we aren't seeing it in other countries, no one else has anywhere near the number of vets we
have.
cm -> William...
Vets are surely part of the aggregate problem of lack of career/economic prospects, in fact a lot of people join(ed) the military
because of a lack of other jobs to begin with. But as the lack of prospects is aggregate it affects everybody.
" At this point you probably expect me to offer a solution. But while universal health care, higher minimum wages, aid to
education, and so on would do a lot to help Americans in trouble, I'm not sure whether they're enough to cure existential despair."
UNOINIZED and (therefore shall we say) politicized: you are in control of your narrative -- win or lose. Can it get any more hopeful
than that? And you will probably win.
Winning being defined as labor eeking out EQUALLY emotionally satisfying/dissatisfying market results -- EQUAL that is with
the satisfaction of ownership and the consumer. That's what happens when all three interface in the market -- labor interfacing
indirectly through collective bargaining.
(Labor's monopoly neutralizes ownership's monopsony -- the consumers' willingness to pay providing the checks and balances
on labor's monopoly.)
If you feel you've done well RELATIVE to the standards of your own economic era you will feel you've done well SUBJECTIVELY.
For instance, my generation of (American born) cab drivers earned about $750 for a 60 hour (grueling) work week up to the early
80s. With multiples strip-offs I won't detail here (will on request -- diff for diff cities) that has been reduced to about $500
a week (at best I suspect!) I believe and that is just not enough to get guys like me out there for that grueling work.
Let's take the minimum wage comparison from peak-to-peak instead of from peak-to-trough: $11 and hour in 1968 -- at HALF TODAY'S
per capita income (economic output) -- to $7.25 today. How many American born workers are going to show up for $7.25 in the day
of SUVs and "up-to-date kitchens" all around us. $8.75 was perfectly enticing for Americans working in 1956 ($8.75 thanks to the
"Master of the Senate"). The recent raise to $10 is not good enough for Chicago's 100,000 gang members (out of my estimate 200,000
gang age minority males). Can hustle that much on the street w/o the SUBJECTIVE feeling of wage slavery.
Ditto hiring result for two-tier supermarket contracts after Walmart undercut the unions.
Without effective unions (centralized bargaining is the gold standard: only thing that fends off Walmart type contract muscling.
Done that way since 1966 with the Teamsters Union's National Master Freight Agreement; the long practiced law or custom from continental
Europe to French Canada to Argentina to Indonesia.
It occurred to me this morning that if the quintessential example of centralized bargaining Germany has 25% or our population
and produces 200% more cars than we do, then, Germans produces 8X as many cars per capita than we do!
And thoroughly union organized Germans feel very much in control of the narrative of their lives.
No longer thoroughly, with recent labor market reforms the door has likewise been blown open to contingent workforces, staffing
agencies, and similar forms of (perma) temp work. And moving work to nations with lower labor standards (e.g. "peripheral" Europe,
less so outside Europe) has been going on for decades, for parts, subassembly, and even final assembly.
Very rough figures: half a million Chicago employees may make less than $800 a week -- almost everybody should earn $800
...
... putative minimum wage? -- might allow some slippage in high labor businesses like fast food restaurants; 33% labor costs!
-- sort of like the Teamsters will allow exceptions when needed from Master agreements if you open up your books, they need your
working business too, consumer ultimately sets limits.
Average raise of $200 a week -- $10,000 a year equals $5 billion shift in income -- out of a $170 billion Chicago GDP (1% of
national) -- not too shabby to bring an end to gang wars and Despair American Style.
Just takes making union busting a felony LIKE EVERY OTHER FORM OF UNFAIR MARKET MUSCLING (even taking a movie in the movies).
The body of laws are there -- the issues presumably settled -- the enforcement just needs "dentures."
Union busting is generally (?) understood as direct interference with the formation and operation of unions or their members.
It is probably more common that employers are allowed to just go around the unions - "right to work", subcontracting non-union
shops or temp/staffing agencies, etc.
Why would people join a union and pay dues when the union is largely impotent to deliver, when there are always still enough
desperate people who will (have to) take jobs outside the union system? Employers don't have to bring in scabs when they can legally
go through "unencumbered" subcontractors inside or outside the jurisdiction.
cm -> cm...
It comes down to the collective action problem. You can organize people who form a "community" (workers in the same business
site, or similar aggregates more or less subject to Dunbar's number or with a strong tribal/ethnic/otherwise cohesion narrative).
Beyond that, if you can get a soapbox in the regional press, etc., otherwise good luck. It probably sounds defeatist but I don't
have a solution.
When the union management is outed for corruption or other abuses or questioable practices (e.g. itself employing temps or
subcontractors), it doesn't help.
Syaloch said...
There was a good discussion of this on last Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher.
Surprisingly, I pretty much agree with David Frum's analysis -- and Maher's comment that Trump, with his recent book, "Crippled
America", has his finger on the pulse of this segment of the population. Essentially what we're seeing is the impact of economic
stagnation upon a culture whose reserves of social capital have been depleted, as described in Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone".
When the going gets tough it's a lot harder to manage without a sense of identity and purpose, and without the support of family,
friends, churches, and communities. Facebook "friends" are no substitute for the real thing.
Peter K. said...
Jared Bernsetin:
"...since the late 1970s, we've been at full employment only 30 percent of the time (see the data note below for an explanation
of how this is measured). For the three decades before that, the job market was at full employment 70 percent of the time."
We need better macro (monetary, fiscal, trade) policy.
Maybe middle-aged blacks and hispanics have better attitudes and health since they made it through a tough youth, have more
realistic expectations and race relations are better than the bad old days even if they are far from perfect. The United States
is becoming more multicultural.
Suicide, once thought to be associated with troubled teens and the elderly, is quickly becoming an age-blind statistic.
Middle aged Americans are turning to suicide in alarming numbers. The reasons include easily accessible prescription painkillers,
the mortgage crisis and most importantly the challenge of a troubled economy. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention claims
suicide rates now top the number of deaths due to automobile accidents.
The suicide rate for both younger and older Americans remains virtually unchanged, however, the rate has spiked for those
in middle age (35 to 64 years old) with a 28 percent increase (link is external) from 1999 to 2010. The rate for whites in
middle-age jumped an alarming 40 percent during the same time frame. According to the CDC, there were more than 38,000 suicides
(link is external) in 2010 making it the tenth leading cause of death in America overall (third leading cause from age 15-24).
The US 2010 Final Data quantifies the US statistics for suicide by race, sex and age. Interestingly, African-American suicides
have declined and are considerably lower than whites. Reasons are thought to include better coping skills when negative things
occur as well as different cultural norms with respect to taking your own life. Also, Blacks (and Hispanics) tend to have stronger
family support, community support and church support to carry them through these rough times.
While money woes definitely contribute to stress and poor mental health, it can be devastating to those already prone to depression
-- and depression is indeed still the number one risk factor for suicide. A person with no hope and nowhere to go, can now easily
turn to their prescription painkiller and overdose, bringing the pain, stress and worry to an end. In fact, prescription painkillers
were the third leading cause of suicide (and rising rapidly) for middle aged Americans in 2010 (guns are still number 1). ...
cm -> Fred C. Dobbs...
When few people kill themselves "on purpose" or die from self-inflicted but probably "unintended" harms (e.g. organ failure
or accidental death caused by substance abuse), it can be shrugged off as problems related to the individual (more elaboration
possible but not necessary).
When it becomes a statistically significant phenomenon (above-noise percentage of total population or demographically identifiable
groups), then one has to ask questions about social causes. My first question would be, "what made life suck for those people"?
What specific instrument they used to kill themselves would be my second question (it may be the first question for people who
are charged with implementing counter measures but not necessarily fixing the causes).
Since about the financial crisis (I'm not sure about causation or coincidence - not accidental coincidence BTW but causation
by the same underlying causes), there has been a disturbing pattern of high school students throwing themselves in front of local
trains. At that age, drinking or drugging oneself to death is apparently not the first "choice". Performance pressure *related
to* (not just "and") a lack of convincing career/life prospects has/have been suspected or named as a cause. I don't think teenagers
suddenly started to jump in front of trains that have run the same rail line for decades because of the "usual" and centuries
to millennia old teenage romantic relationship issues.
"... If returns to experience are in decline, if wisdom no longer pays off, then that might help suggest why a group of mostly older people who are not, as a group, disadvantaged might become convinced that the country has taken a turn for the worse. It suggests why their grievances should so idealize the past, and why all the talk about coal miners and factories, jobs in which unions have codified returns to experience into the salary structure, might become such a fixation. ..."
The Despair of Learning That Experience No Longer Matters
April 10, 2017
.....................
The arguments about Case and Deaton's work have been an echo of the one that consumed so much of the primary campaign, and
then the general election, and which is still unresolved: whether the fury of Donald Trump's supporters came from cultural and
racial grievance or from economic plight. Case and Deaton's scholarship does not settle the question. As they write, more than
once, "more work is needed."
But part of what Case and Deaton offer in their new paper is an emotional logic to an economic argument.
If returns to experience are in decline, if wisdom no longer pays off, then that might help suggest why a group of mostly
older people who are not, as a group, disadvantaged might become convinced that the country has taken a turn for the worse. It
suggests why their grievances should so idealize the past, and why all the talk about coal miners and factories, jobs in which
unions have codified returns to experience into the salary structure, might become such a fixation.
Whatever comes from the deliberations over Case and Deaton's statistics, there is within their numbers an especially interesting
story.
"... Never rely on corporate spending for a recovery. Negative interest rates are precisely an attempt to trigger corporate spending ..."
"... It is similar to the period of stagnation the USSR experienced in starting with 70th till its dissolution. The causes are systemic, stemming from a perverted way neoliberalism organizes the society ("Greed is good" "free market", "I am from the government... " "Individual responsibility", shareholder values and other pseudo-religious symbols of faith ) as well as hypertrophy, lack of control and the level of political power of the financial sector under neoliberalism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, like Bolshevism before it is a Catch 22 and can't be reformed only abolished. In any case due to deregulation of the financial sector and decimation of New Deal safeguards (thanks to Clinton) the US society stepped on the same rake as before Great Depression. ..."
"confess that I am a profound skeptic about deep negative nominal interest rates. A
slightly higher inflation target and policies to fight the asset price configuration called
"secular stagnation" would largely obviate the need, and leave behind a problem easily and
straightforwardly dealt with via expansionary fiscal policy.
And we really do not know how such an institutional reconfiguration would actually
work.
Confronted with a choice between known and understood policies that would work, and new
ones with unknown side effects and effects that might, I do not understand the enthusiasm
for the second:"
Since kalecki progressives have been warned. Never rely on corporate spending for a recovery. Negative interest rates are precisely an attempt to trigger corporate spending
Forget about it. The government needs to borrow at zero real YES no need to go negative
real. And either spend on real outputs or transfer to high marginal spenders ie credit
constrained households. Btw trying to unconstrain household credit. Or reduce its cost ie
rate reduction. Only restores a new higher debt ration equally subject to sudden stop credit
flows in a system conducted by capitalists and for capitalists
Policies to fight
" asset price configuration "
Answer uncle's safe rate set to zero real. That neutralizes the real burden of federal debt. Now output price trends. May
require a coordinating mechanism imposed on corporate pricing decisions
Firms need autonomy
to regulate their relative prices,
not coincidentally determine absolute price levels.
As firms do now in our output pricing
free for all
Where system wide price changes on over all price level movements are not internalized
Brad is pushing a change in macro management policy. To fiscal mobilization of social production level. And the FED manage
the social burden
of federal debt. Since the triumph of monetary first policy
In 1979 on output level and employment
management fiscal activism has become a robin to the feds Batman
No more sez our dear .Brad
"secular stagnation" is the result of systemic crisis of neoliberalism which started in 2008.
Larry Summers:
"Secular Stagnation – a prolonged period in which satisfactory growth can only be
achieved by unsustainable financial conditions –- may be the defining macro-economic
challenge of our times. "
It is similar to the period of stagnation the USSR experienced in starting with 70th till
its dissolution. The causes are systemic, stemming from a perverted way neoliberalism organizes the society
("Greed is good" "free market", "I am from the government... " "Individual responsibility",
shareholder values and other pseudo-religious symbols of faith ) as well as hypertrophy, lack
of control and the level of political power of the financial sector under neoliberalism.
Neoliberalism, like Bolshevism before it is a Catch 22 and can't be reformed only
abolished. In any case due to deregulation of the financial sector and decimation of New Deal
safeguards (thanks to Clinton) the US society stepped on the same rake as before Great
Depression.
As Galbraith aptly said "The man who is admired for the ingenuity of his larceny is almost
always rediscovering some earlier form of fraud. The basic forms are all known, have all been
practiced."
"... One problem with these sanctions is that they are largely after-the-fact when it comes to laying underwater pipe. Turkstream is already done. Nord Stream is about 75% done, but Congress still believes they can stop it . ..."
"... That gas for chicken deal can't be right. Russia produces twice as much chicken meat as the world average. In fact, they're overproducing so much they've started slowing down production. ..."
"... The energy sector is down to 10% of the economy. However all three new pipelines will turn on by the end of the year generating huge cash streams. Russia has solid trading partnerships with nations representing the vast majority of the people and trade on the planet. Food in Russia is great, and I mean really great. It's also very eclectic with cuisine from all over the world and produced to extremely high standards. GMO is illegal. No weird proteins in your cereal in the morning. American fast food tastes better in Russia because it's made with locally grown produce. ..."
"... My impression is that Russia is a continuing work in process in construction and reconstruction, everywhere. The stuff that is done is above Western standards, it amazes in gigantic scope and innovativeness. ..."
"... Some day soon we will need Russia as a friend. At that point we will have to deal with the incredibly bad karma that we created, out of irrational pure hatred and meaness. ..."
"... So the xenophobes claim that Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to manipulate Europe's gas supply for political and other devious purposes. I searched and could not find any example in the past. But I was using Google which has become increasingly useless when searching on a number of topics. I did find articles about the Ukraine stealing the gas. Russia needs the money. I highly doubt they will screw over their investment. ..."
gjohnsit on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 6:22pm Congress is looking to impose
new sanctions on
Russia and any company that works with Russia.
Two bills in the House and the Senate, instead of penalizing the major gas companies involved, would target a perceived weak link:
the specialized pipe-laying companies working on Nord Stream 2 (and on the Russian state-controlled gas company Gazprom's TurkStream
project, which will bring Russian gas across the Black Sea to Turkey and eventually to Europe). The bills would sanction pipe-laying
companies involved in the project, freezing their U.S. assets and prohibiting them from doing U.S. business.
One problem with these sanctions is that they are largely after-the-fact when it comes to laying underwater pipe. Turkstream
is already done. Nord Stream is about 75% done, but Congress still believes they
can stop
it .
President Donald Trump has recommended Germany buy U.S. liquefied natural gas. That would benefit Cruz's home state of Texas,
the country's largest producer of natural gas.
A second problem is that Germany doesn't want us dictating their foreign policy. According to a recent survey, only 19 percent
of Germans considered the United States a trustworthy partner (well behind Russia).
Pluto's Republic on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 6:42pm snoopydawg on Mon, 09/16/2019 - 7:27pm
Oleg D.....something had a part in the Russia Gate saga and so his aluminum factory was punished. But then Trump relaxed them
after Oleg sold his part. Now McConnell is allowing Oleg to build a huge aluminum plant in Kentucky so off course he too is under
Vlad's thumb. I recently found out that Oleg has had ties to Mueller and others in our intelligence agencies. I don't think there
is one supposed Russian bad man involved in Russia Gate that doesn't have connections to Mueller and his goons. Misfud, Halpern
(?), and too many other people who played "the spy who loved me" game. Most of them tried to entrap someone in Trump's campaign.
If Europe wants to spend more money importing our gas and make their citizens pay higher prices then they need to be voted
out. Do their citizens even know about this? Do the people in Ukraine know why they are expected to freeze this winter or pay
higher prices for gas? Russia does seem to be made of teflon. Nothing seems to stick to them.
Oleg D.....something had a part in the Russia Gate saga and so his aluminum factory was punished. But then Trump relaxed
them after Oleg sold his part. Now McConnell is allowing Oleg to build a huge aluminum plant in Kentucky so off course he too
is under Vlad's thumb. I recently found out that Oleg has had ties to Mueller and others in our intelligence agencies. I don't
think there is one supposed Russian bad man involved in Russia Gate that doesn't have connections to Mueller and his goons.
Misfud, Halpern (?), and too many other people who played "the spy who loved me" game. Most of them tried to entrap someone
in Trump's campaign.
If Europe wants to spend more money importing our gas and make their citizens pay higher prices then they need to be voted
out. Do their citizens even know about this? Do the people in Ukraine know why they are expected to freeze this winter or pay
higher prices for gas? Russia does seem to be made of teflon. Nothing seems to stick to them.
I remember TOP making a big point about the aluminium saying it was Trump really kowtowing to Putin as sanctions were lifted.
Turns about that the majority of production was in Western Europe in particular Ireland. Something like upwards of 30K people
would end up losing their jobs.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs by
law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly. If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have
the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job is
being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
between Russia and China. Russian oil and gas in exchange for Chinese chickens. At the time I wondered at a nuclear power that
can't raise chickens as any peasant in America (and China) can.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs
by law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly.
If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job
is being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
That gas for chicken deal can't be right. Russia produces twice as much chicken meat as the world average. In fact, they're
overproducing so much they've started slowing down production.
As of early 2019, Russia was manufacturing 33.7 kg of poultry per capita, the fourth-highest rate in the world, said Elena
Stepanova, deputy director of Rosptitsesoyuz, speaking at the Russian Meat and Feed Industry conference in Moscow.
The world's 2019 average rate is 16.2 kg per capita, and current production in Russia was already equal to domestic demand,
Stepanova said.
"In 2019, we forecast some increase in production, but this growth will be attributed primarily to exports. We consider
the balance on the domestic poultry market as fully built," Stepanova said, adding that overall poultry production in Russia
in 2019 was expected to grow by 2.7% compared to the previous year, to 5.11 million tons.
@jim
p Russia really played the long game when Putin put a halt to all EU food imports. Besides the food ban, the Russian government
began an investment program to bolster domestic production of its own food replacements. Russian cheese anybody? And the programs
just did not go to Russia's version of Big Agriculture factory farms--it went to small farmers also.
around the web that Russia has become self-sufficient in food following a push by government. Food, btw that has no GMOs
by law. I think even their food exports have grown greatly.
If true, even when Europe shakes off the leash, EU farmers won't have the Russian market anymore.
What I know for a fact is that conscious enemy moles hell-bent on destroying the US could all retire; comforted that job
is being done by swiftly and completely by our rulers (both visible and not).
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Saudi Arabia should buy Russian air defense systems to protect its oil facilities
from drone attacks, pointing to Iran and Turkey, who operate S-300 and S-400 missiles, respectively.
"Saudi Arabia needs to make a smart decision, as Iran did by buying our S-300, and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to buy
the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems from Russia," Putin told reporters in Ankara on Monday. "These kinds of
systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack."
Putin was answering a question about the recent drone attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, which Washington has blamed
on Iran, though Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen in 2015 and
has fought the Houthis there since.
the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems
According to some, these are the advanced Trump air defense systems. Guaranteed to put out lots of hot air with stench of aftereffect.
He who dealt it.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested Saudi Arabia should buy Russian air defense systems to protect its oil
facilities from drone attacks, pointing to Iran and Turkey, who operate S-300 and S-400 missiles, respectively.
"Saudi Arabia needs to make a smart decision, as Iran did by buying our S-300, and as Mr. Erdogan did by deciding to
buy the most advanced S-400 Triumph air defense systems from Russia," Putin told reporters in Ankara on Monday. "These kinds
of systems are capable of defending any kind of infrastructure in Saudi Arabia from any kind of attack."
Putin was answering a question about the recent drone attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities, which Washington has blamed
on Iran, though Yemen's Houthi rebels have claimed responsibility. A coalition led by Saudi Arabia invaded Yemen in 2015
and has fought the Houthis there since.
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
@The
Liberal Moonbat to stop Islamist terrorists, we fund them to keep the forever wars going. I realize you know that, I just
could not help myself there. Whenever I hear we must "fight terrorism" my brain automatically goes back to all the things I have
read showing how we not only actively created those terrorists to fight our enemies who will not accept our American interests
dominating the world, but how many more we make every day we are there destroying their countries.
... CLEAN ENERGY THAT OBSOLETIZES FOSSIL FUELS, ASSHOLES!!!
WE COULD LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD, BE EVERYONE'S HEROES AGAIN, RESURRECT OUR ECONOMY, END OUR WARS, AND PULL THE FLOOR RIGHT
OUT FROM UNDERNEATH RUSSIA AND ALL THOSE GOSHAWFUL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS!
The Russian economy is arguably the healthiest in the world. It's national debt barely shows as a blip on a bar graph with
other nations. She has enough cash to pay it off all her debt today. She sold almost all of her US government bonds.
Elvira Nabuillina, head of the Russian Bank, is perhaps the most competent national economic manager in the world. The
feeling in Russia is that she is too conservative and high interest rates are the major factor in slower economic growth.
Russia is the largest grower and exporter of wheat in the world, passing the US by a factor of two.
The energy sector is down to 10% of the economy. However all three new pipelines will turn on by the end of the year generating
huge cash streams. Russia has solid trading partnerships with nations representing the vast majority of the people and trade on
the planet. Food in Russia is great, and I mean really great. It's also very eclectic with cuisine from all over the world and
produced to extremely high standards. GMO is illegal. No weird proteins in your cereal in the morning. American fast food tastes
better in Russia because it's made with locally grown produce.
My impression is that Russia is a continuing work in process in construction and reconstruction, everywhere. The stuff
that is done is above Western standards, it amazes in gigantic scope and innovativeness.
I just visited the new aquarium in Vladivostok. It towers above the ones in Boston and LA, maybe by an order of magnitude.
The tallest building in Europe is in St. Petersburg, the next 5 tallest in Moscow City Center.
The longest bridge in Europe is in Russia. My impression is that Russia is a dynamic fast growing country and in contrast the
US can't do anything new. The US must have that gigantic defense budget, ten times that of Russia, to protect it from what? (hmmm).
There is nothing, I repeat nothing, that the US congress can do to slow down Russia today.
Some day soon we will need Russia as a friend. At that point we will have to deal with the incredibly bad karma that we
created, out of irrational pure hatred and meaness.
So the xenophobes claim that Nord Stream 2 would allow Russia to manipulate Europe's gas supply for political and other
devious purposes. I searched and could not find any example in the past. But I was using Google which has become increasingly
useless when searching on a number of topics. I did find articles about the Ukraine stealing the gas. Russia needs the money.
I highly doubt they will screw over their investment.
But to the Europeans I say, go fer it. You want to see manipulation of your energy: start up a heavy reliance on American LNG.
"... The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government -- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area. President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in April with Haftar and appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's stance. ..."
"... One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In her new book, The Education of an Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed, flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison correctly excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?" ..."
"... Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling! ..."
"... I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians. ..."
The United States cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials can't seem to
decide which faction they want to back.
The Western-created disaster in Libya continues to grow worse. Fighting between Field
Marshal Khalifa Haftar's so-called Libyan National Army (LNA) and the even more misnamed
Government of National Accord (GNA) has intensified in and around Tripoli. The LNA boasted on
September 11 that its forces had routed troops of the Sarraj militia, a GNA ally, killing
about two hundred of them. That total may be exaggerated, but there is no doubt that the
situation has become increasingly violent and
chaotic in Tripoli and other portions of Libya, with innocent civilians bearing the brunt
of the suffering.
An article in Bloomberg News provides a
succinct account of the poisonous fruits of the U.S.-led "humanitarian" military
intervention in 2011. "Libya is enduring its worst violence since the 2011 NATO-backed ouster
of Muammar el-Qaddafi, which ushered in years of instability that allowed Islamist radicals to
thrive and turned the country into a hub for migrants destined to Europe. Haftar had launched
the war as the United Nations was laying the ground for a political conference to unite the
country. It is now more divided than ever." The country has become the plaything not only of
rival domestic factions but major
Middle East powers , including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab
Emirates. Those regimes are waging a ruthless geopolitical competition, providing arms and in
some cases even launching airstrikes on behalf of their preferred clients.
The United States also cannot resist the urge to meddle. Worse, U.S. officials seemingly
can't even decide which faction it wants to back. Washington's official policy continues to
support the GNA, which the United Nations recognizes as the country's legitimate government
-- even though its writ extends to little territory beyond the Tripoli metropolitan area.
President Donald Trump, however, had an extremely cordial, lengthy telephone conversation in
April with Haftar and
appeared impressed with Haftar's professed determination to combat terrorist groups and
bring order and unity to Libya. Neither Libyan faction now seems certain about Washington's
stance.
Given the appalling aftermath of the original U.S.-led intervention, one might hope that
advocates of an activist policy would be chastened and back away from further meddling in that
unfortunate country. Yet, that is not the case. Neither the Trump administration nor the
humanitarian crusaders in Barack Obama's administration who caused the calamity in the first
place seem inclined to advocate a more cautious, restrained U.S. policy.
One poster child for such continuing arrogance is Samantha Power, an influential
national security council staffer in 2011 and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. In
her new book, The Education of an
Idealist , Power takes no responsibility whatever for the Libya debacle. Indeed,
flippant might be too generous a term for her treatment of the episode. "We could hardly expect
to have a crystal ball when it came to accurately predicting outcomes in places where the
culture was not our own," she contends. American Conservative analyst Daniel Larison
correctly
excoriates her argument as "a pathetic attempt by Power to deny responsibility for the
effects of a war she backed by shrugging her shoulders and pleading ignorance. If Libyan
culture was so opaque and hard for the Obama administration to understand, they should never
have taken sides in an internal conflict there. If the 'culture was not our own' and they
couldn't anticipate what was going to happen because of that, then how arrogant must the
policymakers who argued in favor of intervention have been?"
The answer to Larison's rhetorical question is "extraordinarily arrogant." It is not as
though prudent foreign-policy experts didn't warn Power and her colleagues about the probable
consequences of intervening in a volatile, fragile country like Libya. Indeed, as Robert Gates,
Obama's secretary of defense, confirms in his memoir, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War , the Obama
administration itself was deeply divided about the advisability of intervention. The Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Vice President Joe Biden, and Gates were opposed. Among the most outspoken
proponents of action were Power and her mentor, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Gates notes
further that Obama was deeply torn, later telling his secretary of defense that the decision
was a "51 to 49" call.
The existence of a sharp internal division is sufficient evidence by itself that Power's
attempt to absolve herself and other humanitarian crusaders of responsibility for the
subsequent tragedy is without merit. Indeed, it has even less credibility than Pontius Pilate's
infamous effort to evade guilt. They were warned of the probable outcome, yet they chose to
disregard those warnings.
Power, Clinton, Obama and other proponents of ousting Qaddafi turned Libya into a chaotic
Somalia on the Mediterranean, and the blood of innocents shed since 2011 is on their hands.
Given the stark split within the president's national security team, the Libya intervention was
especially reckless and unjustified. The default option in such a case should have been against
intervention, not plunging ahead.
The Trump administration should learn from the blunders of its predecessor and resist any
temptation to meddle further. America does not have a dog in the ongoing fight between Haftar
and the GNA, and we should simply accept whatever outcome emerges. Washington's arrogant
interference has caused enough suffering in Libya already.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a
contributing editor at the National Interest , is the author of thirteen books and more than
eight hundred articles on international affairs. His latest book is NATO: The Dangerous Dinosaur .
The outcome in Libya is what the intent was - chaos, per the Yinon plan. The side effect
of mass immigration to Europe was warned by Gaddafi! All was known, yet the destabilization
war continued.
Obama and company not only destroyed Libya, they also helped to unleash a wave of jihadis
who are terrorizing vast swaths of west Africa, especially Mali and Burkina Faso. Their
stupidity and lack of foresight is mind-boggling!
Libya was and still is the case of a civil war into which foreign powers have intervened.
The major parties of that war have always been the Tripolitanian West and the Cyrenaican
East. Whoever is on top considers the others to be the rebels. That is how the demise of
Qaddafi began. For him Benghazi was the rebel's nest which needed some cleaning. Nothing has
changed. Haftar is the new Qaddafi.
I understand the role which the Obama administration played in getting the Libyan
intervention started. However the major destruction of Libya's fragile structure of
governance under Qaddafi was done by the French, Brits, and Italians.
You can always make things worse. It is one thing that Trump and friends are good at.
They don't consider that a criticism either, since they want what the rest of us consider
worse -- more war, more enemies, more inequality in outcomes at home, more desperation at
home giving more power to the haves over the have-nots.
Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book" is a timeless classic that still applies to articles
produced for electronic consumption. One of Adler's primary admonitions was to consider the
author's expertise, credibility, and potential biases. With regard to this article, scrolling
down to the end reveals the author's association with the Koch Brother financed Cato
Institute. The Koch Brothers and their money have done more to destroy American democracy
than any foreign tyrant or Presidential folly.
And oh, by the way, what did the Neocons and the Vulcans of the W Administration do to the
entire Middle East other than create a contiguous geographic belt of Iranian Shiite influence
from Tehran to Beirut?
@b - "Iran has thereby plausible deniability when attacks like the recent one on Abquiq
happen. That Iran supplied drones with 1,500 kilometer reach to its allies in Yemen means
that its allies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq and elsewhere have access to similar means."
I read the Tyler Rogoway WarZone article you linked to, and it was the first time I'd seen
the concept that Iran "has built a plausible deniability environment" for itself, but I think
Rogoway is missing a serious point. If Iran has such deniability, I don't think this exists
by contrivance. I think the truth of the situation has created such plausible deniability, if
in fact such a thing even exists, or if such a thing is even desired by Iran or any of its
allies.
I would like to offer a more nuanced view of the relationship between Iran and its allies.
Specifically regarding your view that Iran's allies are "willing to act on Iran's behalf
should the need arise."
I get the impression that it's more a case that all these allies see themselves in the
same existential position, and have developed, and are continuing to refine, an "all for one
and one for all" approach to the regional security of all the sovereign allies.
Sharmine Narwani explained this very thing in her recent interview with Ross Ashcroft,
where she said that if one of the allies is attacked by the US or Israel, all of the allies
will join in immediately and without reservation, because for each of them it is the same
existential threat: What's the real plan
with Iran?
And the interview you link to by Nader Talebzadeh with IRGC General Amir Ali Hajizadeh
concludes with the general's statement that "...in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen;
now Muslims are all a coalition standing next to each other". How likely is the
possibility of a military conflict between Iran and the US?
~~
I'm not trying to split hairs here, but it strikes me as important to note that these
countries have moved on from being isolated, and are in fact in a coalition, albeit still
coalescing. Their militaries have trained together and established joint command centers in
recent times.
As the general explained, when the threat of attack by the US seemed imminent - at the
time Iran downed the drone - Iran was fully prepared to attack and destroy several US bases.
One hopes that the Pentagon can understand that any attack on one of these members of the
coalition will be met with a coordinated and unreserved response by all allies.
Given such a geopolitical situation now throughout the region, the concept of Iran's
having "plausible deniability" for other countries to act on its behalf seems too narrow a
view. And this is why all the fevered discussion about who "owns" the Houthi strike is
missing the main strategic point that the whole region "owns" it - and why it is sufficient
that the Houthi did in fact act alone, but not alone, because none of these forces is now
alone. It is, one gathers, a brotherly coalition that has formed and is becoming yet
stronger
So it need not be the case that everything flows from Iran, or revolves around Iran. The
whole region is now the steel trap not to step on.
Iran has incentives to increase the chance of a Democrat administration, bearing in mind the
great deal they got from the last one and the lack of anything they can expect from Trump Term
Two.
You have several thousand soldiers in Iraq and Syria. These countries have large proxy
forces of Iran's allies in the form of Shia militias in Iraq and actual Iranian Quds Force
troops in Syria. These forces will be used to attack and kill our soldiers.
The Iranians have significant numbers of ballistic missiles which they have already said
will be used against our forces
The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the IRGC
Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed. In that
process the US Navy will loose men and ships.
In direct air attacks on Iran we are bound to lose aircraft and air crew.
The IRGC and its Quds Force will carry out terrorist attacks across the world.
Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge? Don't let the neocons like Pompeo sell you on war.
Make the intelligence people show you the evidence in detail. Make your own judgments.
pl
Vegetius,
re " Trump knows that he can't sell a war to the American people "
Are you sure? I am not.
Reflection, self criticism or self restraint are not exactly the big strengths of Trump.
He prefers solo acts (Emergency! Emergency!) and dislikes advice (especially if longer than 4
pages) and the advice of the sort " You're sure? If you do that the the shit will fly in
your face in an hour, Sir ".
A good number of the so called grownups who gave such advice were (gameshow style) fired,
sometimes by twitter.
Trump can order attacks and I don't expect much protest from Mark Esper and it depends on
the military (which likely will obey).
These so called grownups have been replaced by (then still) happy Bolton (likely, even
after being fired, still war happy) and applauders like Pompeo and his buddy Esper.
Israel could, if politically just a tad more insane, bomb Iran and thus invite the
inevitable retaliation. When that happens they'll cry for US aid, weapons and money because
they alone ~~~
(a) cannot defeat Iran (short of going nuclear) and ...
(b) Holocaust! We want weapons and money from Germany, too! ...
(c) they know that ...
(d) which does not lead in any way to Netanyahu showing signgs of self restraint or
reason.
Netanyahu just - it is (tight) election time - announced, in his sldedge hammer style
subtlety, that (he) Israel will annect the palestinian west jordan territory, making the
Plaestines an object in his election campaign.
IMO that idea is simply insane and invites more "troubles". But then, I didn't hear
anything like, say, Trump gvt protests against that (and why expect that from the dudes who
moved the US embassy to Jerusalem).
Vegetius,
as for Trump and Netanyahu ... policy debate ... I had that here in mind, which pretty speaks
for itself. And I thought Trumo is just running for office in the US. Alas, it is a Netanyaho
campaign poster from the current election:
I generously assume that things like that only happen because of the hard and hard
ly work of Kushner on his somewhat elusive but of course GIGANTIC and
INCREDIBLE Middle East peace plan.
Kushner is probably getting hard and hard ly supported by Ivanka who just said that
she inherited her moral compass from her father. Well ... congatulations ... I assume.
I disagree. Trump maybe the only person who could sell a war with Iran. What he has
cultivated is a rabid base that consists of sycophants on one extreme end and desperate
nationalists on the other. His base must stick with him...who else do they have?
The Left is indifferent to another war. Further depleting the quality stock of our
military will aid there agenda of international integration. A weaker US military will force
us to collaborate with the world community and not lead it is their thinking.
Need I trot out Goering's statement regarding selling a war once more?
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a
farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back
to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor
in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell
them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
We have been so thoroughly indoctrinated with the idea that Iran and Russia are
intrinsically and immutable evil and hostile that the thought of actual two sided diplomacy
does not occur. IMO neither of these countries are what we collectively think them. So, we
could actually give it a try rather than trying to beggar them and destroy their economies.
If all fails than we have to be prepared to defend our forces. DOL
The 'ivestigations are a formality. The Saudis (with U.S. backing) are already saying that
the missiles were Iranian made and according to them, this proves that Iran fired them. The
Saudis are using the more judicious phrase 'behind the attack' but Pompeo is running with the
fired from Iran narrative.
How can we tell the difference between an actual Iranian manufactured missile vs one that
was manufactured in Yemen based on Iranian designs? We only have a few pictures Iranian
missiles unlike us, the Iranians don't toss them all over the place so we don't have any
physical pieces to compare them to.
Perhaps honest investigators could make a determination but even if they do exist they
will keep quiet while the bible thumping Pompeo brays and shamelessly lies as he is prone to
do.
These kinds of munition will leave hundreds of bits scattered all over their targets. I'm
waiting for the press conference with the best bits laid out on the tables.
I doubt that there will be any stencils saying 'Product of Iran', unless the paint smells
fresh.
1. I am still waiting to read some informed discussion concerning the *accuracy* of the
projectiles hitting their targets with uncanny precision from hundreds of miles away. What
does this say about the achievement of those pesky Eye-rainians? https://www.moonofalabama.org/images9/saudihit2.jpg
2. "The US Navy has many ships in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. The Iranian Navy and the
IRGC Navy will attack our naval vessels until the Iranian forces are utterly destroyed.:
Ahem, Which forces are utterly destroyed? With respect colonel, you are not thinking
straight. An army with supersonic land to sea missiles that are highly accurate will make
minced meat of any fool's ship that dare attack it. The lesson of the last few months is that
Iran is deadly serious about its position that if they cannot sell their oil, no one else
will be able to either. And if the likes of the relatively broadminded colonel have not yet
learned that lesson, then this can only mean that the escalation ladder will continue to be
climbed, rung by rung. Next rung: deep sea port of Yanbu, or, less likely, Ra's Tanura.
That's when the price of oil will really go through the roof and the Chinese (and possibly
one or two of the Europoodles) will start crying Uncle Scam. Nuff Sed.
It sounds like you are getting a little "help" with this. You statement about the result
of a naval confrontation in the Gulf reflects the 19th Century conception that "ships can't
fight forts." that has been many times exploded. You have never seen the amount of firepower
that would be unleashed on Iran from the air and sea. Would the US take casualties? Yes, but
you will be destroyed.
We will have to agree to disagree. But unless I am quite mistaken, the majority view if not
the consensus of informed up to date opinion holds that the surest sign that the US is
getting ready to attack Iran is that it is withdrawing all of its naval power out of the
Persian Gulf, where they would be sitting ducks.
Besides, I don't think it will ever come to that. Not to repeat myself, but taking out
either deep sea ports of Ra's Tanura and/ or Yanbu (on the Red Sea side) will render Saudi
oil exports null and void for the next six months. The havoc that will play with the price of
oil and consequently on oil futures and derivatives will be enough for any president and army
to have to worry about. But if the US would still be foolhardy enough to continue to want to
wage war (i.e. continue its strangulation of Iran, which it has been doing more or less for
the past 40 years), then the Yemeni siege would be broken and there would be a two-pronged
attack from the south and the north, whereby al-Qatif, the Shi'a region of Saudi Arabia where
all the oil and gas is located, will be liberated from their barbaric treatment at the hands
of the takfiri Saudi scum, which of course is completely enabled and only made possible by
the War Criminal Uncle Sam.
AFAIK the only "US naval power" currently is the Abraham Lincoln CSG and I haven't seen any
public info that it was in the Persian Gulf. Aside from the actual straits, I'm not sure of
your "sitting ducks" assertion. First they wouldn't be sitting, and second you have the
problem of a large volume of grey shipping that would complicate the targeting problem. Of
course with a reduced time-of-flight, that also reduces target position uncertainty.
Forts are stationary.
Nothing I have read implies that Iran has a lot of investment in stationary forts.
Millennium Challenge 2002, only the game cannot be restarted once the enemy does not behave
as one hopes. Unlike in scripted war simulations, Opfor can win.
I remember the amount of devastation that was unleashed on another "backwards nation"
Linebackers 1 - 20, battleship salvos chemical defoliants, the Phoenix program, napalm for
dessert.
And not to put to fine a point on it, but that benighted nation was oriental; Iran is a
Caucasian nation full of Caucasian type peoples.
Nothing about this situation is of any benefit to the USA.
We do not need Saudi oil, we do not need Israel to come to the defense of the USA here in
North America, we do not need to stick our dick into the hornet's nest and then wonder why
they sting and it hurts. How many times does Dumb have to win?
3. Also, I can't imagine this event as being a very welcome one for Israeli military
observers, the significance of which is not lost on them, unlike their US counterparts. If
Yemen/ Iran can put the Abqaiq processing plant out of commission for a few weeks, then
obviusly Hezbollah can do the same for the giant petrochemical complex at Haifa, as well as
Dimona, and the control tower at Ben Gurion Airport. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/239251
It was late at night when I wrote this. Yeah, Right. the Iranians could send their massive
ground force into Syria where it would be chewed up by US and Israeli air. Alternatively they
could invade Saudi arabia.
Thank you for the reply but actually I was thinking that an invasion of Afghanistan would be
the more sensible ploy.
To my mind if the Iranian Army sits on its backside then the USAF and IAF will ignore it
to roam the length and breadth of Iran destroying whatever ground targets are on their
long-planned target-list.
Or that Iranian Army can launch itself into Afghanistan, at which point all of the USA
plans for a methodical aerial pummelling of Iran's infrastructure goes out the window as the
USAF scrambles to save the American forces in Afghanistan from being overrun.
Isn't that correct?
So what incentive is there for that Iranian Army to sit around doing nothing?
Iran will do what the USAF isn't expecting it to do, if for no other reason that it upsets
the USA's own game-plan.
There seems to be a bit of a hiatus in proceedings - not in these columns but on the ground
in the ME.
Everyone seems to be waiting for something.
Could this "something" be the decisive word fron our commander in chief Binyamin
Netanyahu?
The thing is he has just pretty much lost an election. Likud might form part of the next
government of Israel but most likely not with him at its head.
Does anyone have any ideas on what the future policy of Israel is likely to be under Gantz
or whoever? Will it be the same, worse or better?
The correct US move would be to ignore an Iranian invasion of Afghanistan and continue
leaving the place. The Iranian Shia can then fight the Sunni jihadi tribesmen.
Oh, I completely agree that if the Iranians launch an invasion of Afghanistan then the only
sensible strategy would be for the US troops to pack up and get out as fast as possible.
But that is "cut and run", which many in Washington would view as a humiliation.
Do you really see the beltway warriors agreeing to that?
A flaw in your otherwise sound argument is that the US military has not been seriously
engaged for several years and has been reconstituting itself with the money Trump has given
them.
Re-positioning of forces does not indicate that a presidential decision for war has been
made. The navy will not want to fight you in the narrow, shallow waters of the Gulf.
I would think that Mr. Trump would have a hard time sell a war with Iran over an attack on
Saudi Arabia. The good question about how would that war end will soon be raised and I doubt
there are many good answers.
The US should have gotten out of that part of the world a long time ago, just as they
should have paid more attention to the warnings in President Eisenhower's farewell
address.
The Perfumed Fops in the DOD restarted Millennium Challenge 2002,because Gen Van Riper had
used 19th and early 20th century tactics and shore based firepower to sink the Blue Teams
carrier forces. There was a script, Van Riper did some adlibbing. Does the US DOD think that
Iran will follow the US script? In a unipolar world maybe the USA could enforce a script,
that world was severely wounded in 1975, took a sucking chest wound during operation Cakewalk
in 2003 and died in Syria in 2015. Too many poles too many powers not enough diplomacy. It
will not end well.
We would crush Iran at some cost to ourselves but the political cost to the anti-globalist
coalition would catastrophic. BTW Trump's "base" isn't big enough to elect him so he cannot
afford to alienate independents.
Even if Rouhani and the Iranian Parliament personally designed, assembled, targeted and
launched the missiles (scarier sounding version of "drones"), then they should be
congratulated, for the Saudi tyrant deserves every bad thing that he gets.
prawnik (Sid) in this particular situation goering's glittering generalization does not
apply. Trump needs a lot of doubting suburbanites to win and a war will not incline them to
vote for him.
Looks like President Trump is walking it back, tweet: I have just instructed the Secretary of
the Treasury to substantially increase Sanctions on the country of Iran!
I doubt there will be armed conflict of any kind.
Everything Trump does from now (including sacking the Bolton millstone) will be directed at
winning 2020, and that will not be aided by entering into some inconclusive low intensity
attrition war.
Iran, on the other hand, will be doing everything it can to increase the chance of a Democrat
administration, bearing in mind the great deal they got from the last one and the lack of
anything they can expect from Trump Term Two.
This may be a useful tool for determining their next move, but the limit of their actions
would be when some Democrats begin making the electorally damaging mistake of critising Trump
for not retaliating against Iranian provocations.
Should the warrior who currently inhabits the position of Secretary of State use his
influence to persuade Donald Trump to enter what would likely be a very lengthy war of
attrition in Iran, it may prove to be a very costly move for the Republican Party in November
of 2020 given the level of support for such actions among Main Street Americans.
Sep 16, 2019 Welcome
to the world where things don't add up. For instance, some people did some things to
the Saudi Arabian oil refinery at Abqaiq over the weekend. Like, sent over a salvo of cruise
missiles and armed drone aircraft to blow it up. They did a pretty good job of disabling the
works. It is Saudi Arabia's largest oil processing facility, and for now, perhaps months, a
fair amount of the world's oil supply will be cut off. President Trump said "[we] are waiting
to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what
terms we would proceed!" Exclamation mark his.
How many times the past few years has our government declared that "we have the finest
intelligence services in the world." Very well, then, why are we waiting for the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia to tell us who fired all that stuff into Abqaiq? Whoever did it, it was
unquestionably an act of war. And, of course, what are we going to do about it? (And what will
some people do about it?)
Let's face it: the USA has had a hard-on for Iran for forty years, ever since they overthrew
their shah, invaded the US embassy in Tehran, and took fifty-two American diplomats and staff
hostage for 444 days. On the other hand, the Arabians and Iranians have had a mutual hard-on
for centuries, long before the Saud family was in charge of things, and back when Iran was
known as Persia, a land of genies, fragrant spices, and a glorious antiquity (while Arabia was
a wasteland of sand populated by nomads and their camels). The beef was formerly just about
which brand of Islam would prevail, Sunni or Shia. Lately (the past fifty years) it has been
more about the politics of oil and hegemony over the Middle East. Since the US invaded Iraq and
busted up the joint, the threat has existed that Iran would take over Iraq, with its majority
Shia population, especially the oil-rich Basra region at the head of the Persian Gulf. The
presence of Israel greatly complicates things, since Iran has a hard-on for that nation, too,
and for Jews especially, often expressed in the most belligerent and opprobrious terms, such as
"wiping Israel off the map." No ambiguity there. The catch being that Israel has the capability
of turning Iran into an ashtray.
The world has been waiting for a major war in the Middle east for decades, and it might have
one by close of business today. Or perhaps some people will do nothing . The
Iran-backed Houthi rebels of Yemen supposedly claimed responsibility for the attack. That's
rich. As if that rag-tag outfit has a whole bunch of million-dollar missiles and the knowledge
and capacity to launch them successfully, not to mention the satellite guidance mojo. A
correspondent suggests that the missiles were fired from a pro-Iranian military base in Iraq,
with the Houthis brought in on flying carpets to push the launch buttons.
President Trump is trumpeting America's "energy independence," meaning whatever happens over
there won't affect us. Well, none of that is true. We still import millions of barrels of oil a
day, though much less from Saudi Arabia than before 2008. The shale oil "miracle" is hitting
the skids these days. Shale oil production has gone flat, the rig-count is down, companies are
going bankrupt, and financing for the debt-dependent operations is dwindling since the
producers have demonstrated that they can't make a profit at it. They're trapped in the
quandary of diminishing returns, frontloading production, while failing to overcome steep
decline curves in wells that only produce for a couple of years.
It's also the case that shale oil is ultra-light crude, containing little heavier
distillates such as diesel and aviation fuel (basically kerosene). Alas, American refineries
were all built before shale oil came along. They were designed to crack heavier oil and can't
handle the lighter shale. The "majors" don't want to invest their remaining capital in new
refineries, and the many smaller companies don't have the ability. So, this makes necessary a
high volume of oil swapping around the world. Without diesel and aviation fuel, US trucking and
commercial aviation has a big problem, meaning the US economy has a big problem.
With the new crisis in the Middle East, benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil is up from
around $55-a-barrel to just over $60 at the market open (European Brent crude is just above
$70). That's a pop, but not a spectacular one, considering that a whole lot more damage might
ensue in the days ahead. China, Korea, and Japan stand to lose bigly if the players in the
Middle East really go at it and bust up each other's assets. If that happens, the world will
never be the same. You can kiss the global economy goodbye for good. Let's hope some people
don't do something.
Not just the Saudi's. The Houthis support Palestine, and the Muslim Brotherhood.
They also control the Straits of Mandeb where most of Israel's oil transits to Asia.
Hence the war in Yemen an the problems in the Sudan. So its no wonder its not just
the Saudi's who are fighting the Houthis. The Houthis are fighting against the U.K.,
Germany, the U.S., Israel and the UAE, who are all supporting the Saudi's. Yemen, one
of the worlds oldest civilizations
Iran never said "wiping Israel off the map."It was Ahmadinejad that said "..wipe
the Zionist entity off the map".
This author should know better than to repeat Zionist lies.
Kunstler has some huge holes in his game. He seems to take many of the US MSM
talking points as good coin. Like, exhibit A, the "wipe Israel off the map" quote
which has long since been shown to be a mis-translation. Often his bigotry also slips
like when he dismisses Houthi capabilities and gets wrong what actually hit the
refineries. These were DRONES not missiles. That is why they were able to evade the
Saudi air defenses. But Houthis are to uncouth to pull of such an operation and
moreover how dare they defend themselves or accept assistance from Iran even if it
were true they are supplying the Houthis with weapons and intelligence. Of course, he
also fails to explain, following like a dog on a leash the US media, why Iran would
launch such an attack considering it may provoke the Israelis or the US. Sure they
may hate the Saudis but they certainly do not want a war where, though they would not
technically lose, would see their society destroyed. Again Cui Bono.
Kunstlers's roots are definitely showing here. His usual barbed wit has simply
disappeared and he seems to have bitten off and swallowed whole the officialbullshit , very unwise at this stage.
"A correspondent suggests" just doesn't cut it. Correspondents have suggested all
sorts of things and he should learn to ignore these voices and rely on facts
instead.
He forgets the fact that Saudi Arabia has been waging war on Yemen since 2015 and
that the damage inflicted upon the Saudi oil installations is only a tiny fraction of
the retribution that the Saudis deserve.
Kunstler predictably forgets the fact that Israel has been illegally attacking
Iranian interests in Syria for several years and that as a result many Iranians have
been killed by Israel in recent times. The fact is that these illegal forays are also
acts of war, which of course Kunstler forgets to tell us.
One other fact pertains to his boasting that Israel could wipe Iran off the map,
which is not just bad taste, but ignores the fact that Iran has enough conventional
power to do the same to its postage stamp sized and bellicose neighbour.
We now know that when the chips are down, Kunstler will simply revert to type and
tow the crooked official zio line. We don't need Kunstler for that, we all ready have
a zionist media, a craven Congress and Trump's government of crazies, very important
facts.
If the Yemenis are being assisted by Iran I say that's a good thing. The Saudi
beasts are being assisted by our jew rulers. If I was a Yemeni blowing up that oil
infrastructure would have been on top of my list. And Israel is the country that
would be turned into an ashtray. The US is gone, over run invaded, already lost.
"Let's face it:" says Kunstler. Iran started it forty years ago, "ever since they
overthrew their shah ..." Bad Iranians attacking the USA.
But if we go back a few decades further, we find USUKisrael smashing the elected
government of Iran and installing The Shah! So Kunstler is lying when he says "their
shah"; he should say OUR shah. I think he probably knows this. He's not accidentally
mixing things up.
Catastrophic or not the neocons are itching for a big confrontation and Iran fits
the bill.
Keep in mind that most collateral damage will be suffered by the Saudis.
The US is now the biggest producer of oil, just imagine the boost that the US shale
investors will get in an industry that was about to have its bubble burst.
No longer will it struggle to break even, no it will make a good profit, more
importantly the bubble will not hit the financial sector hard.
Now KSA will suffer a blow, but that will only serve the US - new loans and new
contracts will reverse the money stream and tie the Saudi regime even more to
Washington.
As a bonus it will please the Israelis when finally Iran will be taken out and
Hezbollah isolated.
Wild cards - how hard can Iran retaliate beyond KSA, is it able and willing to
strike against Israel? How hard can it strike US targets in the region? And finally
will they go full on against the Arabian energy infrastructure. If a couple of Houthi
cruise missiles in a single strike can drop total oil production by 5% and raise
prices by 20%, imagine what kind of havoc a real Iranian campaign can cause (again
ignoring the oil bonanza the US oil industry will score).
I really believe there is now a 50/50% that Washington will gamble a full blown
war against Iran, its perceived benefits outweighing the dangers.
If anything Israel will be the deciding factor, if Tel Aviv does not fear Iranian
retribution and gives the go ahead, we'll have a war on our hands,
The US is certainly stretched thin defending the national and security interest
across the globe - aka defending and expanding the empire.
However there is enough fire power to defeat the Iranian military as an organized
force and Teheran as a government, it all depends on the US rules of engagement and
how far they are willing to push this war.
But afterwards it will be no better than Iraq or Afghanistan.
That may actually be the excuse to do what some strategists have been itching to
do since the Korean war, that is to use a couple of tactical nukes - the ultimate
terror weapon of state.
The current NPR is a strong sign in favor of nuclear weapons in conflict as it
greatly reduces the threshold. Iran's perceived threat to global oil production could
be used to set an example.
In what condition will Saudi Arabia be in, after Iran has been subdued? Also the
plethora of US bases in the area will also be fat juicy targets for Iranian
missiles.
Did the condition of South East Asia other than the ubiquitous Domino Theory,
worry many when they went to war in Viet Nam, what about Iraq?
Oil and Israel are key.
Oil prices and Israel's safety.
They want to take out Iran, but this small attack shows how vulnerable the
regional energy infrastructure really is. That can be a temporary advantage, in
boosting US oil income, but that can be easily off set by the impact of rising oil
prices on all other sectors and the public.
That's why I think it is 50/50 at best, and slowly leaning to less likely we'll
see a major escalation.
Otoh, if I were the Houthis, I'd launch a couple of additional strikes to press
the message.
Saudi Arabia supplies oil to China, so to believe Iran was behind the drone attack
on Saudi oil is a bit of a stretch. The question is was it the U.S. and Israel
coordinating that attack? Israel's influence on the U.S. in the middle east is what
is getting America running in circles
"... the attack dented the image of invincibility of Aramco's infrastructure ..."
"... Saudi Military stated the Aramco facilites were attacked with 18 missiles and 7 drones. They state cruise missiles were used. However, now they state the attack was simply "backed" by Iran. The weapons were all Iranian design. ..."
"... That Iran is backing the Houthis we already knew and nobody doubts. But those drones and missiles didn't come from Iranian territory nor were they operated by Iranian personel. It's a free market world, and everybody can buy weapons from anybody. ..."
"... The GOAL of exaggerating the attack could be to simply increase oil prices or to justify war with Iran. Tensions with Iran will be elevated for weeks, if not months. That will mean higher oil prices than otherwise. ..."
"... The timing is also suspicious because it comes just before the Israeli election and just after John Bolton was dismissed. ..."
"... Russian oil experts say 3 to 6 months to repair damage from strike as components must come from Europe according to TASS. As the remains of the uavs have been recovered their effective range can be determined. I suspect they were launched from within Saudi territory. ..."
"... It is embarrassing to the Saudis because they scarcely bother to unpack the weapons the US sends them-at premium prices - and dare not allow any of their countrymen to learn how to use them. And it is embarrassing to the Americans because they understand all this and ship over arms that don't work simply to ensure that those petrodollars circulate. ..."
"... Hence the current campaign to convince us that Iran was responsible. Mind you, that propaganda is only effective so long as the American people don't really believe it because, if they did, they might demand war (you can imagine Pelosi, Schumer and Biden insisting on it) and Washington doesn't want that. Jingoism isn't about fighting it's about threatening. ..."
1) USA: that would only help if Trump was decided to go to a hot war against Iran. By his
declarations since yesterday, we already know that isn't going to happen. He didn't even jump
to the "Iran did it!" bandwagon right away. He said he increased sanctions against Iran --
but Iran is already sanctioned to the maximum by the USA, so that's empty rhetoric.
2) Israel: wars in Israel only work as an election boost to the incumbent Prime Minister when Israel emerges with a clear
victory. ...
3) Saudi Arabia: it has a 188 billion barrel reserve to cover up for the losses for a
couple of days, so they benefited a little bit from the 20% price rise. But so did everybody
else -- including enemies of the USA, such as Russia and Venezuela. Besides, the attack
dented the image of invincibility of Aramco's infrastructure, and Saudi Arabia's image as a
neofascist ideal State.
4) Iran: Iran can block the Hormuz Strait -- a much more benign and cheap way to stop
Saudi oil from being exported. If Iran attacks its neighbors' oil infrastructure, then it
kind of states it's fair game for its neighbors to attack theirs. This is bad move for Iran
from a purely game theory standpoint, let alone from the geopolitical one.
5) Masters of the Universe: yes, the oil price went up 20% in one day. But let's remember
that even a USD 100.00 a barrel isn't that impressive from a historical standpoint: when the
Iraq invasion happened, the barrel reached USD 300.00. Yes, a selected elite benefited a lot
from this, but the USA didn't become a capitalist utopia because of that. We must not
overestimate the effects of oil prices on capitalism and, specially, on the USA: the West is
in terminal decline for a myriad of factors, not because of one silver bullet. Higher oil
prices won't save the West.
My hypothesis is this: the USA/Saudi Arabia are too embarassed to admit their
anti-aircraft weapons and systems are useless against puny drones and created a big,
subterranean enemy in the form of Iran in order to avoid public embarassment.
The Houthis are telling the truth, and they will do more attacks if the Saudis don't stop
with theirs and settle for peace.
The headline calls that the Saudi Military stated the Aramco facilites were attacked with
18 missiles and 7 drones. They state cruise missiles were used. However, now they state the
attack was simply "backed" by Iran. The weapons were all Iranian design.
That Iran is backing the Houthis we already knew and nobody doubts. But those drones and
missiles didn't come from Iranian territory nor were they operated by Iranian personel. It's
a free market world, and everybody can buy weapons from anybody.
US and Saudis say that over 20 missiles and drones were used in the attack. They say that
this showed that Iran did the attack or participated in the attack because the Houthi only
claim to have used 10 drones.
Peter AU 1 and I have said that it's possible to account for the excess damage as an
attempt to exaggerate damage caused by the Houthi attack.
The GOAL of exaggerating the attack could be to simply increase oil prices or to justify
war with Iran. Tensions with Iran will be elevated for weeks, if not months. That will mean
higher oil prices than otherwise.
The timing is also suspicious because it comes just before the Israeli election and
just after John Bolton was dismissed.
And despite Trump's backing away from his asinine "locked and loaded" comment, war with
Iran is still very possible. The Iraq War started 18 months after 9-11.
Russian oil experts say 3 to 6 months to repair damage from strike as components must come
from Europe according to TASS. As the remains of the uavs have been recovered their effective
range can be determined. I suspect they were launched from within Saudi territory.
Their main argument is that the attacks came "from the north".
If that's true, then the question remains: why didn't the Saudi radars detect it? Either b
is lying, or the Saudi military is lying.
It's really hilarious at this point: the attack caught the West so low-guarded and stunned
them so much that they can't even come up with a unified official narrative.
Houthi Armed Forces Spokesman
is at this moment tweeting a series of statements explaining how the last attack was done
that includes drone capabilities and types of munitions used!!!!!!!!!!! An example:
"Drones have fission heads carrying four precision bombs."
Given that the entire relationship between the USA and the KSA is an elaborate protection
racket the failure of all those high priced systems to protect the oil fields against
Ansrullah drones is particularly embarrassing.
It is embarrassing to the Saudis because they scarcely bother to unpack the weapons the
US sends them-at premium prices - and dare not allow any of their countrymen to learn how to
use them. And it is embarrassing to the Americans because they understand all this and ship
over arms that don't work simply to ensure that those petrodollars circulate.
Hence the current campaign to convince us that Iran was responsible. Mind you, that
propaganda is only effective so long as the American people don't really believe it because,
if they did, they might demand war (you can imagine Pelosi, Schumer and Biden insisting on
it) and Washington doesn't want that.
Jingoism isn't about fighting it's about threatening.
And, now that 57 varieties of Israeli Fascism are squabbling about whether the Prime
Minister goes to jail for theft, even that distraction is no longer useful.
Statement from the Iranians "Saudi press conference shows they are clueless about how attack
was executed and know nothing about the military capabilities of their adversary".
Seems about right. Statement by bevin is on target.
The recent attacks on Saudi oil facilities by Yemeni Houthi forces demonstrate once again
that an aggressive foreign policy often brings unintended consequences and can result in
blowback. In 2015 Saudi Arabia attacked its neighbor, Yemen, because a coup in that country
ousted the Saudi-backed dictator. Four years later Yemen is in ruins, with nearly 100,000
Yemenis killed and millions more facing death by starvation. It has been rightly called the
worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet.
But rich and powerful Saudi Arabia did not defeat Yemen. In fact, the Saudis last month
asked the Trump Administration to help facilitate talks with the Houthis in hopes that the war,
which has cost Saudi Arabia tens of billions of dollars, could finally end without Saudi crown
prince Mohammad bin Salman losing too much face. Washington admitted earlier this month that
those talks had begun.
The surprise Houthi attack on Saturday disrupted half of Saudi Arabia's oil and gas
production and shocked Washington. Predictably, however, the neocons are using the attack to
call for war with Iran!
Sen. Lindsay Graham, one of the few people in Washington who makes John Bolton look like a
dove, Tweeted yesterday that, "It is now time for the US to put on the table an attack on
Iranian oil refineries " Graham is the perfect embodiment of the saying, "when all you have is
a hammer, everything looks like a nail." No matter what the problem, for Graham the solution is
war.
Likewise, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – who is supposed to represent US diplomacy
– jumped to blame Iran for the attack on Saudi Arabia, Tweeting that, "Iran has now
launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply." Of course, he provided no
evidence even as the Houthis themselves took responsibility for the bombing.
What is remarkable is that all of Washington's warmongers are ready for war over what is
actually a retaliatory strike by a country that is the victim of Saudi aggression, not the
aggressor itself. Yemen did not attack Saudi Arabia in 2015. It was the other way around. If
you start a war and the other country fights back, you should not be entitled to complain about
how unfair the whole thing is.
The establishment reaction to the Yemeni oilfield strike reminds me of a hearing in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee just before the US launched the 2003 Iraq war. As I was arguing
against the authorization for that war, I pointed out that Iraq had never attacked the United
States. One of my colleagues stopped me in mid-sentence, saying, "let me remind the gentleman
that the Iraqis have been shooting at our planes for years." True, but those planes were
bombing Iraq!
The neocons want a US war on Iran at any cost. They may feel temporarily at a disadvantage
with the departure of their ally in the Trump Administration, John Bolton. However, the sad
truth is that there are plenty more John Boltons in the Administration. And they have allies in
the Lindsay Grahams in Congress.
Yemen has demonstrated that it can fight back against Saudi aggression. The only sensible
way forward is for a rapid end to this four-year travesty, and the Saudis would be wise to wake
up to the mess they've created for themselves. Whatever the case, US participation in Saudi
Arabia's war on Yemen must end immediately and neocon lies about Iran's role in the war must be
refuted and resisted.
"... Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen. Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution, they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi. ..."
"... "Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the region." ..."
"... "The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued. ..."
"... Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing a successful bill to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen. ..."
"... "It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest between the Saudis and Iranians." ..."
"... "Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.), who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran. ..."
"... "This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not a walk in the park." ..."
"... "In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's desulphurization capacity out of commission. ..."
"... "This little accident was designed to be maximally disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil in the long run. ..."
"... On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump understands." ..."
Retired Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis pointed out that the puncture marks do not actually show
the origin of the attack. "Missiles can fly from almost anywhere. They have the ability to
maneuver! And certainly drones can, too," the Defense Priorities senior fellow told the
National Interest . "There hasn't been the time to do an actual analysis on the
ground, so let's wait and see."
Mark Latham, managing partner at the London-based analysis firm Commodities Intelligence,
told the National Interest that the puncture marks pointed to a cruise missile with no
explosive warhead. Removing the payload would allow the missile to carry more fuel and launch
from farther away from its target.
... ... ...
"Mr. X is a sophisticated fellow. He's sourced some Iranian cruise missiles.
He's removed the explosive payload. He's replaced the explosive payload with fuel," he said.
"So this isn't your twenty dollar Amazon drone. This is a sophisticated military operation."
"The culprit behind the Abqaiq attack is most definitely the Islamic Republic, either
directly or through one of its proxies," argued Varsha Koduvayur, a senior research analyst at
the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
"The attack fits the pattern of Iran signaling to the Gulf states that if it can't get its
oil out, it will cause their oil exports to become collateral damage," Koduvayur told the National Interest . "It's because of how strong our coercive financial tools are that
Iran is resorting to attacks like this: it's lashing out."
Violating an Obama-era agreement to regulate Iran's nuclear research program, the Trump
administration imposed massive sanctions on Iran's oil industry beginning in May 2018. The goal
of this "maximum pressure" campaign was to force Iran to accept a "better" deal. Since then,
Iranian forces have captured a British oil tanker and allegedly sabotaged tankers from other
countries.
There were some signals that Trump was planning to use the ongoing United Nations General
Assembly in New York to open a new
diplomatic channel with Iran, especially after the
firing of hawkish National Security Advisor John Bolton. But the weekend attack sent Trump
into reverse.
"Remember when Iran shot down a drone, saying knowingly that it was in their 'airspace'
when, in fact, it was nowhere close. They stuck strongly to that story knowing that it was a
very big lie," he said in a Monday morning Twitter post, referring to a June incident
when Iranian and American forces almost went to war. "Now they say that they had nothing to do
with the attack on Saudi Arabia. We'll see?"
He also hinted at a violent U.S. response.
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of
this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!" Trump wrote on Sunday.
"Saudi Arabia is not a formal treaty ally of ours, so there are no international agreements
that obligate us to come to their defense," John Glaser, director of foreign-policy studies at
the CATO Institute, stated. "This does not amount to a clear and present danger to the United
States, so no self-defense justification is relevant. He would therefore need authorization
from Congress."
Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had mixed reactions to the attack.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) proposed putting "on the table an attack on Iranian oil
refineries" in order to "break the regime's back." His press office did not respond to a
follow-up question from the National Interest asking whether the president would have
the authority to do so.
Amy Grappone, spokeswoman for Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), told the National Interest
that the Senator "will support an appropriate and proportionate response" after "studying the
latest intelligence pertaining to Iran's malign activities, including these recent attacks in
Saudi Arabia."
Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the committee, condemned the attack with
a backhanded insult towards Saudi Arabia. "Despite some ongoing policy differences with the
kingdom, no nation should be subjected to these kinds of attacks on it soil and against its
people," he wrote on Twitter, declining to name Iran as the culprit.
Committee members Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Vir.) explicitly announced
their opposition to war with Iran. And prominent war powers critic Sen.
Jeff Markley (D-Ore.) quipped that, "[b]ack when Presidents used to follow the Constitution,
they sought consent for military action from Congress, not foreign governments that murder
reporters," referring to the assassination of Saudi-American journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"Diplomacy by Twitter has not worked so far and it surely is not working with Iran. The
president needs to stop threatening military strikes via social media," said Sen. Ben Cardin
(D-Mary.) in response to a question from the National Interest . "The attack on Saudi
Arabia is troubling whether it was perpetrated by Houthi rebels or Iran. The U.S. should regain
its leadership by working with our allies to isolate Iran for its belligerent actions in the
region."
"The U.S. should not be looking for any opportunity to start a dangerous and costly war with
Iran. Congress has not authorized war against Iran and we've made it crystal clear that Saudi
Arabia needs to withdraw from Yemen," he continued.
Asked how he would vote on a declaration of war, the senator told the National
Interest : "Let's hope it does not come to that. Congress has not authorized war against
Iran. The majority voted to engage them diplomatically to slow their nuclear ambitions. The
international community is ready to work with the U.S. again to ease economic pressure on Iran
in exchange for their restraint. We are at a dangerous precipice."
In a statement emailed to the National Interest and posted to Twitter, Sen. Tim
Kaine (D-Va.) was even more direct: "The US should never go to war to protect Saudi oil."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) has long been a critic of Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, proposing
a successful bill
to cut off U.S. support for the Saudi-led war effort. (He did not have enough votes to override
the veto.) After the attacks, he wrote a long Twitter thread
explaining how "the Saudis sowed the seeds of this mess" in Yemen.
"It's simply amazing how the Saudis call all our shots these days. We don't have a mutual
defense alliance with KSA, for good reason. We shouldn't pretend we do," Murphy added. "And
frankly, no matter where this latest drone strike was launched from, there is no short or long
term upside to the U.S. military getting more deeply involved in the growing regional contest
between the Saudis and Iranians."
But the reaction did not fall neatly along party lines.
"Iran is one of the most dangerous state sponsors of terrorism. This may well be the thing
that calls for military action against Iran, if that's what the intelligence supports," said
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) in a Monday interview with Fox News. Others pointed out that
attacking Iran would contradict Trump's own principles.
"Having our country act as Saudi Arabia's bitch is not 'America First,'" said Democratic
presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, invoking a popular Trump slogan. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken.),
who had invoked Trump's antiwar message in a public feud
with Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) over the weekend, took to CNN to warn against striking Iran.
"This is a regional conflict, that there's no reason the superpower of the United States
needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran. It would be a needless escalation of this," he
told journalist Jake Tapper. "Those who loved the Iraq War, the Cheneys, the Boltons, the
Kristols, they all are clamoring and champing at the bit for another war in Iran. But it's not
a walk in the park."
Davis agreed with Paul's assessment. "There's too many people who have lost touch with
understanding what war is all about. They think it's easy," he told the National
Interest . "Just imagine this. What we go ahead and do this, and Iran makes good on their
threats, and American warships get sunk in the Gulf?" "This is not America's fight," he
concluded. "The American armed forces are not on loan as a Saudi defense force."
"There's another claim that the impact on oil markets is sufficient to impact the vital U.S.
interest in the free flow of energy coming out of that region, but that argument quickly
descends into absurdity when we remember that the Trump administration has been trying to
zero-out Iranian oil exports, for a host of spurious reasons," Glaser told the National
Interest . "Washington is also aggressively sanctioning Venezuela, making it harder for
Caracas to bring oil to market, too. If we really cared about the supply of oil, we wouldn't be
doing this."
In any case, the attack may not have affected oil markets in such a straightforward way.
Latham says that the attack struck an oil desulphurization facility. At the moment,
desulphurized fuel is in high demand from the shipping industry, which is rushing to comply
with new international environmental regulations.
"In order to have clean ships by the first of January next year, all the world's shipping
fleet from about now until the end of the year are busy emptying their tanks of heavy sulphur
fuel oil and filling their tanks with low sulphur fuel oil, which is the new standard," Latham
explained, claiming that the attack could have taken up to 20 percent of the world's
desulphurization capacity out of commission.
"This little accident was designed to be maximally
disruptive to the world's oil market. It could not have happened at a worse time." "But what is
really interesting is in Amsterdam this morning, I saw that for fuel oil -- the sulphurous
stuff -- the price went down," Latham continued, speculating that international powers might
delay the new environmental regulations by months and inadvertently drive down the price of oil
in the long run.
On Sunday, Trump tapped into emergency U.S. oil reserves, in order to stabilize prices. It's
not clear, however, that the United States has enough oil to cope with wider attacks on energy
infrastructure. "If the Iranians did this, they have shown they have pretty immense
capabilities clearly," Parsi told the National Interest . "In the case of a full-scale
war, imagine what this will do for the global economy. It's not that difficult to imagine what
that will do to Trump's re-election prospects. I think that is something Trump
understands."
Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest.
Oil prices only 7.2% above Friday. S&P 500 within 1% of record. This is not normal
behavior after "Pearl Harbor" type event. Something smells fishy, very fishy.
Stocks fell 4% after Pearl Harbor, 7% after 911.
Who is assuaging the markets' uncertainty about the dire consequences of SA attacks?
After looking at a number images on Google, I have yet to see anything that shows substantial
fire damage apart from the blackened structures in the lower left hand corner of the
satellite phot shown here.
Could this be false flag like the chemical weapons attacks in Syria? In this case, lots of
fire, but set in such a way as to avoid actual damage?
Having seen the battle damage photos published online, it seems clear to me that the Houthis
are not responsible for this strike. First off, the Houthis claim to have launched only 10
suicide drones...the photos show 17 impact points.
But more importantly, the strike did not just hit the facility, it hit several very
specific tanks within the facility, and it hit them with extreme precision. If the Houthis
did this, then the Saudis should sue for peace immediately!
No, there seem to be just two plausible scenarios here, either the Iranians struck the
Saudi facility themselves (which seems unlikely to me) or the Israelis carried out the strike
as part of Bibi's re-election campaign (which seems much more likely). Cui bono?
What missing from the discussion of the Houthi strike against Abqaig is that these are long
'pipelines' of continuous chemical processes that must be gradually started up in sequence,
and if necessary taken down in the same way.
The idea that after KSA was forced to suddenly take more than 50% of their petrochemical
output offline as a result of the disastrous missile attack, they could start them up again
like flipping a light switch, is pure propaganda.
The attack is as much about spiking the long touted sellout of Aramco to foreign interests
than anything else. And indeed that must have been one the major strategic considerations
that motivated the attack.
Puncturing a containment tank with a small yield explosive would be similar to operating a
propane/butane blow-torch. The pressure of the released gasses upon puncture would either
completely extinguish any flame or the gasses would ignite but burn 20-30 feet away from the
tanks themselves. The flame would not follow the gasses back into the tank, as the pressure
of the exiting gasses would prevent that.
So, no, you wouldn't have an intense fire, nor large burn marks nor warping of the walls,
you would have pretty much what you see in the satellite images.
That said, the media has been exaggerating the long-term effects of the Houthi's strike.
The precision and range is impressive, and serves to warn against continued aggression, but
with such small yield explosive devices, the long-term damage isn't going to be that
great.
Seems to me that a total focus on offense is what it takes to create an empire: conquest,
subjugation, control are essential stepping stones to empire status. Once there, any
potential challenge, disloyalty, stepping out of line has to be met with aggression to
maintain the status quo.
As there will be no viable opposition, why be concerned about defense. That at least is
the theory. In the case of Russia and China the empire was asleep at the switch and by the
time this was realised it was too late to contain them, especially as they are joined at the
hip in their opposition. End of empire.
I have to agree with Paul Roberts that Israel is the only likely attacker of KSA.
The attack occurred the day before their election, and incumbents always benefit from war
fever, so this was made by and for Netanyahu. Like the fake Syria chemical weapons attacks,
made just when inspectors were visiting Syria, this is obviously a false-flag attack by an
enemy of Iran, and it certainly was not KSA or UAE. That leaves Israel, the only candidate
that would benefit.
Others will recall that the fake Iraq-WMD scandal was made entirely by zionists: DefSec
Wolfowitz installed known Israeli agents Perle, Wurmser, and Feith to run the offices at CIA,
DIA, and NSA that "stove-piped" known-bad WMD "intelligence" directly to Cheney and Bush to
start a war for Israel. All three of them had worked to convince Netanyahu himself to trick
the US into a war for Israel. After exposure of the scam they were all given medals by
Israel, as was Pollard, their spy who stole nearly all US nuclear weapons secrets and gave
them to Israel, which sold them to the USSR. With friends like Israel and KSA, who needs
enemies?
This attack on Saudi oil facilities has been perfectly timed for maximum benefit to impact
yesterday´s Israeli election result hopefully swaying voters towards the safest pair of
hands they know in times of war,poll struggler PM Bibi with his new US mutual defense pact on
the table.
10 Houti drones launched from the direction of Yemen plus an unknown number of likely zionist
owned cruise missiles adding muscle to guarantee success by piggy backing on that attack. If
results differ from polls then it will have been a worthwhile deceptive action. Saudis &
US Frackers get the higher oil prices they need for their budget and perhaps Lloyds of London
the 9-11 big losers are also on the hook for rebuilding Saudi´s ruined plant.Russia
gets to sell Saudis defensive systems and America gets a recession with higher oil prices and
Trump´s chances of re-election take a nose dive just days after Bolton resigned.
The Israelis did it! Way too many intentionally unanswered questions about launch and
incoming direction. We have capability to find and examine a knat from outer space. But do
not know origin or position of launch? A few reasons for event.
1. Reelect Satanyahu. And keep him out of jail.
2. Continue the Yinon plan--conquer the territory from the brook of Egypt (the Nile River) to
the
Euphrates River, and NEVER allow the peace word to be uttered.
3. Every time Iran makes any suggestion of negotiations with the US, create an event that
snuffs out any
peace effort.
4. Mollify the criminals of Saudis and Israelis who believe that the iron is hot, and this
may be their
last good chance to take out Iran.
The only buffer against the warmongering Israeli Zionist faction that is restraining war now
is the overpowering side of Judaism (the Rothschild Group) who do not want war that will blow
up their world assets. And they still control most of the Israeli intelligence.
after nearly everybody converges in agreeing the attack came from the ragtag houthis... let s
see the overal fall out of the episode.
1- Saudi arabias country is vulnerable, the king s assets are very vulnerable from now
on...
2-the US protection, US weapons and promises are close to a monstruous pile of shit;
3-Leaders all along the ME, Africa and else where are learning how to evaluate the American
friendship and alliances
4-If and to the extent where the Salmans entourage manages to quickly recover the Saudi oil
supply... Iran and Houthis will can quietly and accordingly assess and improve their weapons
and strategies for the future.
Clear like sunshine.
Oil supply is back to what it was before the attack, but we don't know yet who is
responsible - Saudi energy minister
Posted by: vk | Sep 18 2019 13:53 utc | 138
As I understand it - based on previous official Saudi announcements - that message is
deceptive and really means the following:
1) "Oil supply" means what the Saudi's make available to the market, it does not mean
production.
2) They previously announced they would make available 3 million BPD from Aramco reserves
both within SA and overseas such as in Rotterdamm.
3) They previously announced the previous production was just under 10 million BPD.
4) Assuming over 50% of production is down for several weeks, they might be producing
around 4 million BPD plus 3 million from reserves makes around 7 million BPD which is short
of their claims.
5) The Houthis have announced more attacks are coming within a few days, so it looks like
by next week the Saudis might not manage even the 7 million BPD.
6) Someone posted news on the previous thread that Saudi are even buying petrol from Iran,
for domestic use because of shortages!
Casting itself once again as the world's judge, jury and executioner, US imperialism is
recklessly hurtling toward yet another war in the Middle East, with catastrophic
implications. This time, Washington has seized upon Saturday's attacks on Saudi installations
as its pretext for war against Iran.
The reaction of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to these attacks, which have cut the
kingdom's oil production by almost half and slashed global daily output by 6 percent, was as
noteworthy for its haste as for its peculiar wording.
"Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply," Pompeo
tweeted late Saturday, adding, "There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
This
image provided on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019, by the U.S. government and DigitalGlobe and
annotated by the source, shows damage to the infrastructure at Saudi Aramco's Abaqaiq oil
processing facility in Buqyaq, Saudi Arabia. (U.S. government/Digital Globe via AP)
The indictment of Iran for attacks that set off a series of fires which devastated two oil
facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia came without a shred of supporting evidence, outside of
the bald assertion that there was "no evidence" that they were launched from Yemen.
Yemen had to be discounted, according to the secretary of state's predatory logic, because
the Houthi rebels, who control most of the country, had claimed responsibility for the
attacks and had a clear motive -- given the kingdom's near-genocidal war against Yemen's
civilian population -- for carrying them out. The US mass media has by and large echoed
Pompeo's allegations as absolute truth. On Monday night, television news broadcasts quoted
unnamed intelligence sources, citing unspecified evidence, claiming Iranian responsibility
for the attacks. No doubt this "evidence" will prove just as compelling as that of the Gulf
of Tonkin in Vietnam and "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. These same media outlets have
made virtually no mention of Saudi crimes in Yemen.
For the last four and a half years, Saudi Arabia has waged a near-genocidal war against
Yemen, the Middle East's poorest country. The violence has claimed the lives of nearly
100,000 Yemenis outright -- the greatest share through a relentless bombing campaign against
civilian targets -- while pushing some 8 million more to the brink of starvation.
Washington is a direct accomplice in this bloodbath, providing the warplanes, bombs and
missiles used to carry it out, along with logistical support and, until the end of last year,
mid-air refueling that allowed Saudi bombers to carry out uninterrupted carnage. Meanwhile,
the US Navy has helped enforce a blockade that has starved Yemen of food and medicine.
If what the Yemeni Houthis say is true, that they sent a swarm of 10 weaponized drones to
attack the Saudi facilities, then the action was clearly an act of self-defense, far less
than proportionate to the slaughter inflicted by the Saudi regime against Yemen.
Meanwhile, Washington's new ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, repeated the
charges against Iran on Monday before a United Nations Security Council meeting on Yemen.
Providing no more proof than Pompeo did two days earlier, merely repeating the formulation
that "there is no evidence that the attacks came from Yemen," she described the damage to the
Saudi oil installations as "deeply troubling."
Like the government she represents, the UN ambassador -- the wife of billionaire Kentucky
coal baron Joe Craft and a top Republican donor -- clearly finds the spilt oil of the Saudi
monarchy far more upsetting than the spilt blood of tens of thousands of Yemeni men, women
and children.
On Saturday night, President Donald Trump made a call to Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman,
the kingdom's de facto ruler, offering his condolences and unqualified support to a man
exposed as a cold-blooded murderer. Bin Salman is responsible not only for the grisly
assassination and dismemberment of the Washington-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the
Saudi consulate in Istanbul nearly a year ago, but also the beheadings of at least 134 people
in just the first half of this year, 34 of them political activists slaughtered en masse on
April 23.
Trump subsequently announced that the US was "locked and loaded" to avenge Saudi oil with
military force. (This was a variation on his assertion in June that the Pentagon had been
"cocked and loaded" when he came, by his own account, within 10 minutes of launching
devastating attacks on Iran after it shot down an unmanned US spy drone over its
territory.)
If there is, as Washington claims, "no evidence" that the attacks were launched from
Yemen, one could, with equal if not greater justification, observe that there is likewise "no
evidence" that they were not launched by the US itself, or by its principal regional ally,
Israel.
If one proceeds from the age-old detective maxim of Cui bono? or "Who benefits?",
Tehran is the least likely suspect. There is clearly more to Washington's rush to judgment
than meets the eye.
The attack on the Saudi oil facilities provides a casus belli desired by a major
section of the US ruling oligarchy and its military and intelligence apparatus, which is
determined to prosecute a war for regime change in Iran. Such a war would be the latest
installment in Washington's protracted drive to reverse by military means the decline of US
imperialism's global hegemony, in particular by claiming unfettered US control over the
world's energy reserves and the power to deny them to its rivals.
The thinking within these layers was expressed in an editorial published Monday by the
Wall Street Journal, the mouthpiece of US finance capital. The Journal
warned that Iran was "probing Mr. Trump as much as the Saudis." It continued, "They are
testing his resolve to carry out his 'maximum pressure' campaign, and they sense weakness."
It pointed disapprovingly to Trump's failure to launch airstrikes in June following the
downing of the US drone.
The Journal approvingly cited calls by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for
bombing Iranian oil refineries in order to "break the regime's back" and suggested that Trump
"apologize to John Bolton, who warned repeatedly that Iran would take advantage of perceived
weakness in the White House." Bolton, a long-time advocate of bombing Iran, resigned as
Trump's national security adviser last week, reportedly over differences on policy toward
Tehran.
The attack on the Saudi oil facilities also provides leverage for Washington in corralling
the Western European powers -- the UK, France and Germany -- behind US war aims. Signatories
to the Iranian nuclear accord that the Trump administration renounced, they have made feeble
gestures toward countering Washington's "maximum pressure" sanctions regime in an attempt to
salvage their own imperialist interests. While thus far failing to endorse US charges of
Iranian responsibility, they could, by means of the attack on Saudi Arabia, be swung behind
the US drive to war.
Israel and its beleaguered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also have ample motive to
stage a military action aimed at provoking war with Iran. On the eve of Tuesday's Israeli
election, the threat of a major war with Iran serves the political interests of Netanyahu,
whose political fortunes are inextricably tied to the escalation of military conflict in the
Middle East. The Israeli state, moreover, had become increasingly concerned over an apparent
cooling of the appetite of the ruling monarchies in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates for a confrontation with Iran.
Recent drone strikes against Shia militias in Iraq that had allegedly received Iranian
weapons were, according to a report by the web site Middle East Eye, staged by Israeli drones
operating out of bases controlled by the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the main
US proxy force in Syria. A similar covert US-Israeli collaboration could easily have produced
the attacks on the Saudi oil installations.
Whatever the exact circumstances of the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities, they are
being exploited for the purpose of dragging the American people and all of humanity into a
war that can rapidly escalate into a regionwide and even global conflagration.
US strikes against Iran carried out under the pretext of retaliation for the attacks on
Saudi Arabia can trigger Iranian counterstrikes, sending US warships to the bottom of the
Persian Gulf and wreaking havoc on American military bases throughout the region.
The prospect of thousands of US soldiers and sailors dying as a result of Washington's
conspiracies and aggression carries with it the threat of the US government assuming
emergency powers and implementing police-state measures in the US itself in the name of
"national security."
This would, by no means, be an unintended consequence. The buildup to war is driven in
large measure by the escalation of social tensions and class struggle within the United
States itself, which has found fresh expression in the strike by 46,000 autoworkers against
General Motors. There is a powerful incentive for the US ruling class to direct these
tensions outward in the eruption of military conflict, while creating the pretext for mass
repression.
The threat of a US assault on Iran paving the way to a third world war must be answered
through a politically conscious and independent intervention of the working class to put an
end to imperialism and reorganize society on socialist foundations.
With the U.S, Russia, and China all jostling for position in Iraq's oil and gas industry both
north and south, Iraq's oil ministry last week reiterated its desire to have one or more foreign
partners in the Mansuriya gas field.
Situated in Diyala province, close to the Iran border,
Mansuriya is estimated to hold around 4.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, with plateau
production projected at about 325 million standard cubic feet per day
.
For the U.S., encouraging Iraq to optimise its gas flows so that it reduces its
dependency
for
power from Iran is the key consideration.
For Russia, Rosneft essentially bought control of the semi-autonomous region of Kurdistan in
northern Iraq in November 2017, so power in southern Iraq figuratively will complete the set.
Securing oil and gas contracts across all of Iraq will allow Russia to establish an
unassailable political sway across the entire Shia crescent of power in the Middle East, stretching
from Syria through Lebanon (by dint of Iran), Jordan, Iraq (also helped by Iran), Iran itself, and
Yemen (via Iran).
From this base, it can effectively challenge the U.S.'s vital oil, gas,
and political ally in the region – Saudi Arabia. China, in the meantime, is operating to its own
agenda in South Pars Phase 11 and its West Karoun holdings.
Iraq, like Turkey, is still – nominally at least – not committing to either the Russia
or the U.S.,
preferring to play each off against the other for whatever they can get, and
the same applies in microcosm to the field of Mansuriya. Turkey itself was a key player in this gas
field through its national oil company Turkiye Petrolleri Anonim Ortakligi (TPAO) until the middle
of last year – holding a 37.5 per cent stake – along with the Oil Exploration Company (25 per
cent), Kuwait Energy (22.5 per cent), and South Korea's KOGAS (15 per cent).
TPAO had signed the original development deal for Mansuriya back in 2011, promising Iraq's oil
ministry that it could be trusted to reach plateau production within 10 years at most, a senior
figure in the ministry told
OilPrice.com
last week. This was not an unreasonable schedule,
for which TPAO would be remunerated US$7.00-7.50 per barrel of oil equivalent, a relatively
generous amount compared to many of the previous awards from the ministry. TPAO agreed that the
first phase would mean production of at least 100 million cubic feet a day within 12 months from
the signing date.
Iran Rejects US Accusation It Is Behind
Saudi Attacks https://nyti.ms/30iNte7
NYT - Michael Wolgelenter - September 15
Iran on Sunday forcefully rejected charges by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it was
responsible for drone attacks that caused serious damage to two crucial Saudi Arabian oil
installations, with the foreign minister dismissing the remarks as "max deceit."
The attacks on Saturday, which hold the potential to disrupt global oil supplies, were
claimed by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Mr. Pompeo said that Iran had launched "an unprecedented
attack on the world's oil supply," although he did not offer any evidence and stopped short
of saying that Iran had carried out the missile strikes.
The Houthis are part of a complex regional dynamic in the Middle East, receiving support
from Iran while the Saudis, Tehran's chief rival for supremacy in the region and the leader
of a coalition that is fighting the Houthis in Yemen, are aligned with the United States.
Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, castigated the Saudis
for their role in the war in Yemen, where the Saudis have directed airstrikes that have
caused heavy civilian casualties and exacerbated a humanitarian crisis. He also ridiculed Mr.
Pompeo's comments.
The semiofficial Fars news agency reported on its English-language website that Mr.
Mousavi described Mr. Pompeo's allegations as "blind and fruitless remarks" that were
"meaningless" in a diplomatic context.
Saudi Arabia has yet to publicly accuse Iran of involvement in the attack. On Sunday, its
Foreign Ministry urged international action to preserve the world oil supply in response to
the attack, but it said nothing about assigning blame or striking back.
The developments come at a moment of rising tensions between Iran and the United States,
which have mounted since President Trump pulled out of the 2015 accord in which Iran agreed
with the West to restrict its nuclear program. Since the American withdrawal, Iran has
gradually pulled away from its some obligations under the agreement. ...
... "US & its clients are stuck in Yemen because of illusion that weapon superiority will
lead to military victory," Mr. Zarif wrote on Twitter. "Blaming Iran won't end disaster.
Accepting our April '15 proposal to end war & begin talks may.
The attack on Saturday, which the Houthis said involved 10 drones, represented the rebels'
most serious strike since Saudi Arabia inserted itself into the conflict in Yemen four years
ago. That the rebels could cause such extensive damage to such a crucial part of the global
economy astonished some observers. ...
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
"... Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in fact have been a missile strike ..."
"... But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's? ..."
"... Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed. ..."
"... In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu. ..."
"... That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS Liberty. ..."
"... Israel has the means, plus the motive (Bib's reelection), and might have taken the opportunity to attribute the attack to Iran and force Trump's hand. ..."
"... I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess. ..."
"... There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran and the United States. ..."
"... Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions. ..."
"... I do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone, neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any better. ..."
"... However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see. ..."
"... It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ (dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded" ..."
"... The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran but because they were brutalized for almost a century. ..."
"... One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi . According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on going attacks and the IPO proceeds? ..."
"... We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability. Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors. ..."
"... In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints behind - at least based on recent events. ..."
"... Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar soon to prove they are responsible. ..."
"... israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things. ..."
"... ''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup. And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day. ..."
"... And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE, and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment. ..."
"... Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made sense. We are so messed up. ..."
"... Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. ..."
"... It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing: ..."
"... "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." ..."
"... Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said "valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch (humint or cyber component to one attack vector). ..."
"... It cries out "sure, it's bad, but it is reversible." ..."
"... Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the curtailing of Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10 billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be strong action against the rogues. ..."
"... Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a UN investigation into the source of the attacks. ..."
"... "The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government coalition. ..."
What made this attack different from other recorded Houthi drone attacks was not only the
unprecedented amount of material damage caused but also lingering doubt about the nature and
the attribution of the attack. First,
a video allegedly showing flying objects entering Kuwaiti airspace led to speculation that
like a
previous "Houthi" drone attack this strike might actually have originated in Iraq or even
Iran. While the video remains unverified, the fact that the Kuwaiti government
launched a probe into the issue lends some credence to the idea that something might have
happened over Kuwait that day. Speculation about the origins of the attack was further fueled
by a tweet
by Mike Pompeo in which he claimed that there was no evidence the attacks came from
Yemen.
Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in
fact have been a missile strike. Previous Houthi drone strikes against oil facilities tended to
result in quite limited damage which could be an indication that a different weapons system was
used this time. Indeed, Aramco
came to the conclusion that its facilities were attacked by missiles. Even more curious,
several pictures began to emerge on social media purportedly showing the wreckage of a missile
in the Saudi desert. While the images appear real, neither the date the photos were taken nor
their location can be verified.
Social media users quickly claimed the images showed a crashed
Iranian-made Soumar cruise missile. The Soumar and its updated version, the Hoveyzeh, are
Iran's attempts at reverse-engineering the Soviet-designed KH-55 cruise missile, several of
which the country
illegally imported from Ukraine in the early 2000s . Others claimed it was the Quds 1, a
recently unveiled Houthi cruise missile often claimed to be a rebranded Soumar."
armscontrolwonl
---------------
TTG raised the issue of whether or not this wave of strikes was done by UAVs or cruise
missiles. IMO this cruise missile could be built in Yemen with Iranian assistance. I am very
interested in the question of what the actual vector of the attacks was in this case. pl
The accuracy of the strikes in the spherical pressurized gas storage containers all being in
the same place relative to each target is the place to start for those who, unlike me, are
capable of analyzing these things.
But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will
it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's?
Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's
Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a
blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed.
In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection
tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of
an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before
tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu.
That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were
proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS
Liberty.
"The Israeli military is armed with the latest fast jets and precision weaponry, yet it has
turned to its fleet of drones to hit targets in Iraq. Deniability has played a big factor
– the ability of drones to elude radar and therefore keep targets guessing about who
actually bombed them is playing well for Israeli leaders who are trying to prevent an
increasingly lethal shadow war with Iran from developing into an open conflict."
The Samad 3 is laden with explosives that allow it to detonate a shaped charge which
explodes downwards towards its target. Footage provided to MintPress by Yemen's Operations
Command Center shows the Samad landing on an asphalt runway, confirming that the drone is
now capable of conducting operations and then returning to base.
There is a huge sea water desalination plant not far away that provides all the treated water
via pipeline for injection into the oil reservoirs to improve recovery of oil. Target that
and not only have you already impacted the processing of the oil produced but would then
impact the total volume of oil available for processing.
I can see no happy ending short of
negotiation between interested parties. MBZ looks to have already reached that conclusion in
respect of the UAE. what will be the self preservation response for the House of Saud
Could the Committee speculate on possible 'steps of retaliation' operating, for theoretical
purposes, at the moment, on the assumption that regardless of where the 'bullets' were fired
from, or from what 'gun' they were fired, Iran paid for deed. What steps are open for action?
I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between
Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess.
There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran
and the United States.
Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions.
I
do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone,
neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be
meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani
has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change
if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any
better.
With all due respect, I think one of us fails to grasp the true nature of Trump. If he puts
his mind to it, and thinks it will benefit him, nobody, not Bolton, not Pompeo, not the whole
Neocon cabal, Israeli govt, the present one or the next one, will stop him if he is President
and alive. He will do what is best for Trump.
And trust has nothing to do with this. Why in the hell should I trust Iran? Hell, why
should I trust the UK? I trust that people and nations have interests. That's all I trust.
But that does mean I could not reach a deal with them. Now, as to whether that deals
holds...that is another question. However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and
fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to
bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see.
Babak, I value your input here. However, I hope you are wrong and that a meeting or meetings
(substantive or not) will start as soon as the dealbreaker is out of office, and the
sanctions are called off. But I would never wish you an early death. May you live a hundred years.
Thank you very kindly.
I would like to ask the following questions:
Will the United States restore sovereign immunity to Iran?
Will the United States Congress rescind all the laws against Iran that form the basis of
economic war against Iran?
Will the United States rescind the sanctions against Ayatollah Khamenei, Dr. Zarif,
General Soleimani, etc., etc. etc.?
Will the Protestant Christians in the United States ever tire of their unrequited love for
all things Old Testament?
In my opinion, the answer to all of these are "no". Unfortunately, even if a man with the caliber of an FDR or a Nixon is elected to the US
Presidency, he will not be able to accomplish much because of the difficulty, nay the
impossibility, of untangling the rules and regulations that US has woven against Iran.
In my opinion, all of that was predicated on the strategic defeat of Iran and her
surrender.
If I WERE ANSWERING. I got some demands of my own..but we can put them aside for the moment.
In general, I would be inclined to respond: Yes, to the "sovereign immunity" question.
Certainly. Regarding "economic warfare", you would have to give me your legal definition of
such a broad phrase, but in principle, yes. Whole heartedly yes. Sanctions against Iran, and
it individuals officers? Yes, absolutely. Sick of sanctions, in general. It is not in my
power to answer the "unrequited love" issue, but I do solemnly state that I would agree to
stop laughing--in public, anyway, at the question. Wanna meet?
Nassim Nicolaas Taleb, author of "Black Swan":
"SAUDI FIELDS It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ
(dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like
sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded"
The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite
inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran
but because they were brutalized for almost a century.
Why would Iran have done it? Just to show they can or to provoke a attack on Iran?
One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi
. According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed
oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is
talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on
going attacks and the IPO proceeds?
Only other beneficiary would be Israel if the attack actually does and likely has killed
any Trump-Iran meeting.
Yemenis claimed credit for it, Iran and Iraq said they didn't do it. First word out of US
mouth is Iran did it. The mouth I am least likely to believe is the US. I remember Iraq has
WMDs propaganda....and those it came from.
Oh well, if Iran says they did not do it.......the US govt lies. The Iranian govt lies, the
Saudis surely lie. This is not about innocents. That search is for children and mighty young
ones at that.
The Quds-1 cruise missile is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle). The remotely piloted aerial
vehicles, which are more commonly referred to as drones are also UAVs. The difference is in
the degree of autonomy in flight control. On board autonomous flight control negates the need
for LOS radio or satellite communications with the cruise missile. Cruise missiles, with
their autonomous control, were always characterized by their high degree of accuracy.
I've
started looking a little closer at the Arduino/RasberryPi and model aircraft hobbyist groups.
With the availability of affordable microcontrollers and sensors, along with the massive
library of open source software, I am convinced a hobbyist could put together a guidance
system in his garage workshop capable of doing what the Quds-1 just did in SA. I also agree
with Colonel Lang that an airframe like the Quds-1 could easily be built in war-torn Yemen. A
cave would make an outstanding workshop.
Even if Iran exported dual use components or even blue prints; it should be counted as part
of the unfortunate world weapons market & wouldn't be illegal.
Your point TTG was nicely illustrated in b's video of the Russian guy building in his
workshopa turbofan engine that flew . Providing there is a set of plans it can be constructed
and it only has to have a one time reliability.
Evidence for what delivered the strike will be found within the complex and there will be a
lot of skills on the ground looking for those answers. The projectiles that struck the
spheres looked to have had penetrating qualities rather than high explosive, putting a hole
in a pressure vessel is sufficient to destroy its usefulness. I would be interested to know
if the projectiles that struck the train were explosive to maximise damage there. Do we need
to be considering what could deliver multiple targeted projectiles or were there simply
multiple independent units or some combination as there were more strikes logged over two
target complexes than the ten delivery platforms mentioned in the Al Ansar press release. Was
there a flight controller and if so where were they located also comes to mind.
There is also the TJ200 built bij Polaris from Brazil with the following description::
"Turbine TJ200:
TJ200 was specially designed to be used in either small cruise missiles or small high
performance UAVs. The most important advantage of TJ200 engine is small diameter and a
relatively low SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption) when compared to other engines of the same
thrust, what makes TJ200 perfect to be used in long range small missiles."
http://www.polaristec.com.br/products.html
That's a pretty specific description. So there are a number of COTS engines out there.
I'd have more confidence in the reporting if I could match it up better with what I can see
in Google Maps/Earth.
The only two satellite pictures I've seen of "burning oil plants" disticntly show a large
plume of black smoke centered a little ways away from the actual refinery area, in some kind
of rectangular area outside the actual "plant". Are those wellheads burning? or adjacent
underground storage? or what?
And the pictured of a burning plant labeled "Haradh Gas Plant" is actually (according to
Google Maps & my eyeballs) the Hawiyah Gas Plant, about 60 miles NNE of Haradh.
In Google Maps/Earth, the Abqaiq facility is on the East side of the city/town of Buquaiq,
and the details match the recent pix. The plume lines up with an empty square patch of desert
at the end of a pipeline running SSE out of the plant.
I've looked all around Khurais, and haven't found anything which could possibly be the
"Oil/Gas Infrastructure at Khurais", as the pictures of the damaged facility there are
labeled.
Elkern, I was referring to the pictures of the cruise missile parts in the sand. Seems to me
they are old from previous attacks.
As far as I can tell the pics of damage at Buqaiq and Khurais are valid. With the
exception of the eleven spherical tanks, which I believe were NOT hit. But I've been wrong
before and am no expert on imagery analysis.
We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability.
Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm
not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors.
The Houthis are not an Iranian "proxy" and I highly doubt they would accept responsibility
for something they didn't do.
Moon of Alabama links some photos and has discussion that suggests very high precision
5-10 m. That is not easily achievable with commercial GPS absent a lot of additional
correction hardware. On the other hand, drones can easily do so. Further, it would be
negligent for SA not to have GPS jamming around such facilities.
In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that
Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It
seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints
behind - at least based on recent events.
Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off
all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them
inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar
soon to prove they are responsible.
imo, the saudi's and washington are going to have to take one for the team. the team being
the global oil based world economy and all the notional value FOR THE present ONLY oil
derivatives and interest rate derivatives burdening the western banking system.... think the
insolvent deutsche bank et al.
a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran
which both russia and china can not.. will not allow to die.
israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for
all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion
THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has
exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things.
i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if
israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations
israel is viewed as responsible for.
''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel
were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is
viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup.
And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day.
Only one tank appears to have minor sooting or scorching. As though they were emptied after
an initial strike then targeted in a second strike, but no reports of a second strike.
In the sat pic showing targets in red boxes, top square, the target appears to be smaller
spheres which do look darkened.
Several correspondents here, including Adrestia and b, seem to lack faith in an autonomous
navigation and terminal guidance system for these cruise missiles. They do not need a radio
or cell phone communication link. This could have been even without a GPS signal. Given that
the strikes appear to come from the west, the smartest route would be to fly north to the
pipelines and then east to the targets. Once the missiles are close to the target either a
visual terminal guidance system could take over or the targets are marked and the missiles'
terminal guidance systems just home in on the marked targets. The marks could be laser
illumination, small IR strobes or offset targeting devices. These offset targeting devices
are emplaced with the exact azimuth and distance to the desired target programmed into the
missiles' terminal guidance system. As I said before, we did this in the early 80s. In the
90s, I used the IR strobes. These were tiny lights snapped to the top of a 9V battery. You
could carry a dozen in your pocket. I personally like the idea of emplacing small IR strobes
on target or a set distance and azimuth from the target. The missiles could home on a spot
say due east and 100 meters from the strobe. I'm sure there are other methods I haven't
thought of yet. My educated guess is that this strike was well thought out with both
intelligence and operational support on and near the target site. Anyone who thinks the
Houthi and their Yemeni allies are incapable of planning and executing this is magnificently
ignorant.
GPS is not accurate enough for the last 10-30 feet. Another possiblity that doesn't need
any human terminal guidance could be a creative use of sensors.
Using CARVER select suitable targets. Pick something that is hot, big or fumes gas.
Then use a combination of gas-sensing, parking-sensors, heat-sensing sensors for the last
few feet.
I'm reading the manual for an FY41AP autopilot right now. About $250, made in china.
As for optical guidance, the attacks happened about 0400 - night or dawn?
This autopilot has a video link as well as autonomous and ground based control modes I think.
If the Yemenis had a guy with a transceiver near abqaiq, then maybe they could send these
things over from yemen using gps and a guy with transceiver provided terminal guidance. If
that were to happen the drones would need to be launched at set intervals.
Your last sentence is true enough as far as it goes, but also, if Israel were all
Zoroastrians (or any other group) the world would have dealt with their paranoid and
psychopathic behavior decades ago. The only reason they get away with everything is because
they are Jewish.
Bacevich in NYT op ed. Behind a paywall, here is a copy. Please do not post if it is too long or off topic
Iran Might Be America's Enemy, but Saudi Arabia Is No Friend
After last week's refinery attack, Trump should be careful about throwing America's weight
behind an unreliable "ally."
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Mr. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Sept. 16, 2019
Image The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987. The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987.
In 1987, an Iraqi warplane attacked an American Navy frigate, the Stark, on patrol in the
Persian Gulf. Accepting Saddam Hussein's explanation that the attack, which killed 37
sailors, had been an accident, American officials promptly used the incident, which came at
the height of the Iran-Iraq war, to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. The incident provided the
impetus for what became a brief, and all but forgotten, maritime war between the United
States and Iran.
Last week, someone -- precisely who remains to be determined -- attacked two oil
refineries in Saudi Arabia. American authorities have been quick to blame Iran, and the
possibility of a violent confrontation between the two countries is once again growing.
Before making a decision on whether to pull the trigger, President Trump would do well to
reflect on that 1987 episode and its legacy.
Back then, the United States had become involved in the very bloody and seemingly
interminable Iran-Iraq war, which Hussein had instigated in 1980 by invading Iran. As that
war turned into a brutal stalemate, President Ronald Reagan and his advisers persuaded
themselves that it was in America's interests to come to Iraq's aid. Iran was the "enemy" so
Iraq became America's "friend."
After the Stark episode, American and Iranian naval forces in the Gulf began jousting, an
uneven contest that culminated in April 1988 with the virtual destruction of the Iranian
Navy.
Yet the United States gained little from this tidy victory. The principal beneficiary was
Hussein, who wasted no time in repaying Washington by invading and annexing Kuwait soon after
his war with Iran ground to a halt. Thus did America's "friend" become America's "enemy."
The encounter with Iran became a precedent-setting event and a font of illusions. Since
then, a series of administrations have indulged the fantasy that the direct or indirect
application of military power can somehow restore stability to the Gulf.
In fact, just the reverse has occurred. Instability has become chronic, with the
relationship between military policy and actual American interests in the region becoming
ever more difficult to discern.
In 2019, this now well-established penchant for armed intervention finds the United States
once more involved in a proxy conflict, this time a civil war that has ravaged Yemen since
2015. Saudi Arabia supports one side in this bloody and interminable conflict, and Iran the
other.
Under President Barack Obama and now President Trump, the United States has thrown in its
lot with Saudi Arabia, providing support comparable to what the Reagan administration gave
Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. But American-assisted Saudi forces have exhibited no more
competence today than did American-assisted Iraqi forces back then. So the war in Yemen drags
on.
ImageSmoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco
oil facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.
Smoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco oil
facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.CreditAgence
France-Presse -- Getty Images
Concrete American interests in this conflict, which has already claimed an estimated
70,000 lives while confronting as many as 18 million with the prospect of starvation, are
negligible. Once more, as in the 1980s, the demonization of Iran has contributed to a policy
that is ill advised and arguably immoral.
I am not suggesting that Washington is supporting the wrong side in Yemen. I am
suggesting, however, that neither side deserves support. Iran may well qualify as America's
"enemy." But Saudi Arabia is not a "friend," regardless of how many billions Riyadh spends
purchasing American-manufactured weaponry and how much effort Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman invests in courting President Trump and members of his family.
The conviction, apparently widespread in American policy circles, that in the Persian Gulf
(and elsewhere) the United States is compelled to take sides, has been a source of recurring
mischief. No doubt the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran poses a danger of
further destabilizing the Gulf. But the United States is under no obligation to underwrite
the folly of one side or the other.
Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically
shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train
a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today
in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted.
Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so by
recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem.
Andrew J. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the
author of the forthcoming "The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War
Victory."
"a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran"
And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE,
and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran
was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can
simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things
at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are
incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment.
Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are
insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made
sense. We are so messed up.
use the pic released by USG of the damage to get an idea of the orientation of the incoming
projectiles, I used that rectangularish pond behind as an aid,
Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni
military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla
conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. Yemen had a serious air force
consisting mostly of missile systems before the war. Much of it was destroyed by the bombing
campaign carried out for Saudi Arabia, but the military organization survived. They have now
reconstituted the Yemeni air forces under fire and in the midst of famine, blockade and
invasion.
Stock up on popcorn, the show has only just begun.
Using my CAD and graphic tools and Google Earth along with the photo showing the four
perforated pressure tanks, I have estimated the four vectors as:
E1 280W. E2 279W, E3 281W and E4 273W. I have numbered the tanks from the most eastwards (the
furthermost away in the photo). Angles from true north (0/360 deg). This averages as 278N
with a STDEV of 3 degrees. Its almost due west. Must be very difficult for autopilots (or
real pilots) could perform more than one group-turning maneuver and still maintain final-run
accuracy to what was achieved.
p.s. I'm not specialist in this field apart from terrestrial navigation and drafting
experience.
RobW
The Czech company which produces the TJ100 does have strong links with Iran.
"2005 TPP Iranshahr Iran, the largest project in the company's history, a turnkey project
- four power plant units." But then again. Creating a crash site in the desert with some COTS components in it is
also easy to do. I would be surprised if Iran is launching missiles now. That would be pretty
stupid to do.
I know. I was attempting a comparison between the way most Americans perceive the desert
peoples and the way most Americans fail to extrapolate from their beliefs of one groups
capabilities and motivations and another group closer to home. The perfumed fops in Ryadh and
the Perfumed Princes in DC are very similar under the perfume.
I remember in the mid sixties how the "benighted" Vietnamese and VC were on their last legs,
unable to do anything militarily significant, that the war would be over in 67. This was that
generations perfumed princes attitude towards a people who had been fighting against invaders
since the 1850s. I remember 68 and the most unexpectedly successful operational and strategic
level victory by the NVA and the VC that was TET.
From an infotainment/Cronkite perspective
the important thing was that the Saigon embassy was broached. From and operational
perspective a "defeated" enemy launched several hundred simultaneous attacks all over South
Vietnam while holding down as a diversion the Dien Bien Phu look alike that was Khe San. 51
years 2 and 1/2 generations and today we make the exact same mistakes in evaluating the
current situation.
It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning
because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and
when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality --
judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can
study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you,
will be left to just study what we do."
I have seen articles over the last month or so (sorry, no links) saying that because they are
not able to send large amounts of material aid through the Saudi and U.S. Navy blockade of
Yemen, the Iranians sent blueprints and a few engineers and the Ansar Allah have been
building them in Yemen.
What looks like missile hits at identical positions on those spherical tanks are not.
They are the locations of pressure relief valvaes that blew when the towers hit, venting gas
up out and away.
I am in full agreement with your assessment Dave. I don't see any penetrations on those 11
spherical tanks. Look at the complete devastation on the three smaller spherical pressure
tanks.
Unless we get higher resolution pics that definitely show those tanks were pierced there
is no way I am going to believe those tiny scorch marks are UAV or missile hits. Much too
symmetrical! No amount of geometrical explaining of drone tracks will account for that
symmetry.
Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said
"valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch
(humint or cyber component to one attack vector). Yes, tremors or shakes triggering sensor
which blows valve is possible, I suppose. But the thing that had me up at night was the
nagging sense that this was a prearranged message of sorts.
It cries out "sure, it's bad, but
it is reversible." So I had been wondering about invitation for pow-wows given UN upcoming
meeting in NY. I'm tending to lean toward an advance blowout rather than blowout in reaction
to stress. Why damage such delicate, custom equipment as those beautiful tanks? As you say,
it has to be something intrinsic/internal to the construction of the tanks. So - before or
after remains to be discussed. Assuming the pics are legitimate. But that's why I thought
especially there was a subtle message sent. If they are legit - see above. If not legit -
then it is howling reversibility or caution at the very least.
The processor trains are a linear series of stabilizer columns that help separate the sour
hydrogen sulfide gas from the crude oil. They are at the heart of the process and probably
the highest value target. They are to the left of the 11 pressure tanks in the pictures
shown, or perhaps just NNW of those tanks.
I buy the idea of HUMINT assets having collected target informatoin but the idea of
mini-strobes, etc. seems to me to be too difficult to do given the separation of the missile
force and the HUMINT assets. Very hard to coordinate.
Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to
bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic
campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia
and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the
curtailing of Iran's nuclear program.
Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif
in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10
billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct
move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any
diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be
strong action against the rogues.
Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo
has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to
the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a
UN investigation into the source of the attacks.
2) a general redirection of attention is achieved from 2 points:
- from Syria
In the issue of National Geographic Bulgaria of 04.2019, April 2019 number 4 (162),on p.29
there is a map of the migratory route of a bird - Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Turkey, Bulgaria. BUT the name of Syria is missing, just an empty space within its current
borders.
Maybe, I sincerely hope not, it was just a part of a campaign of mass indoctrination - the
"former Syria" to be divided between neighbors with a US military base here and there or to
turn onto a No Man's land of lawlessness right there, flanking the EU, Russia's Muslim areas,
China's silk road etc
"The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government
coalition.
- from the temptation to mix with West's "rivals" internal issues
A strange coincidence that there was such a recent burst of "opposition" activity first in
Russia, then in China. The velvet revolution recipe of the Arabian spring, Ukraine, etc (if
it was such) didn't quite work however.
And the "empires strike back" - subtly and not so subtly. China offers for the London
stock exchange (let's not forget that the Chinese take-over of the London metal exchange went
without a fuss). Saudi Arabia next.
Maybe the message is "Just stay out of your ex-colonies"
Richard Gill, managing director of the UK company Drone Defence:
"But [drone defence is] military-grade technology and it's massively expensive. To install a
defensive system is extremely complex and the threat is evolving at such a rate that it's
very hard to keep up to date, because the adversaries change the type of technology they use
in a way that almost renders the defence moot."
"Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply,"
declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Putting America's credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating
attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom's oil production, 5.7 million
barrels a day.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear,
in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe
was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!"
Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones
to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to
carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.
Pompeo dismissed their claim,
"There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
But while the Houthis claim credit,
Iran denies all responsibility.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo's charge, that
the U.S. has simply
replaced a policy of "maximum pressure" with a policy of "maximum deceit." Tehran is calling us
liars.
And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on
the Saudis' crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation,
leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.
Tehran being behind Saturday's strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out
of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and
pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.
U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility
at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.
According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis
claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing
sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from
Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did
explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of
time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.
Given Pompeo's public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly's annual gathering next week may be a dead
letter.
The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the
call for a commensurate response is put directly to our "locked-and-loaded" president.
If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?
For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for
four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country
attacking them.
Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi
war in Yemen.
If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite
militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have
been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?
What about Iran itself?
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired
on Saturday -- shutting down about 6% of world oil production -- imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war
would do to the world economy.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military
equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the
kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of
war?
Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran's oil refineries to "break the
regime's back,"
while Sen. Rand Paul contends that "there's no reason the superpower of
the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran."
Divided again:
The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war
with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.
How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
Small, precise bombs do small precise damage which is mostly easy to fix.... sort of like
US in Vietnam doing large imprecise bombing doing in consequential damage outside of the
selling by the US airplane builders.
If the attack was "low flying cruise missiles" from a land site somewhere near Kuwait.....
someone near Kuwait is technically very sophisticated.
"... I guess America does not need Saudi oil any more, cause it looks like Israel is about to be made king of the Oil Kingdoms in the middle east.? ..."
I think you are correct there maybe many Americans in the USA.. It may take the few Americans who have been
allowed to see the big picture at the USA...
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit:
Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Paul Pillar comments
on the attack on the Saudi oil facility at Abqaiq, and he connects it to the administration's
dangerous, failing "maximum pressure" campaign:
Iranian leaders have been explicit in warning that if Iran could not export its oil, then
other Persian Gulf producers would not be able to either. Was anyone in the Trump
administration listening?
To borrow another formulation from Pompeo's tweet, there is no evidence that in the
absence of the administration's economic warfare against Iran, Iran would do anything like
attack the Abqaiq facility or have any incentive to conduct such an attack. If Iran did do
the attack, then it was a direct and unsurprising result of the administration's policy of
unrelenting hostility and of inflicting economic pain with no apparent end.
The Trump administration's economic war on Iran has not achieved anything except to
destabilize the region further and impoverish the Iranian people. It is the cause of the
current crisis with Iran, and were it not for this economic war we can reasonably assume that
there would have been no attacks on tankers, pipelines, and possibly oil facilities in the last
few months. As Pillar notes, the administration has shown Iran unrelenting hostility, and they
have continued to apply one set of sanctions after another, and then the administration
pretends that its own actions have not created the present mess. A smart administration would
start lifting sanctions, but then a smart administration would never have imposed them in the
first place.
Under no circumstances should the U.S. increase its involvement in Yemen and do more to
devastate that country, as
this former admiral has suggested that we do in an interview with Foreign Policy .
The U.S. should have ended our involvement in the war on Yemen long ago. It is an ongoing
disgrace that the administration continues to support and arm the governments that have been
destroying and starving Yemen. Our involvement in the war is already unauthorized and illegal,
and directly launching attacks alongside the Saudi coalition would make things even worse.
Deescalating tensions with Iran is the only sane way forward, so of course the only thing
being seriously considered right now in Washington is a possible attack on Iran. It can't be
stressed enough that the U.S. has no justification, legal or otherwise, to launch an attack on
Iran. Not only is the U.S. not obliged to come to the defense of Saudi Arabia, but our
government is bound by the U.N. Charter that prohibits using force against another state except
in self-defense. No one can seriously claim that a U.S. strike on Iran right now would be
anything other than an illegal attack in clear violation of international law.
The only sane thing MBS can do is to declare defeat and withdraw from Yemen, tout
suite .
The problem is that there is no way for him to do so without humiliation. Shame and
honor are paramount in Saudi society, and MBS has just gotten a very nasty and very public
punch in the nose. Anything less than brutal escalation, and his honor and prestige will be
seriously damaged.
The Saudi tyrants are stuck in Yemen so deep, that they have little choice but to keep
doubling down.
"... USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions... ..."
"... Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of its wealth. ..."
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
Personally, I choose to be lead by people that do the right thing long term for the People,
not the most politically expedient or the one that makes the most money in the short run or
the smartest, etc.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions about USA
capability. Have not yet seen any press questions in that direction.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions...
Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor
Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of
its wealth.
The U.S. thought it was cleverly choking the regime, but now it's clear that 'maximum
pressure' goes both ways.
• The Saturday attack on Saudi oil facilities, which
took 5.7 million barrels of oil per day offline, is the escalation that wasn't supposed to
happen. Now that it has happened, we enter perilous new terrain.
America has blamed Iran and
hinted at some sort of retaliation . Iran has denied responsibility, while the Houthis
gladly take it. There are conflicting reports of where the missiles or drones were launched
from, which we will learn more about in the coming days.
In the meantime, Trump is in a tight spot of his own making, with neither escalation nor
retrenchment looking to be attractive options.
It is still uncertain when Saudi Aramco can get everything back on line. The attack showed
sophistication. Critical nodes were hit. If the facilities are quickly repaired, that lessens
the gravity of this event. The Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s showed the resiliency of oil
installations, as Iraqi bombers pounded Kharg Island, where Iran exported much of its oil, yet
the Iranians managed to keep the exports flowing. This suggests that a war of attrition today
would be possible without major disruptions, though the impact of new technologies of attack
and resistance makes any guess hazardous.
Advertisement
If past crises are any indication, a sustained loss of 5.7 million barrels per day, over
five percent of world oil consumption, would likely quadruple oil prices. Strategic petroleum
reserves can cover this to a certain extent: the U.S. system can pump 4.4 million barrels per
day. But it would exhaust its reserves in 150 days at that pace. We do not know whether more
strikes will be forthcoming or whether such efforts can be successfully suppressed with
airpower or invigorated defenses. All we can say is that the great game has advanced to a new
stage.
From the beginning, escalation has seemed the likely consequence of the Trump
administration's decision to asphyxiate the Iranian regime by cutting off its ability to export
oil. This was a declaration of economic war. That is the polite term, as it is an action every
international lawyer on the planet, back in the day when these things mattered, would have
called an act of war without any precious qualifiers.
It turns out that there may be some street cred to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's
assertion that if Iran isn't allowed to export oil, others will face obstacles too. Tit for
tat. Got a quid? Here's a quo. The funny thing is that any significant threat to Saudi capacity
creates a pressing need to get Iran's spare capacity onto the world market. As to which side
now has more leverage, in a position to squeeze harder, that's a tough question. Putting it
nicely, the Iranians can, if their will is stout, impose huge costs on the United States and
the world economy. They would only consider that if pressed extremely hard, yet the United
States has been pressing them extremely hard for over a year now.
Remember that the purpose of America's economic war on Iran was to force Iran to submit to
12 demands issued by Pharaoh Mike Pompeo
in his edict delivered on May 21, 2018. It was really disappointing that Pompeo didn't
raise the obvious thirteenth demand and insist that the embargo would not be lifted until an
American regent was appointed in Tehran, taking the Islamic Revolution under neoliberal
guidance until circumstances changed, after which Iranian democracy would be restored to its
former lack of glory. That was implied, to be sure, but we didn't get much straight talk from
Mr. Pompeo on that point.
This ultimatum was reminiscent of the demands that the Austro-Hungarians made on the Serbs
on a certain date in 1914. Make them as extreme as you can, said the inspired diplomatists
looking for war. World reaction was then unfavorable. Winston Churchill, in charge of Britain's
navy, called it "the most insolent document of its kind ever devised." The resemblance to
Pompeo's ultimatums hardly shows the imminence of a 1914-like crisis today, but there is a
certain arrogance to both the U.S. warmongers and Austro-Hungarians. The Austrians got the war
they were looking for; the neocons may yet get theirs.
Trump's renunciation of the Iran nuclear deal is mostly about Israel and its perceived
security requirements. Not only must Iran not have a single nuclear weapon, it must not have
the theoretical capability to produce a weapon, were the Iranians to break from their pledges
under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the JCPOA. This imposes a requirement on the Islamic
Republic that no other medium-sized power has had to endure. That the Iranians are bearers of
an ancient civilization makes the humiliation all the more painful. Those 12 demands were not
designed to produce a settlement; they were designed to produce a crisis, as they now have
done. Regime change lies back of them -- that or simply the immiseration of another Muslim
country.
American policy toward Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, has recently been mostly about arms
sales. People say all the time that the oil companies are the heavyweights in this drama. In
fact, they are secondary. What has driven events in the recent past is the military-industrial
complex salivating over the sales of high-priced and high-tech U.S. armaments to sheikdoms with
money to burn. The MIC plunderers, like the Hollywood moguls, understand that you simply must
have the foreign market to make the big profits. Politicians see such sales as a way of making
our own arms purchases remotely affordable and thereby politically palatable. For these
reasons, foreign arms sales to reprehensible characters is Washington's go-to move, a win-win
for the plutocrats and the praetorians.
The United States acted under no prompting of national interest in so aiding and abetting
the Saudi war in Yemen, but its hankering after all those lucrative contracts was just too much
temptation. When the flesh is weak, as it seems to be in Washington, burning flesh is not a
problem. Trump saw it as a great business deal and had no compunctions about the human fallout
in Yemen. The Democrats -- a certain Democrat, especially -- did what was once said of Austrian
Queen Maria Theresa after the Partition of Poland in 1772: "She wept, but she took."
The president may have outsmarted himself this time. He got rid of National Security Adviser
John Bolton because he didn't like Bolton's across-the-board hawkish recommendations, but he
signed on to the very big change in U.S. policy towards Iran that Bolton had recommended. Trump
thought he was in control of the escalation. But when you declare your intention to asphyxiate
another country, you've committed an act of war. Retaliation from the other side usually
follows in some form or fashion. You can then advance to your ruin or retreat in ignominy.
Trump has threatened retaliation, but he surely does not want a big war with Iran. His
supporters definitely do not want a war with Iran. Americans in general are opposed to a war
with Iran. Mysteriously, however, the U.S. declaration of war on Iran in fact -- though not, of
course, in name, heaven forbid -- escaped notice by the commentariat this past year. The
swamp's seismograph doesn't record a reading when we violate the rules, but when the other guy
does, it's 7.8 on the Richter Scale.
The whole drama, in a nutshell, is just the old-fashioned hubris of the imperial power,
issuing its edicts, and genuinely surprised when it encounters resistance, even though such
resistance confirms for the wunderkinds their view of the enemy's malevolence.
Is Trump trapped? That is the question of the hour. He faces strong pressure to do something
in retaliation, but that something may aggravate the oil shock and imperil his re-election. As
he dwells on that possibility, he will probably look for ways to back down. He will try to get
out of the trap set by the U.S. economic war on Iran without abandoning the economic war on
Iran. But that probably won't work; that was Iran's message over the weekend. Were he to
abandon the economic war, however, he would get a ton of flak from both sides of the aisle in
Congress. The commentators would scream "appeasement!" In Washington lobby-land, we'd be back
to 1938 in a flash.
Does the president have the gumption to resist that tired line? I hope so.
David Hendrickson teaches history at Colorado College and is the author of Republic
in Peril: American Empire and the Liberal Tradition.
Bibi is desperate for war with Iran to avoid election defeat and prison and Bolton is
fired/resigns only to predict "Iranian deception" on the way out the door.
Today, Brent climbed as much as 12% towards $70 per barrel and the US crude oil rose 10%
to nearly $61. Historically, Brent crude oil reached an all time high of 147.50 in July of
2008. Remember what happened next?
Qui Bono?
KSA, UAE, Qatar
Russia
US Oil Majors, State of Texas
OPEC
UK
Norway
Who suffers?
China
Japan
India
Transportation costs and cost of goods
Commuters costs
Heating costs going into winter
Airlines and air travel
Iraq, Libya, Venezuela and Iran are a mess and cannot produce to make a difference.
This will be the catalyst for the economic downturn.
The Americans have gotten themselves in a real bind with their maximum pressure campaign on Iran. This latest attack on Saudi
Arabia's oil production looks like an escalation of the previous attacks on shipping and the spy drone. It is not evident how
the Americans can respond to this latest attack.
As I see it their options are:
1. To let KSA respond to the Houthi attack and continue with their campaign to shut down Iranian oil production, without any
direct U.S. response to the attack. However this will achieve nothing, as next month Iran will up pressure again with another
attack on Middle-East oil assets, and we'll be back to the same place.
2. To bomb Iran's oil industry, as Pompeo and Graham suggest. However this risks blowing up the whole Middle East, as well
as the World's oil market and their own (Western) economies.
3. Forget about Iran and move the fight to maintain U.S. global hegemony to another front: back to Venezuela? Serbia? Hong
Kong? Taiwan? However the end result of such a move would more than likely be another humuliating defeat for the U.S.
4. Do as Stephen Wertheim / New York Times suggest and sue for peace. This will end the dream of U.S. World dominance, Globalization
and the current western based financial system. The U.S. will become no more than a heavily indebted regional power in a 'Multi-polar
World Order' led by China and Russia.
As I see it, the U.S. is out of options to continue their war for global dominance. #4 is the only viable option. But, as one
author argued in a recent paper (I don't have the reference), wars continue long after the victor is clear, because the loser
can't admit defeat (at heavy additional costs to the loser). I think that this is the position that the U.S. finds itself in now.
What the attack on Saudi oil infrastructure shows us, is that now Iran has united her proxys into one united front.
While they were cautious to not leave evidence of their involvment with the Houtis before, they now are putting their support
more and more into the open.
The attack seemed to have involved not only Houti drones (already build with help from Iran), but also Iranian backed forces
in Iraq, AND pro Iranian forces in Saudi Arabia itself. And maybe even other actors.
This is a major new development. Not only for the war on Yemen, but also in the context of Iran providing a credile detterence
against US+Saudi aggression.
They excalated with increasing levels, and one wonders, what could top this last attack off.
And i am pretty sure, we will find out sooner rather than later.
@ 27
WaPo: Abqaiq . .damaged on the west-northwest sides
That's it! It was Hezbollah for sure. (not)
Actually there were two targets, the Buqaiq (Abqaiq) oil processing plant and the Khurais oil field, both in the Eastern Province.
These attacks are not the first -- from longwarjournal:
Last month, the Houthis claimed another drone operation against Saudi's Shaybah oil field near the United Arab Emirates. At
more than 1,000 miles away from it's Yemen territory, that strike marked one of the Houthis farthest claimed attacks.
The Houthis also claimed a drone strike on the Abu Dhabi airport last year, but that has been denied by Emirati officials.
Additionally, a drone strike on Saudi's East-West oil pipeline near Riyadh earlier this year, which the Houthis claimed responsibility,
was allegedly conducted by Iranian-backed Iraqi militants. If accurate, that means the Houthi claim of responsibility acted
as a type of diplomatic cover for the Iraqi militants.
Since beginning its drone program last year, the Houthis have launched at least 103 drone strikes in Yemen and Saudi Arabia
according to data compiled by FDD's Long War Journal. . .
here . . .and more
here .
Really appreciated the write up on the Houthis attack.
Sounds like the attack left substantial damage. Another bigger issue underlying all of this, aside from Saudi inability to get
what it wants now from it's IPO, is the fact that the US Patriots did not detect this attack.
The Saudis spent billions last year on this defense system. Sounds like the clown Prince better give Russians a call about their
S-400.
But the US wouldn't appreciate that much, would they?
As Bloomberg notes, "for oil markets, it's the single worst sudden disruption ever,
surpassing the loss of Kuwaiti and Iraqi petroleum supply in August 1990, when Saddam Hussein
invaded his neighbor. It also exceeds the loss of Iranian oil output in 1979 during the Islamic
Revolution, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy."
Furthermore, in light of news that the
Saudi outage could last for months , this could be just the start. As a reminder, according
to Morningstar research director, Sandy Fielden, "Brent could go to $80 tomorrow, while WTI
could go to $75... But that would depend on Aramco's 48-hour update. The supply problem won't
be clear right away since the Saudis can still deliver from inventory."
Of course, should Aramco confirm that the outage - which has taken some 5.7mmb/d in Saudi
output after 10 drones struck the world's biggest crude-processing facility in Abqaiq and the
kingdom's second-biggest oil field in Khurais - will last for weeks, expect the crude
juggernaut to continue until the price hits $80, and keeps moving higher. Finally, here is the
price summary from Goldman commodity strategist Damien Courvalin, who earlier today laid out
four possible shutdown scenarios, and the price oil could hit for each:
A very short outage – a week for example – would likely drive long-dated
prices higher to reflect a growing risk premium, although short of what occurred last fall
given a debottlenecked Permian shale basin, a weaker growth outlook and prospects of strong
non-OPEC production growth in 2020. Such a price impact could likely be of $3-5/bbl.
An outage at current levels of two to six weeks would, in addition to this move in
long-dated prices, see a steepening of the Brent forward curve (2-mo vs. 3-year forward) of
$2 to $9/bbl respectively. All in, the expected price move would be between $5 and $14/bbl,
commensurate to the length of the outage (a six month outage of 1 mb/d would be similar to a
six week one at current levels).
Should the current level of outage be announced to last for more than six weeks, we
expect Brent prices to quickly rally above $75/bbl, a level at which we believe an SPR
release would likely be implemented, large enough to balance such a deficit for several
months and cap prices at such levels.
An extreme net outage of a 4 mb/d for more than three months would likely bring prices
above $75/bbl to trigger both large shale supply and demand responses.
What are the broader implications from this move? According to Ole Hansen, head of
commodities strategy at Saxo Bank A/S in Copenhagen, "the global economy can ill afford higher
oil prices at a time of economic slowdown." But Peter Boockvar's hot take may be the best
one.
Bibi is desperate for war with Iran to avoid election defeat and prison and Bolton is
fired/resigns only to predict "Iranian deception" on the way out the door. This is obviously
another Mossad/CIA/Saudi false flag on the anniversity of 9/11 to serve multiple interests:
Bibi's re-election, the central bankers, the MIC's aspirations for war with Iran & Trump
has an economic scapegoat ensuring a free pass for 2020.
Update 2 : In a sharp, if perhaps not unexpected, escalation, US Secretary of State - now
without John Bolton by his side - tweeted at 4pm on Saturday, that contrary to earlier reports,
"there is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen" and instead accused Iran of launching
today's "unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply" which has now indefinitely taken
offline as much as 5mmb/d in Saudi crude production.
In a follow up tweet, Pompeo said that he calls "on all nations to publicly and
unequivocally condemn Iran's attacks" which is odd as not even Saudi Arabia accused Iran of
today's aggression (which many speculated could have been a Saudi false flag in hopes of
sending the price of oil soaring ahead of the Aramco IPO). Pompeo concluded that "the United
States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well
supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression."
Will this pivot away from Houthis to Iran as the "origin" of the attack be sufficient
grounds to re-inflame tensions between the US and Iran, especially following last week's news
that one of the reasons Bolton was fired was due to his hard-line stance on Iran even as Trump
was willing to sit down with the Tehran regime for negotiations. Since the deep state stands to
make much more money from war rather than peace, our guess is that the answer is a resounding
"yes." Update: The WSJ is out with an update hinting at just how much the price of oil is set
to soar when trading reopens
late on Sunday after the Saudi Houthi false-flag drone attack on the largest
Saudi oil processing plant:
Saudi Arabia is shutting down about half of its oil output after apparently coordinated
drone strikes hit Saudi production facilities, people familiar with the matter said, in what
Yemen's Houthi rebels described as one of their largest-ever attacks inside the kingdom.
The production shutdown amounts to a loss of about five million barrels a day , the people
said, roughly 5% of the world's daily production of crude oil . The kingdom produces 9.8
million barrels a day.
And while Aramco is assuring it can restore output quickly, in case it can't the world is
looking at a production shortfall of as much as 150MM barrels monthly, which - all else equal -
could send oil soaring into the triple digits. Just what the Aramco IPO ordered.
What appears to be the most devastating Yemen Houthi rebel attack on Saudi Arabia to date,
took place overnight on the world's largest oil processing facility as stunning videos emerged
of massive explosions rocking the major Aramco Buqyaq facility .
Fires burned into the morning daylight hours, with explosions also reported at the Khurais
oil field, in what the Houthis said was a
successful attack involving ten drones . "These attacks are our right, and we warn the
Saudis that our targets will keep expanding," a rebel military spokesman
said on Houthi-operated Al Masirah TV .
Saudi authorities -- initially slow or reluctant to identify the cause of the major blaze --
on Saturday issued a confirmation via the Saudi Press Agency: "At 4.00am (01:00 GMT) the
industrial security teams of Aramco started dealing with fires at two of its facilities in
Abqaiq and Khurais as a result of... drones," an interior ministry statement
said , which further claimed the fires were "under control" .
However, the Saudis have stopped short of acknowledging the Houthis were behind the attack,
which Riyadh is also likely to blame on Iran , which has lately promised that if it can't
export its oil then "no one will".
It remains unclear according to early statements whether there were injuries or casualties
in the twin oil facility attacks.
The impact on global oil markets - closed for the weekend - could be significant given the
Khurais field produces about 1% of all the world's oil (estimated at over 1M bpd and reserves
of over 20BN bpd) and more importantly Abqaiq, which based on the stunning local footage bore
the brunt of the drone attacks, remains the most crucial of the kingdom's processing
plants.
Located 37 miles southwest of Aramco's Dhahran headquarters, it controls all the flows from
fields like the giant Ghawar field to coastal export terminals like Ras Tanura. Saudi Aramco
describes the Buqyaq facility as "the largest crude oil stabilization plant in the world."
Meanwhile, the United States was quick to "strongly condemn" the attack amid already soaring
tensions in the gulf after a summer of "tanker wars" and Iranian threats of walking away
altogether from the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA).
The U.S. envoy to Saudi Arabia issued
a statement saying , "The U.S. strongly condemns today's drone attacks against oil
facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais. These attacks against critical infrastructure endanger
civilians, are unacceptable, and sooner or later will result in innocent lives being lost."
According to Reuters reports the drone attacks will impact up to 5 million bpd of oil
production, which suggests that the price of oil - already severely depressed by the recent
news that John Bolton is out, making de-escalation with Iran far more likely - is set to soar
when trading reopens late on Sunday, just what the upcoming Aramco IPO desperately needs ,
which in turn has prompted some to wonder if the "Yemen" attack on Saudi Arabia wasn't in fact
orchestrated by Saudi interests. 18 years after Sept 11, this shouldn't sound all that
outlandish...
Oil companies want higher prices. Israel wants US to war with Iran. Jews want Bolt-on to
be proven right. Hmm, how can we get all those things with one shot. Oy-vey, I have an
idea.
If the U.S. attacks Iran, it will only raise oil prices even more. If the Houthis have the
ability to destroy Saudi oil infrastructure, then Iran has the ability to wipe it out for
years to come. How can the U.S. protect Saudi oil production? If there was a simple way to do
it, you'd think it would have already been implemented. It's looking like Iran wasn't kidding
when they said if they can't sell their oil then neither will the Saudis.
$100 oil might get people more interested in electric vehicles that all manufacturers have
been forced to invest billions in that the public dont want.
What appears to be the most devastating Yemen Houthi rebel attack on Saudi Arabia to
date
What is missing from that article is the fact that actually this attack was not performed
by the Houthi rebels themselves, and not from Yemen. This attack was actually performed by
another Iranian proxy, the PMU, and the drones were sent into Saudi Arabia's territory from
Iraq, North West of the country, not from Yemen.
This just underscores the way Iran's ring of proxy terror militias are all connected and
acts in tandem under the control of Iran,
Out of its twisted interpretation of Islam's Quran, Iran's mission is to bring about a
regime change to moderate Islamic countries (including allies of the US), forcing them into
its extremist, US hateful, Shia Islam. The way they do it is by arming and financing
terrorist proxy militias in various regions, spreading death and destruction. Iran arms and
finances the Houthis in Yemen, The Islamic Jihad in Gazza, Hashd Al-Shaabi in Iraq, Hezbollah
in Lebanon, Fatemeyoun Brigades in Syria, various terrorist groups in Africa, and more.
Iran has perfected the art of gradually conquering a country without replacing its flag by
planting cancer cells in the form of terror proxy militias.
Iran spends billions of Dollars on those militias, at the expense of the well being of
common Iranian people. All this money is deprived from their own people, cutting food and gas
subsidies. Iran has abundance of oil reserves but a large chunk of the oil revenues goes to
support insurgent groups in other countries while Iran's citizens live in misery and hunger.
Heck, just on Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iran spends one Billion Dollars each year.
Iran's aim is to directly hurt our national interests by turning friendly Muslim countries
against the US. Iran is not shy of demonstrating its hatred to the US. Iran states openly,
and with great force, "Death to America!" They burn American flags in their parliament.
Half of Saudi Arabia's oil production has gone offline following a surprise drone strike.
Drones attacked Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia and the Khurais oil field run by Saudi Aramco early Saturday morning, the
kingdom's interior ministry
said
,
sparking a massive fire at a crude processing plant essential to global oil supplies.
The closure will impact nearly
5
million barrels of crude processing per day
, affecting 5 percent of the world's daily oil production. And while Aramco is
confident that it can recover quickly, if it can't, however, the world could face a production shortage of as much 150MM
barrels per month. An outcome which could send oil prices into the triple digits.
Houthi rebels-- who are backed by Iran in a yearlong Saudi-led battle in Yemen-- have apparently asserted responsibility for
the strikes and pledged that more assaults can be expected in the future.
A Houthi spokesperson explained, "We promise the Saudi regime that our future operations will expand and be more painful as
long as its aggression and siege continue," adding that the attack involved ten drones.
The Iran-backed Houthis have recently been behind a number of assaults on Saudi pipelines, vessels and other energy
infrastructure as tensions grow in the region.
There have been no details on the severity of the damage but Agence France-Presse quoted interior ministry spokesperson
Mansour al-Turki as saying that there were no human casualties as a result of the attack.
This latest strike highlights the risk posed by the Houthis to Saudi Arabia's
oil
infrastructure
as tensions between the groups continues to escalate.
The growing power of the Houthis' drone operations is likely to reignite the debate on where the militant group is securing
these weapons. It could very well be that the group has weaponized noncombatant drones, or in a darker scenario, they are
receiving the militarized drones from Iran.
A Saudi-led coalition has been at
war
with
the Houthi movement in Yemen since March 2015. The Iranian-backed rebels hold the funding, Sana'a, and other areas in the Arab
world's most impoverished nation.
The battle has created one of the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The violence has pressed Yemeni citizens to the brink of
starvation. And the death toll has soared to more than 90,000 individuals since 2015, according to the US-based Armed Conflict
Location & Event Data Project, which tracks the conflict.
(Bloomberg) -- Middle East geopolitics have come back with a vengeance to hit the oil
market. What everybody feared has happened. An attack has penetrated the defenses of Saudi
Arabia's massive Abqaiq oil processing facility, the heart of the kingdom's oil production and
export infrastructure, causing an unknown amount of damage. Crude prices will react and
emergency stockpiles will be tapped.
Fires at the plant were brought under control within hours, but the flow of crude from Saudi
Arabia, the world's biggest exporter, will almost certainly be affected, although we don't yet
know by how much or for how long. Traders who have shrugged off tensions in the Middle East for
months will respond to this attack when markets open on Monday.
The height of the price spike will depend on how much we know about the extent of the damage
and how long it will take to repair. An absence of information will lead traders to assume the
worst.
The Abqaiq crude processing plant is the single most important facility in the Saudi oil
sector. In 2018 it processed about half of the kingdom's crude oil production, according to a
prospectus published in May for the state oil company's first international bond. That's
roughly 5 million barrels a day, or one in every 20 barrels of oil used worldwide.
Abqaiq is more important to the Saudi oil sector than the kingdom's Persian Gulf export
terminals at Ras Tanura and Ju'aymah, or the Strait of Hormuz that links the Gulf to the Indian
Ocean and the high seas. Crude can be diverted away from the Persian Gulf and Hormuz by pumping
it across the country to the Red Sea through the East-West oil pipeline. But it cannot bypass
Abqaiq. The East-West pipeline starts at Abqaiq and output from the giant Ghawar, Shaybah and
Khurais fields is all processed there, so an attack on the facility will impact crude flows to
export terminals on both coasts.
The latest attack comes just months after drones, allegedly launched from Iraq by Yemen's
Houthi rebels, targeted pumping stations on the oil pipeline. The damage caused by that earlier
attack was minimal, but highlighted the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure,
even when located hundreds of miles from the country's borders.
So what happens now?
Saudi Arabia will probably seek to maintain export levels as much as possible by supplying
customers from stockpiles. It holds crude in storage tanks in the kingdom, as well as at sites
in Egypt, Japan and the Netherlands. But it has been running its crude hoard down since the
beginning of 2016 and it is now back at levels not seen since 2008, according to data from the
Joint Organisations Data Initiative. That means the kingdom has much less to draw on than it
did three years ago.
The attack will also test stockpiles in oil-consuming countries. Members of the
International Energy Agency are required to hold 90 days' worth of oil imports in emergency
stocks and those will be pressed into service if the outage at Abqaiq is prolonged. Non-member
countries like China and India have also been building up their own emergency reserves. Those,
too, will be pressed into service.
Neighboring countries who, just days ago, were being exhorted to stick to output quotas
agreed in December will now pump as much as they can to make up for any losses from Saudi
Arabia. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq will all boost output as much as they are
able. But the one country with lots of spare capacity, Iran, won't see any easing of the
restrictions placed on its oil sales by the U.S. Quite the opposite. Its support for the Houthi
rebels in Yemen, who have claimed responsibility for the attack on Abqaiq, will ensure that any
easing of the pressure being exerted on it remains a distant prospect.
To contact the reporter on this story: Julian Lee in London at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Alaric Nightingale at
[email protected], Steve Geimann
"... Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the targeted regimes. ..."
"... At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion. In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million barrels. ..."
"... The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries. ..."
"... The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer, agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy supplies to Europe. ..."
"... As stated by Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program. ..."
"... The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage. ..."
"... In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach, increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is transited each day? ..."
"... It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump publicly and repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President. ..."
"... The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on systems that are controlled by the USA. ..."
"... Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a city. ..."
"... John Bolton is clueless. He's a throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an idiot. ..."
"... Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get their balance sheets under control. ..."
Yves here. Even though most
readers know the general point very well, that US trade and financial sanctions haven't brought
targets to their knees, and had instead pushed them to find allies, but it's useful to have
detail to flesh out the story. There are some bits one can quibble with, like the "annexation
of Crimea" bit, and the US objectives for its sanctions against Russia. At least under the
Obama Administration, the belief was that they would damage the economy severely and force a
regime change.
By Robert Berke, an energy financial analyst with experience as a government consultant
to the State of Alaska. Originally published at
OilPrice
Trade wars and sanctions are economic weapons against rival regimes, and like actual
military warfare, often lead to unanticipated and sometimes devastating blowback from the
targeted regimes.
A prime example was President Obama sanctioning Russia over its annexation of Crimea. The
sanctions were designed to block Russia from any access to western financing, aimed at causing
a dire financial and economic crisis in Russia that would force it to relinquish Crimea and end
support for Ukraine's breakaway territories.
In fact, the sanctions did cause Russia to enter a short-lived recession. But it also had
other, much more drastic results for the West. It forced Russia to move closer to China, and
Moscow saw Beijing as a great alternative to western financing for Russian industries.
At the same time, western companies were forced to withdraw from Russian mega-deals because
of sanctions. The best-known example was Exxon, forced by sanctions to walk away from an Arctic
joint venture with Russia's state-owned oil giant, Rosneft, where it had invested $3.2 billion.
In their very first effort, the partners successfully drilled oil wells containing 750 million
barrels.
As noted by Reuters, the withdrawal was costly:
Exxon will post an after-tax loss of $200 million as a result of pulling out of the
Rosneft deal, but the true costs for the company run much deeper. Exploring and developing
giant offshore fields in Russia was supposed to provide long-term growth for the company,
and, in recent years, has seen falling reserves.
But the opportunity losses are likely to be far higher for Exxon, the company that famously
missed the US shale revolution. The long-term deal with Rosneft, expected to continue for
decades, included exploration for oil in the Black Sea, enormous shale resources in Western
Siberia, and the development of three large blocks in the Arctic (Kara Sea).
The trade war with China that has led to tariffs on billions of dollars in Chinese exports
to the US, and as a result, Russia and China have moved even closer. It remains an absolute
mystery why no one in the west had foreseen the blowback from economic warfare leading to an
alliance between two of its most powerful adversaries.
China's major state-owned oil companies and its Silk Road fund each became 10% partners in
Russia's first major Arctic LNG (liquified natural gas), project in the Yamal Peninsula,
undertaken with Novatek, Russia's largest independent gas producer. The project offers great
prospects for enormous expansion.
The US acts as if it has been blind-sided by the Russian/China moves, even though years
before it undertook economic warfare against them, China, the world's largest energy importer,
agreed to finance oil and gas multi-billion-dollar pipelines in neighboring Russia. Now Russia
has become China's largest energy supplier, equaling or perhaps even surpassing its energy
supplies to Europe.
A similar scenario is taking place in the Persian Gulf where the US has withdrawn from the
Iran nuclear deal, while imposing economic sanctions on Iranian oil exports. The French energy
giant, Total, that in recent years has been a leading international oil company in that
country, was forced to withdraw because of sanctions, just like Exxon in Russia's Arctic, it
left billions of dollars on the table.
This may also answer the question as to why French Prime Minister Macron was so intent on
inviting the Iranian Foreign Secretary to the recent G7 meeting in France. It's also no secret
that French carmakers Peugeot and Renault are the main suppliers to Iran's auto assembly
plants.
As stated by
Global Village Space (GBS) , China and Russia rushed to aid Iran, with China replacing
Total, in a 25-year deal estimated to be worth some $400 billions. With that, China inherits a
bonanza, providing much needed finance and technology to a country that was and could again
become one of the world's leading energy producers. China is looking to finance $280 billion to
develop Iran's gas, oil and petrochemicals industries, along with $120 billion to improve
transport and manufacturing, making it a key partner in China's Road and Belt program.
The deal also gives China the right to buy any or all Iranian oil, gas, and
petrochemicals products at a minimum guaranteed 12% discount to global benchmarks, plus
an additional discount of 6-8% for risk adjusted compensation. Financing will proceed using
local currencies, avoiding the costs of converting to a hard currency like the US dollar or the
Euro, giving the Beijing yet another 10% cost advantage.
GBS further reports that the security for these projects will include up to 5,000 Chinese
security personnel on the ground in Iran to protects Chinese projects and to safeguard the
transit of energy products from Iran to China, including security for the very strategic Hormuz
Straits.
In direct defiance of US sanctions against Iran, China has stepped into the breach,
increasing its oil purchases from Iran while becoming Iran's major energy trade and finance
partner. Like Russia, it seems that Iran is moving towards a military alliance with China. If
the west worries about China's expansive moves in the South China Sea, along China's own
borders, what to make then of China moving in on Hormuz, where some 30% of world oil is
transited each day?
If these are considered winning policies for the West, one has to ask what failure looks
like.
The West is already slowly becoming aware of the blowback this disastrous policy has caused.
Evidence for this can be found in Macron's efforts to persuade Trump towards a peaceful
resolution with Iran.
It is well known that the US has been in secret meetings with Iran representatives, much to
the dismay of the Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Bloomberg reports, after the G7 meeting, Trump
publicly and
repeatedly stated he was ready to meet with Iran's President, Hassan Rouhani. Bloomberg
also reported that in a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump announced that he was ready to ease
sanctions as a possible way to open negotiations between the two countries. Treasury Secretary
Mnuchin agreed with the President, while National Security Advisor Bolton voiced strong
opposition, that only one day later, led to his firing. Secretary of State Pompeo stated that
Trump may meet on the sidelines of the upcoming UN meeting with Iran's President.
The firing of Bolton was
immediately followed by a fall in the price of oil and gold. Allowing Iran to continue to
increase supplies into already well supplied oil markets will add downward pressure on oil
prices. For the Trump administration, this is not necessarily a bad thing unhappy consumers at
the gas pump make for unhappy voters.
Similarly, the Trump Administration badly needs to move towards ending the trade war with
China in order to calm global markets. The recent announcement of the resumption of trade talks
between the US and China in October may provide an opportunity for a similar easing of tariffs
and a path towards further resolution.
Although these actions could help to quell global tensions, it may be too late to reverse
some of the serious damage caused by US-led economic warfare. Once China positions itself in
Iran, it will not likely be interested in withdrawing from its new strategic position in the
Middle East, that it gained as a result of US near sighted foreign policy.
Prior to the election, we may see a breakthroughs in the trade war, and the alleviation of
sanctions with Russia, Iran, China, and perhaps even North Korea, but the US will almost
certainly see the negative consequences from adversaries it helped to expand and
strengthen.
Can't speak much about the effects of the Chinese sanctions but I know a little bit about
the Russian ones. These Russian sanctions are biting hard but not the way they were intended
and it is not only the big oil companies that are losing big. Since they kicked in Russia has
lost about $50 billion in trade with the European Union which kinda stings. But in the same
time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion.
Considering that fact that these
sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US, that is a very
expensive price tag. The US lost only about $17 billion but I remember reading that after the
sanctions kicked in, trade between the U and Russia actually increased. Europe is a big loser
here, particularly with agriculture. When the EU sanctioned Russian products to the EU, the
Russians did the same to them a few weeks later which came as a shock. Since then Russia has
made huge investments into growing their own food crops and those markets will never come
back again for the EU. As an example, Russia is once more a world leader in the production of
wheat second only to the US and has learned the value of autarky.
You see these results in all sorts of areas as the country started phasing out imports and
replacing them with domestically made products. They even started making marine engines out
of necessity as they were denied purchase of foreign ones. People might remember how Russia
was going to buy two specially built ships from France but France reneged under pressure from
Washington.
France not only had to give back all the money the Russians paid but also had to
compensate Russia for all related costs that the Russians made. In the end France paid Russia
over a billion dollars which was triple what the Russians initially paid. And now the
Russians are constructing their own ships of this class in the Crimea using the knowledge
acquired from France. Perhaps it is things like this that has cause Macron to open up
contacts with Russia once more in spite of what Washington demands.
Add in the purchase of gold stocks, developing financial systems in case the US cuts
Russia off from the SWIFT clearance systems, the development of weaponry that makes the
deployment of nuclear missile systems in Europe futile, you realise that Washington has
massively underestimated the response of counties like Russia, China and Iran and depended on
unicorn wishes instead.
But in the same time frame, the European Union has lost about $240 billion. Considering
that fact that these sanctions were never for their benefit but for solidarity with the US,
that is a very expensive price tag.
Well, Looks like Donald Trump let "The Swamp(tm)" run loose and they went and over-torqued
the screws!
Some decision makers in within the EU have begun to see the US sanctions against
everything and everyone as having the true goals of ablating EU's influence on the world
while hampering EU-based businesses. There are initiatives and polices that hints at "cutting
the cord" are quietly being introduced.
The EU defence industry initiative, the ECB's money transfer service, the EU army (or
defence collaboration :) are all longer term policies aimed at reducing the EU's reliance on
systems that are controlled by the USA.
The 'North Stream' pipeline and keeping the Iran deal kinda alive are more immediate and
direct challenges, as was the total unwillingness to join in any of the planned military
adventures involving Syria and Iran.
France is being rather open about about it. Possibly to test out on behalf of the EU what
the USA is actually willing to do to exact revenge and enforce compliance, possibly also
because opposing the USA in France remains a reliable way to win votes.
It's not just Trump. Our Congress is totally at the beck of special pleaders such as LNG
exporters and arms companies. All seek to use the US economic weapon to further their own
interests.
Plus, Russia is determinedly GMO free. The more the US goes down the GMO route, the less
likely the food trade with the EU – the European dogs wont eat GMO dogfood.
Post Brexit perhaps, Britain will accept US foods, all the more reason to insist on a proper
border if NI remains part of the 'UK'.
It's not just GMO, but the level and quality of technocratic oversight. US government
agencies are incapable of regulating anything in the private sector. While the EU is still
greatly influenced by private money, it has not completely sold out.
What is ignored by media is the harm sanctions inflict on the people living in these
countries. I think it should be considered a crime against humanity and our leaders should be
prosecuted. Sanctions are a weapon that is just as harmful as weapons to kill. We only seem
to look at the economic effects and ignore the social effects.
Sanctions are the modern equivalent of siege warfare, only the target is a nation, not a
city.
I've known in a vague intuitive way that US sanctions would alienate nations and isolate
the US, it's useful seeing how exactly these sanctions are backfiring with more nuance!
What is the next step after you have sanctioned everything and everyone and the reaction
is a shrug and a work around? Sanctions do have their bite, but they are, or are becoming, a
more effective tool for global economic and political realignment than a means to accomplish
their stated purpose.
Good question. I am wondering the same thing. There is a vague pattern here with Russia,
the most resource-rich oil producer. We don't want Russia to take off too fast. What can be
left in the ground should be left in the ground. And maybe that was the existential threat
posed by Exxon – a private, profit seeking US corporation geared to do everything fast
in order to make their profits.
Just thinking about slamming the breaks on manufacturing and
consumption and how this can make a mess of the oil industry if it is going for profits
– race to the bottom (currently). Rather, anyone thinking straight would want to
conserve oil, control it's production and marketing. John Bolton is clueless. He's a
throwback to ruthless American competition and cowboy capitalism. And he appears to be an
idiot.
There was a discussion of China's role in manufacturing drugs for Big Pharma on the news
last night, truly frightening.
They've already been found to be selling us contaminated drugs, what happens when they
refuse to deliver anything other than fentanyl?
I find it hard to understand how we're going to recover from the damage done by the
short-sighted, wholesale outsourcing of our manufacturing to China.
Given the centrality of drugs to American life, we should categorize them as sensitive
items of national security and declare a war on foreign drugs. That would brilliantly combine
the failed policies of the past with the failed policies of the present. We could make
exceptions for most-favored nations like Colombia or Afghanistan.
As in military conflicts, the fog of geoeconomic war together with partisan lens and poor
leadership can prevent adversaries from developing an accurate assessment of reality. The
writer has raised some examples that support his view pertaining to pushback, and he could be
right as The Rev Kev so eloquently pointed out here WRT Russia. However, whether his article
provides an accurate overview of the current state of play remains an open question IMO.
Setting aside deeply troubling questions about our national values and whether sanctions
should ever be employed due to their very damaging effects on domestic populations, together
with their evident past failure to realize policy goals, there are credible accounts that
China is now confronting a U.S. dollar shortage; that China has significant issues in its
financial system and economy; and that the people of China are seeing sharply rising food
prices as a result of decreased supplies of pork and soybeans. These issues are being
perceived as sufficient to cause China's leaders to be receptive to negotiating resolution of
the current tariffs, trade, intellectual property, and investment impasse on terms favorable
to the U.S. Whether this will be so remains to be seen, of course.
A multi-polar world became a uni-polar world with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Francis
Fukuyama said it was the end of history. It was all going so well, until the neoliberals got to work. The US created an open, globalised world with the Washington Consensus. China went from almost nothing to become a global super power.
That wasn't supposed to happen, let's get the rocket scientists onto it. Maximising profit is all about reducing costs. China had coal fired power stations to provide cheap energy.
China had lax regulations reducing environmental and health and safety costs.
China had a low cost of living so employers could pay low wages.
China had low taxes and a minimal welfare state.
China had all the advantages in an open globalised world. "The Washington Consensus was always going to work better for China than the US"
the rocket scientists.
If the US left this running it would be China first and America second. PANIC!
It seems since about the Vietnam war era, US FP has been run by hubristic idiots with
delusions of grandeur. Its foreign policy 101 that you never, never, set policy to drive your
2 largest rivals to alliance.
Yet these morons did exactly that. Since Trump, there have been many retirements form the
State Dept.
And maybe that's not such a bad thing. They show no evidence of competence.
Russia is leasing out old collective farm lands that was abandoned in the eastern part of
the country to Asian countries to farm and grow the export food products needed. It seems the
collective farms were abandoned and now the Russian government is re-purposing the vast
amounts of land available.
"Russia is now considering requests from Asian firms to farm another 1 million hectares
(2.5 million acres) -- an area roughly the size of Jamaica, according to the head of a
government agency."
It may be said that Trump's tariffs are the best things that could have happened to China
and Russia.
Frankly, I think it has pushed up consumer spending and that is about it. In other words,
this economy has overcapacity problems in the auto sector and its relation to junk corporate
debt, is not good.
Consumer spending is going to struggle the rest of the year as it rebalances and
manufacturing is heading to a full blown recession by December as auto companies try and get
their balance sheets under control.
Usually a forum for anodyne statements about international cooperation and proper
environmental stewardship, the lid was blown off the latest Arctic Council meeting in May when
Pompeo delivered an unabashedly martial and provocative speech that deserves far more attention
than it got at the time. So let's take a little tour of what may prove a historic proclamation
(in the grimmest sense possible) of a new Washington doctrine for the Far North.
"In its first two decades, the Arctic Council has had the luxury of focusing almost
exclusively on scientific collaboration, on cultural matters, on environmental research," the
secretary of state began mildly. These
were, he said, "all important themes, very important, and we should continue to do those. But
no longer do we have that luxury. We're entering a new age of strategic engagement in the
Arctic, complete with new threats to the Arctic and its real estate, and to all of our
interests in that region."
In what turned out to be an ultra-hardline address, Pompeo claimed that we were now in a new
era in the Arctic. Because climate change -- a phrase Pompeo, of course, never actually uttered
-- is now making it ever more possible to exploit the region's vast resource riches, a scramble
to gain control of them is now officially underway. That competition for resources has
instantly become enmeshed in a growing geopolitical confrontation between the U.S., Russia, and
China, generating new risks of conflict.
On the matter of resource exploitation, Pompeo could hardly contain his enthusiasm.
Referring to the derision that greeted William Seward's purchase of Alaska in 1857, he
declared:
"Far from the barren backcountry that many thought it to be in Seward's time, the
Arctic is at the forefront of opportunity and abundance. It houses 13% of the world's
undiscovered oil, 30% of its undiscovered gas, and an abundance of uranium, rare earth
minerals, gold, diamonds, and millions of square miles of untapped resources."
Of equal attraction, he noted, was the possibility of vastly increasing maritime commerce
through newly de-iced trans-Arctic trade routes that will link the Euro-Atlantic region with
Asia. "Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for
trade," he enthused. "This could potentially slash the time it takes to travel between Asia and
the West by as much as 20 days Arctic sea lanes could come [to be] the 21st century's Suez and
Panama Canals." That such "steady reductions in sea ice" are the sole consequence of climate
change went unmentioned, but so did another reality of our warming world. If the Arctic one day
truly becomes the northern equivalent of a tropical passageway like the Suez or Panama canals,
that will likely mean that parts of those southerly areas will have become the equivalents of
uninhabitable deserts.
As such new trade and drilling opportunities arise, Pompeo affirmed, the United States
intends to be out front in capitalizing on them. He then began bragging about what the Trump
administration had already accomplished, including promoting expanded oil and gas drilling in
offshore waters and also freeing up "energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ," a pristine stretch
of northern Alaska
prized by environmentalists as a sanctuary for migrating caribou and other at-risk species.
Additional efforts to exploit the region's vital resources, he promised, are scheduled for the
years ahead.
A New Arena for Competition (and Worse)
Ideally, Pompeo noted placidly, competition for the Arctic's resources will be conducted in
an orderly, peaceful manner. The United States, he assured his listeners, believes in "free and
fair competition, open, by the rule of law." But other countries, he added ominously,
especially China and Russia, won't play by that rulebook much of the time and so must be
subject to careful oversight and, if need be, punitive action.
China, he pointed out, is already developing trade
routes in the Arctic, and establishing economic ties with key nations there. Unlike the United
States (which already has multiple military bases in the Arctic, including one at Thule in
Greenland, and so has a well-established presence there), Pompeo claimed that Beijing is
surreptitiously using such supposedly economic activities for military purposes, including,
heinously enough, spying on U.S. ballistic missile submarines operating in the region, while
intimidating its local partners into acquiescence.
He then cited events in the distant South China Sea, where the Chinese have indeed
militarized a
number of tiny uninhabited islands (outfitting them with airstrips, missile batteries, and the
like) and the U.S. has responded by
sending its warships into adjacent waters. He did so to warn of similar future military
stand-offs and potential clashes in the Arctic. "Let's just ask ourselves, do we want the
Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing
territorial claims?" The answer, he assured his listeners, is "pretty clear." (And I'm sure you
can guess what it is.)
The secretary of state then wielded even stronger language in describing "aggressive Russian
behavior in the Arctic." In recent years, he claimed, the Russians have built hundreds of new
bases in the region, along with new ports and air-defense capabilities. "Russia is already
leaving snow prints in the form of army boots" there, a threat that cannot be ignored. "Just
because the Arctic is a place of wilderness does not mean it should become a place of
lawlessness. It need not be the case. And we stand ready to ensure that it does not become
so."
And here we get to the heart of Pompeo's message: the United States will, of course,
"respond" by enhancing its own military presence in the Arctic to better protect U.S.
interests, while countering Chinese and Russian inroads in the region:
"Under President Trump, we are fortifying America's security and diplomatic presence in the
area. On the security side, partly in response to Russia's destabilizing activities, we are
hosting military exercises, strengthening our force presence, rebuilding our icebreaker fleet,
expanding Coast Guard funding, and creating a new senior military post for Arctic Affairs
inside of our own military."
To emphasize the administration's sincerity, Pompeo touted the largest NATO and U.S. Arctic
military maneuvers since the Cold War era, the recently completed " Trident Juncture " exercise (which he
incorrectly referred to as "Trident Structure"), involving some 50,000 troops. Although the
official scenario
for Trident Juncture spoke of an unidentified "aggressor" force, few observers had any doubt
that the allied team was assembled to repel a hypothetical Russian invasion of Norway, where
the simulated combat took place.
Implementing the Doctrine
And so you have the broad outlines of the new Pompeo Doctrine, centered on the Trump
administration's truly forbidden topic: the climate crisis. In the most pugnacious manner
imaginable, that doctrine posits a future of endless competition and conflict in the Arctic,
growing ever more intense as the planet warms and the ice cap melts. The notion of the U.S.
going nose-to-nose with the Russians and Chinese in the Far North, while exploiting the
region's natural resources, has clearly been circulating in Washington. By August, it had
obviously already become enough of a commonplace in the White House (not to speak of the
National Security Council and the Pentagon), for the president to offer to buy Greenland.
And when it comes to resources and future military conflicts, it wasn't such a zany idea.
After all, Greenland does have abundant natural resources and also houses that U.S. base in
Thule. A relic of the Cold War, the Thule facility, mainly a radar base, is already being
modernized , at a cost of some $300 million, to better track Russian missile launches.
Clearly, key officials in Washington view Greenland as a valuable piece of real estate in the
emerging geopolitical struggle Pompeo laid out, an assessment that clearly wormed its way into
President Trump's consciousness as well.
Iceland and Norway also play key roles in Pompeo's and the Pentagon's new strategic
calculus. Another former Cold War facility, a base at Keflavik in Iceland has been reoccupied
by the Navy and is now being used in antisubmarine warfare missions. Meanwhile, the Marine
Corps has
stationed several hundred combat troops at bases near Trondheim, Norway, the first
permanent deployment of foreign soldiers on Norwegian soil since World War II. In 2018, the
Pentagon even
reactivated the Navy's defunct Second Fleet, investing it with responsibility for
protecting the North Atlantic as well as the Arctic's maritime approaches, including those
abutting Greenland, Iceland, and Norway. Consider these signs of heating-up times.
And all of this is clearly just the beginning of a major buildup in and regular testing of
the ability of the U.S. military to operate in the Far North. As part of Exercise Trident
Juncture, for example, the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman and its flotilla of
support ships were sent into the Norwegian Sea, the first time a U.S. carrier battle group had
sailed above the Arctic Circle since the Soviet Union imploded in 1991. Similarly,
Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer recently announced
plans to send surface warships on trans-Arctic missions, another new military move. (U.S.
nuclear submarines make such journeys regularly, sailing beneath the sea ice.) This article first appeared on TomDispatch. More articles by:Michael T. Klare
Ukraine appears not to have noticed that its backing for the United States to persuade Europe
to reject Nord Stream II is supporting American pressure for Europe to buy American LNG
instead. Would they be transiting that to Europe through Ukraine? Hardly.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized the project, saying it would make Germany
"captive" to Russian interests, and urging the Europeans to buy fuel from the U.S. instead.
During their talks in Kyiv this week, Danilyuk discussed this issue at length with Bolton,
and he urged the U.S. government to block the project by imposing economic sanctions against
it. "Bolton was very supportive," Danilyuk says. "He understands that Nord Stream 2 is bad
for the United States."
If – extremely unlikely – that initiative were ever successful, and the EU
blew off Nord stream II in favour of American imported LNG the Ukies would still be out $3
Billion a year in transit fees. The USA wants to replace Russian gas supplies to Europe, not
supplement them.
As usual, Ukraine is so eager to hurt Russia that it does not care if it hurts itself in
doing it. Just the sort of ally the USA loves.
G W Bush was responsible for North Korea developing nuclear weapons, the North Koreans did a
deal whereby the US would supply several light water reactors and 500,000 tons of oil per
year in exchange for NK not pursuing its nuclear program, the US accused the Koreans of
cheating [with no proof] and cancelled the agreement, thinking that sanctions and military
pressure would force Korea to capitulate. North Korea then decided to go nuclear. That same
US mistake is happening again with Iran, US hubris is on full display,but this time Iran has
the 'arc of resistance. on its side plus Russia and China. Trump will not go back to the
JCPOA it is not in his nature, the only thing we can hope for is a Trump defeat at the next
election, and hope an adult wins.
Harry Law #15. Harry, have you seen the people running for the Democratic nomination? Hope is
not a word I would use. Gabbard at least wants peace, but she will not be allowed to win the
nomination (she is too young in any case). And if by some miracle she were to be nominated
and win, she would not be allowed to carry out her own goals for peace. She would be defeated
or failing that, killed. As would anyone who really went up against the most powerful
political party in America, the War Party.
PATRICK
COCKBURN: I'm a bit doubtful about it. They have done a certain amount, this offer of a $15
billion credit line, to make up for the loss of Iranian oil revenue It was a French idea
originally, but they are asking Iran to step right back into the old nuclear deal, but the
Iranians are not likely to do that while they're subject to US sanctions. US sanctions and the
sanctioning of European companies or banks that deal with Iran, basically means that Iran is
facing an economic siege.
So these are maneuvers. The Iranians want to show they're being kind of moderate. They want
to preserve this deal as they do. At the same time, they don't want to look as though they're
pushovers, that sanctions are squeezing them to death, and they've got no alternative but to
give up. This would be to surrender to what Trump calls the policy of maximum pressure. I think
we're a long way from any real agreement on this. It's still escalating. GREG WILPERT: Iran
also just recently announced that it is releasing seven of the 23 crew members it is holding of
a Swedish-owned, but British-registered tanker that Iran had seized last July. Iran's
Revolutionary Guard seized that tanker in retaliation for the British seizing an Iranian tanker
near Gibraltar in early July, but the Iranian tanker has now been released. Now, how do you see
the situation of these tankers evolving? Could such seizures of oil tankers eventually lead to
an escalation and to even war?
PATRICK COCKBURN: Yes, they could. This is sort of a game of chicken. As you said, it
started off on the 4th of July when the British rather melodramatically dropped 30 Royal Marine
commandos on the deck of this vessel saying, "It was heading for Syria. This had nothing to do
with sanctions on Iran, but was a breach of sanctions on Syria imposed by the EU." This never
sounded right because it's a peculiar moment for Britain to suddenly put such energy into
enforcing EU sanctions, when we all know that Britain is trying to leave the EU at the moment.
There's a great political crisis here in Britain about this. This looked as though it was on
the initiative of Washington. Then, as was inevitable, the Iranians retaliated against
British-flagged vessels in the Gulf. There was an escalation that seems to have died down at
the moment.
As I see it, the Iranian policy is to maintain pressure by sort of pinprick attacks. There
were some small mines placed on oil tankers of the United Arab Emirates. Then when we had the
shooting down of the American drone, a whole series of events to show that they're not
frightened, that they can retaliate, but not bring it up to the level of war. That's sort of
the way the Iranians often react to this sort of thing, with some covert military measures and
to create an atmosphere of crisis, but not bring a war about.
Of course, once you start doing this, it could slip over the edge of the cliff at any
moment. The Iranians did a sort of mirror image of the British takeover of their tanker when
they took over the British tanker crew, which are just being released, as you mentioned. They
dropped 30 commandos on the deck. There was a British Naval vessel not so far away, not far
enough to stop this, but let's say that Naval vessel had been closer. Would they have opened
fire on a helicopter dropping these 30 Iranian commandos on the boat? That would have brought
us – would have been a war, and could have very rapidly escalated. We're always on, as I
said, the edge of the cliff in the Gulf with each side sort of daring the other to go further.
PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, it's falling apart by inches, but there's still quite a long way to go
on that. I think the one thing that has emerged is that the US, Trump and Iran, don't want war.
At one time, the US was calling on – some of its senior officials were calling for a
regime change. How far do they really believe this? When Trump decided not to retaliate for the
drone being shot down, that shows that he wants to rely on sanctions on this sort of very
intense economic siege of Iran, but I don't think the Iranians are going to come running. Once
they know there isn't going to be an all-out war, they'll try to sustain these sanctions, and
the situation isn't quite as desperate as it looks. Obviously, they're suffering a lot. On the
other hand, they're not isolated. China and Russia give them a measure of support.
The EU, rather pathetically, says it's trying to maintain the nuclear deal of 2015, but it's
rather underlining the political and military weakness of the EU that they haven't been able to
do much about it. Big companies are too frightened of US sanctions against them if they have
any relations with Iran. So the Europeans aren't coming well out of it. Obviously, their
relations with Trump are pretty frosty. They also probably don't think it's worth a really big
crisis between the EU, the European states, and America on this issue, but they are looking
pretty feeble at the moment.
There's one thing that continues to puzzle me about the sanctions.
My understanding of these sanctions is that they are designed to prevent the Iranians from
importing certain goods from Western countries, and prevent export of and payments for
Iranian goods to Western countries.
Why are these sanctions effective?
Iran has demonstrated that they can manufacture. They have open trading relations with
Russian and China, which gives them access to materials and manufactures they might not be
able to source within Iran.
They can trade oil for goods, and that oil can readily be absorbed by China or re-packaged
and sold by Russia if it chose to. Both Russia and China are highly motivated to bypass the
SWIFT payments system.
Both Russia and China have a roughly analagous situation re: trade with the West, and they
have been coping with it for over a decade in the case of Russia, somewhat less for
China.
Why isn't Iran re-directing external purchasing toward domestic sources, and using that
pressure as a means to build their internal economic capacity?
My two cents worth.
Alas, this is now a sort of, kind of, globalized economic system. Even prior to the
'Neo-Liberal Dispensation,' the world had international trade in raw materials and some
manufactured goods. As a side effect of this, internal national development of all sorts of
materials and merchandise languished. Why build an expensive factory or mine to get something
when you could buy it cheaper overseas? Where your idea has merit is in 'national security'
goods production. The things that make a country 'safe' should be sourced, if at all
possible, at home, where supply can be protected and controlled.
The second point I'd like to stress is how that oil is paid for and delivered. If I read
aright, most Persian oil is shipped to the end user. Thus, control of the seaways and vessles
plying same is crucial. That's why these somewhat symbolic oil tanker 'grabs' are important.
This demonstrates to the world at large one's ability to control the trans-shipment of oil,
from anywhere, to anywhere. The seizure of the oil transit ships was a message to the entire
oil using world: "We can shut down your economy whenever we want." As Lambert sometimes
quotes from Frank Herbert: "The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over
it."
The replacement of the SWIFT system would free the world from American economic thuggery.
When oil is finally priced, in significant amounts anyway, in something other than American
dollars, then will the world economy begin to regain equitability.
Of course if the option of trade is available, it's in everyone's interest to trade, under
the "caparative advantage" principle which underlies the dogma of free trade.
However, there isn't free trade for Iran, China, Russia, N. Korea, etc. So, they have to
improvise. Some countries, like China, are re-directing trade inwards. If Google won't
license the Android OS to Huawei, for example, Huawei makes their own smart phone OS.
So the question becomes "why hasn't Iran instituted a crash program to build Iran-based
companies to enable Iran to substitute Iran-manufactured/sourced products for ones formerly
obtained abroad?
Russia and China have both done this very successfully, and there are many economic as
well as "security" reasons to do it.
With respect to the "selling oil to end-users .vs. to brokers" the end-user would probably
prefer to buy direct from the source, to cut out the middle-man's fee. I don't see how that
presents an obstacle to buying Iran's oil.
Lastly, if it's a question of whether or not the oil can be delivered, the rest of the
world won't side with the U.S. if we seize cargoes on the high seas. That's what the fiasco
with the Grace 1 demonstrated. Furthermore, the sales contract could simply specify that the
goods are to be picked up dockside @ Iran, transferring the transport risk to the buyer (e.g.
China, for ex). Nobody is going to hijack a Chinese oil freighter.
Another farthings worth of comment.
For the last point, I see two possibilities. First, the Neocons in Washington may not care
what the rest of the world thinks, under the (fallacious) assumption that America IS the
world. Second, the 'disruptions' of oil sea transport can be carried out by "arms length"
third parties, viz. the recent spate of tanker 'minings' in the Persian Gulf being 'sourced'
to dissident elements within the Arab world. So, some "Somali Pirates" would be the obvious
choice for 'hijackings' of Chinese flagged tankers, or "Yemeni Pirates," or "Baluch Pirates,"
etc. etc.
In reference to other points you raise, there is a lag time in the implementation of
industrial policy. During WW2, America already had heavy industry available for war
production. The lag time was determined by the length of time needed for retooling of those
extant factories. When there is no extant heavy industry plant available, the lag time
becomes much longer. Having worked in commercial construction during my life, I attest that
planning, preparing for, and building industrial capacity, takes years. Iran could well be in
the middle of an industrial building phase right now. Add to the usual worries attendant to
industrial construction the worry of some outside hostile actor coming over and bombing your
shiny new factory back to rubble and you have added a new layer of complexity to the
endeavour. Air defense for industrial base has not usually been part of an average country's
economic planning regime.
One reason I can think of as to why Russia and China have embarked on an "internalization"
program way in advance of, say, Iran's is that the two former State Socialist countries have
weathered nearly a centuries worth of hostility, both rhetorical and military, emanating from
the West. Their latest 'internalization' programs could be the result of several generations
worth of institutional memory residing within the nomenklaturas of the two states.
Iran, on the other hand, has had an up and down relationship with the West.
At one time, a client state of the West, at another, in a fiercely nationalistic
confrontation with the West, in both regimes, a trading partner with the West as far as oil
goes.
The promise of present day Iran for the world in general is that it is finally trying to
forge an independent self-identity. Someone in power in the West must realize that, if Iran
slips the leash of the West, then other countries will follow. Nothing less than Western
Hegemony is at stake.
Or if oil is progressively transcended and deleted from more and more of the world's
energy portfolio.
That would give those who "don't need oil anymore" some new post-petro freedom of action.
One area where oil will be needed for the foreseeable future is in the lubrication of
moving parts. I have yet to see a true "Buckey Ball" lubricant on the market.
Good question. No answers here, but another observation and question:
While I don't endorse it, what about the legitimacy of Nation-states to pursue their best
interest, and the implied hubris/ arrogance that counters with actions and policy precluding
that autonomy? The Great Game ™?
Cuba blockades. They have done pretty well, despite nearly 70 years of very harsh
blockade. Look how much the US has punished the least amongst the Cuban human beings, some
for their entire life
Venezuela?
North Korea and Iran aspire to have the ultimate WMD. Why does the US get to have the say?
My measuring stick senses that the US hardly holds the moral high ground.
Then, the counter-point that we have never tried in the recent history of man–global
cooperation and no more war. The image of our earth floating in space, the big blue marble,
akin to a Star Trek enterprise ship, with all of the war-ing beyond-memory enemies all on
board. Give every deck and wing some nukes. Avail them with the information on how to
conserve and create renewable energy, to grow and put food by, to access clean drinking
water, modest but efficient shelter, and access to books, education, and the arts. Awareness
of ecology, full life cycle of plants, animals, and man-made products. The experiment that we
must ever allow. Sharing.
The big question in my mind is, why does the rest of the world allow that sort of
bullying, or more to the point, allow themselves to be vulnerable to it? Somebody's been
careless. We now see both Russia and China taking steps to be more autarkic, and even the EU
waking up to the danger. It may be they just haven't had time to develop new
institutions.
The rest-of-the-world could straight-up GIVE Iran the survival-critical things that Iran
would otherwise have to import. The rest of the world could do that in return for Iran
staying in the agreement till the next American election. This would give everyone time to
see if America would elect a pro-deal-ante Democrat to the Presidency.
( This would require the rest of the world to actually be willing to give Iran that kind
of c"cold-war-support" aid till the American election. It would also require the IranGov to
be willing to stay in the agreement until the American election results shake out. It would
need a lot of people to be willing to take a lot of slow long-term chances. Would everyone
involved be willing to do that in a harmonized way?)
The EU LeaderLords have no bravery and no taste for conflict with the TrumpAdmin. Not only
will they not lift a fear-quivering finger to save the accords, they will not even buy and
donate to Iran the goods and services Iran would need to survive until the next American
election.
It is too bad that Rouhani ( and his boss the Supreme Leader Khamenei) cannot have a
remote long-distance Vulcan mind-meld with the DemParty nominee-wannabes in this country.
Because if they could have such a remote long-distance Vulcan mind-meld, here is what they
might well decide. Every DemParty nominee-wannabe would PROMise ( and MEAN IT) to take
America right back into the JCPOA if elected, and to rescind every re-sanction that the
TrumpAdmin imposed. And Rouhani ( at Supreme Leaders's direction) would agree to keep Iran
"in" the JCPOA till the winner of the American Presidential election were announced. Maybe
such a remote mind-meld agreement openly and overtly stated might raise the chances of a
DemParty victory and lower the chances of an Iran-America war.
US Sanctions Are Designed to Kill
By Kevin Cashman and Cavan Kharrazian
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif recently visited the Group of Seven (G7) at
the invitation of French president Emmanuel Macron, in what was seen as an overture to the
Trump administration to negotiate over sanctions that have plagued the Iranian economy. Back
in 2018, after months of increasingly hostile rhetoric, the US government withdrew from the
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or "Iran Deal," and imposed a "maximum pressure" campaign
that included unilateral, economy-wide sanctions. The Iran Deal was an agreement that
provided Iran relief from existing sanctions in exchange for limits on its enrichment of
uranium, among other concessions. These sanctions hampered trade between the European Union,
whose leaders have sought to salvage the Iran Deal.
When President Trump reimposed sanctions in November 2018, it cut off Iran's oil exports
and access to the international financial system. At the time, he announced that Iran could
comply with new US demands or face "economic isolation." Additional US sanctions issued since
then have specifically targeted a thousand individuals and entities with the goal of reducing
Iran's oil revenues to "zero." More recently, Trump said that although "[Iran's] economy is
crashing...it's very easy to straighten [it] out or it's very easy for us to make it a lot
worse."
And so, according to Trump himself, the United States has the power to solve -- or
exacerbate -- Iran's current economic problems. What is left unsaid, including by much of the
media, is that sanctions that "crash" the economy are an attack on the country's civilian
population and create widespread human misery. Indeed, they appear to be contributing to
widespread shortages of medicine and medical equipment, particularly affecting cancer
patients. In Venezuela, which is under a similar US sanctions regime, there have been similar
effects, with more than 40,000 people estimated to have died from 2017 to 2018 due to the
"collective punishment" inflicted on them.
Yet other statements from US administration officials often contend that sanctions have
negligible economic or social effects on the general population of Iran. For example, the US
State Department's special representative for Iran, Brian Hook, recently denied that US
sanctions on Iran affect the availability of medicine and agricultural products. In this
argument, Hook divorces the connection between the economic damage caused by sanctions in
Iran and the lack of basic necessities like medicine and food, preferring to instead lay
blame on the Iranian government, not what the Trump administration calls "targeted"
sanctions.
Are the sanctions causing Iran's economic problems, or simply a way to punish individual
actors? Answering this question requires an examination of the impact sanctions have on
Iran's economy and the mechanisms by which sanctions work -- two important areas of inquiry
that seldom receive attention in the US press.
Sanctions are severely impacting Iran's oil production
Looking at Iran's oil sector, which has been directly targeted by the sanctions regime, is
a good way to get a sense of how the sanctions have affected the country's economy, which
remains dependent on the production and export of oil, according to a number of indicators.
For example, around 70 percent of Iran's merchandise exports consists of fuel. Although this
dependence on oil production has decreased over the last decade, in large part due to
government efforts to diversify the economy, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported
in March 2018 (before the announcement of the resumption of US sanctions) that oil revenues
accounted for nearly 40 percent of government revenues in fiscal year 2016–17, and
projected a similar number for fiscal year 2017–18 (assuming, then, that there would be
no new sanctions). Clearly, a large reduction in Iran's oil production would pose significant
challenges to its ability to provide services to its people, as well as maintain essential
imports including some foreign-produced medicines and other healthcare and life-saving
goods.
Unsurprisingly, Iran's oil production moves very much in tandem with the enactment and
repeal of broad sanctions over time (see the figure below). US sanctions in 2010 affected
investment in Iran's oil infrastructure and prohibited some international transactions. Then,
in early 2012, the United States and the European Union banned oil imports from Iran and
froze its central bank assets. Shortly thereafter, oil production plummeted and reached its
nadir in late 2012. After the Iran Deal was enacted in early 2016 and US and EU sanctions
were repealed, Iran's oil production rapidly recovered to 2007 levels. This level of
production was maintained until the announcement by the Trump administration in May 2018 that
the United States was withdrawing from the Iran Deal. Since May 2018, Iran's oil production
has fallen precipitously; it is down by over 40 percent over the last year. Waivers the
United States issued to purchasers of Iranian oil have expired over the last few months,
eliminating one of the remaining factors that put upward pressure on production.
[Graph]
To get a sense of the size of these impacts, it's useful to compare what they would look
like in the US economy. If applied to the United States, they would be comparable to a budget
reduction of $521 billion or 16 percent in 2018. However, this would also represent about 85
percent of nonmilitary discretionary spending. While the United States would be able to
borrow or create money to fill this deficit, Iran has much less capacity to do either without
triggering more economic difficulties.
Broader economic impacts are also visible. The IMF lowered growth projections for Iran due
to the "crippling effect of tighter US sanctions" in its July update. Based on this
projection, it is estimated that the economy will contract by 9.3 percent in 2019. This is a
downward revision from a previous projection in April of a decline of 6.0 percent. (Before
the sanctions, the economy was projected to grow by 4.0 percent.) Other indicators also
worsened after the reimposition of sanctions: the unemployment rate is estimated to be 25
percent; inflation has risen to 80 percent; and the currency has lost over half its
value.
Sanctions are exacerbating social problems
The main mechanism by which oil production has fallen is the same mechanism that prevents
Iran from importing food and medicine: Iran cannot find buyers for its oil on the open
market, just like it cannot buy food or medicine on the open market. In effect, it is cut off
from the US-dominated international financial system.
Uniquely, the United States exerts broad control over international banking transactions.
One way is via the SWIFT and CHIPS systems, which handle the vast majority of those
transactions. The SWIFT system, which provides a common communication system for banks, is
controlled by US banks, which own the majority of the system and have officials on its board.
On top of that, despite not being located in the United States, SWIFT makes all of the
system's data available to the US government, even if those transactions do not involve the
United States. The CHIPS system, which provides communication as well as settlement
functions, is governed by US law, has many US banks as owners, and is directly overseen by US
authorities. These systems rely on a network of correspondent banks -- which link banks that
might not have relationships with one another -- to complete transactions. The apex of the
correspondent system is the New York Federal Reserve Bank, under the control of US banking
authorities, which also serves as a lender of last resort to other central banks.
A system designed in this way ensures that banks with no relationship with each other
still can transact in a common currency (dollars) via a common bank (the New York Fed) in an
agreed-upon framework (SWIFT and CHIPS). However, it also means that the United States has
disproportionate power over transactions. Formally, the United States government, via the
Office of Foreign Assets Control, can prohibit transactions involving Iran to pass through
systems and banks in which it has jurisdiction. More informally, the US government can
pressure SWIFT, other central banks, correspondent banks, and even specific firms to adopt
policies of refusing to do business with Iran. Since these players fear retribution from US
authorities (e.g., being sanctioned themselves), they are usually unwilling to take the risk
of doing business with Iran unless they have no other business that might involve the United
States or financial entities that can be pressured by the United States.
Because the international banking system is designed in this way, US sanctions on the
Iranian economy effectively mean that not only can Iran not easily sell oil on the open
market, it cannot easily buy food or medicine either, even if the latter are nominally
exempt, as Hook says. This is because sanctioned Iranian banks and officials are ultimately
involved in these transactions in the same way that they are with oil, often by virtue of the
position they hold in the Iranian banking system. It is telling that hours after an October
2018 ruling by the International Court of Justice ordering the United States to "remove any
impediments" that affect the importation of medicine, food, and civil aviation products
(including impediments to payments and other transfers of funds related to these products),
the US withdrew from the treaty that formed the basis of the ruling, instead of complying
with it. Unsurprisingly, efforts at importing food and medicine via the technical exemptions
that do exist often fail. It appears that the technical exemptions are used more to deflect
criticism of sanctions overall than to actually permit the importation of food and
medicine.
But on top of these issues, even if food and medicine were, in reality, exempt from the
sanctions regime, the "crippling effect" on Iran's economy would impact the Iranians'
financial ability to acquire food and medicine anyway. Iran would have fewer resources to
devote to domestic food and medicine production, and many fewer resources to import the same
products.
Adapting to US sanctions
It is surprisingly difficult to bypass this financial system because it is so entrenched,
although it is not impossible. For example, countries might set up a bilateral or
multilateral system to carry out transactions in their own currencies and settle accounts in
a currency other than the dollar. Iran could negotiate bilateral trades with India: in
exchange for oil, Iran would accept rupees, and then use those rupees to purchase Indian
products. The downsides are that mechanisms would be needed to support these transactions
(i.e., establishing parallel payment and banking functions). In addition, Iran would need to
find a use for the rupees it received in exchange for oil, usually by buying Indian goods
(this is because it would be difficult to exchange rupees for other currencies on the open
market due to the sanctions).
One promising new multilateral mechanism, dubbed INSTEX, would allow trade between EU
countries and Iran without relying on direct transfer of funds or the use of the US-dominated
financial system. While in its beginning stage it will only deal with humanitarian trade,
INSTEX's model could potentially create a new path to buy Iranian oil. It is telling,
however, that EU countries set up an entirely different financial mechanism to use for
humanitarian trade, rather than risk drawing the ire of the United States by using
established channels.
Yet these alternative mechanisms are not immune from US influence either. In recent cases
where countries have announced intentions to develop alternative trade arrangements, the
United States has applied political pressure to nip them in the bud. This involves overt
economic threats as well as rhetoric urging countries like India to refrain from using a
"narrow bilateral lens" in economic trade.
In the meantime, Iran is able to sell some oil to countries such as China, Russia, and
India; either to pay back debt or because some banks in these countries do not have a
significant business that can be impacted by US retaliation. It also has had some success in
covertly transferring oil to buyers, but this does not always escape US control. Similarly,
Iran is able to maintain imports of some items, like bananas, outside of the established
financial system primarily due to the experience and ingenuity of importers, although usually
at lower volumes.
It should be clear that the US is uniquely positioned to choke off imports and exports
from a targeted country using sanctions, with deep, negative consequences for that country's
economy as well as severe constraints on its government's ability to address economic
problems.
In Iran's case, US sanctions mean that production of oil -- a vital export -- is in free
fall, unemployment is on the rise, and record inflation due to scarce imports has made it
harder for everyday Iranians to buy basic goods and access life-saving medicine. Recent
reports have detailed harrowing stories of hospitals running out of crucial cancer medicines
and patients struggling to afford or even find their prescriptions. As in Venezuela and other
targeted countries, US sanctions undoubtedly have a human toll associated with them, which
will only grow as time goes on. This human impact is one of the main reasons that experts in
international law argue unilateral sanctions are illegal under the United Nations Charter and
international human rights law.
While Iran has been exploring alternative ways of exporting and importing goods, it's
unclear what more it could do absent relief from sanctions. Even so, US officials will
typically place responsibility for the social and economic problems resulting from the
sanctions on the Iranian government, as Hook does. But Trump's comments are more revealing.
Sanctions only work because they cause suffering in the first place. In effect, the United
States is risking -- and sometimes ending -- the lives of thousands of Iranians with the hope
that the Iranian government acquiesces to its demands or is replaced by a more compliant
government. That the United States could carry out such a strategy in the first place should
raise serious questions among concerned US citizens and within the international community,
especially among those who respect international law.
Wages Have Stagnated for Low- and Mid-wage Workers and Pay Disparities by Race, Ethnicity,
and Gender Persist
Earnings for California's workers at the low end and middle of the wage scale have
generally declined or stagnated for decades. In 2018, the median hourly earnings for workers
ages 25 to 64 was $21.79, just 1% higher than in 1979, after adjusting for inflation ($21.50,
in 2018 dollars) (Figure 1). Inflation-adjusted hourly earnings for low-wage workers, those
at the 10th percentile, increased only slightly more, by 4%, from $10.71 in 1979 to $11.12 in
2018. Much of this increase occurred in recent years, likely due to the rising state minimum
wage as well as the improving job market. In contrast with the experience of low- and
mid-wage workers, high-wage workers -- those at the 90th percentile -- saw their hourly
earnings increase by 43%, after adjusting for inflation, from $40.19 in 1979 to $57.65 in
2018. These hourly wage disparities translate into sizeable income gaps. Someone earning at
the 90th percentile in 2018 would earn an annual salary of $115,300 if she worked full-time,
year-round, while someone working just as much but earning at the 10th percentile would have
an annual income of just $22,240. (As striking as this income gap is, disparities in wealth
are even greater.)
-----
The Cal Budget Center reports bad news. I can hire construction workers for a buck above
minimum wage, $11, vs the $10 they got in 1979. Why are they coming to California to live in
poverty? For half of them, they were born in California , the other half were born in either
Central America or the Northeast US.
ODESSA, Texas (Reuters) - Oil producers and their suppliers are cutting budgets, staffs
and production goals amid a growing consensus of forecasts that oil and gas prices will stay
low for several years.
---
Debt deflation. The interest charges they pay derived from the period between 2010 and
2014 when opil prices remained in the $80 range. The oil companies were relying on bad
theory.
What about 'inflation' are things getting bigger? Let me pick a price index, say CPI, and
compare that to oil prices. (click,click.. the sound of me doing a Fred graph).
There bingo, CPI generally tracks oil, mainly because of something called entropy makes
energy a part of everything. The CPI eventually reverts to oil index. But oil has not really
changed in price much since 2015, while CPI kept on rising. So expect a large dose of debt
deflation.
"... Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is ..."
Pat Buchanan continues to be one of the few publicly visible political analysts currently
active who dares to tell it like it is when it comes to Israel's power in America. His
article
last week "Will Israel's War Become America's War" as always gets to the heart of the
problem, i.e. that the completely contrived "special relationship" with Israel could easily
lead the United States into another totally unnecessary war or even a series of wars in the
Middle East.
Pat starts with "President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the
shoot-down of a U.S. Predator drone to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a war. But the same
cannot be said of Bibi Netanyahu." He observes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing
re-election on September 17 th , and though most polls indicate that he will win,
the opposition to him is strong based on his personal corruption and his pandering to the
country's most extreme right-wing parties. So Bibi is concerned that he might lose and even go
to jail and there is nothing like a little war to make a leader look strong and righteous, so
he is lashing out at all his neighbors in hopes that one or more of them will be drawn into
what would be for Israel, given its massive military superiority, a manageable
confrontation.
Buchanan sums up Netanyahu's recent escalation, writing that on "Saturday, Israel launched a
night attack on a village south of Damascus to abort what Israel claims was a plot by Iran's
Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force Sunday, two Israeli drones crashed outside the media offices
of Hezbollah in Beirut. Israel then attacked a base camp of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine-General Command in north Lebanon. Monday, Israel admitted to a strike
on Iranian-backed militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq. And Israel does not deny
responsibility for last month's attacks on munitions dumps and bases of pro-Iran militias
[also] in Iraq. Israel has also confirmed that, during Syria's civil war, it conducted hundreds
of strikes against pro-Iranian militias and ammunition depots to prevent the transfer of
missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon."
So, Israel has staged literally hundreds of attacks against targets in Lebanon, Syria and
now Iraq while it is also at the same time shooting scores of unarmed demonstrators inside Gaza
every Friday. Netanyahu has also threatened both perennial foe Iran and the Houthi rebels in
Yemen. As the Jewish state is not at war with any of those countries it is engaging in war
crimes. Both Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Force are vowing
revenge.
Pat Buchanan goes on to make the case that Netanyahu is willy-nilly pulling the United
States into a situation from which there is no exit. Indeed, one might well conclude that the
trap has already been sprung as the Trump Administration is reflexively blaming Israel's
actions on Iran. The Jewish state's escalation produced a telephone call to Bibi by American
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo promising that the United States would unconditionally support
Israel. Vice President Mike Pence
also joined in , boasting of a "great conversation" with Netanyahu and tweeting that "The
United State fully supports Israel's right to defend itself from imminent threats. Under
President @realDonaldTrump, America will always stand with Israel!"
So, if a war in the Middle East does begin one can count on a number of developments in
Washington, all of which favor Netanyahu. As Pompeo and Pence have made clear, the Trump
Administration already accepts that whatever Israel does is fully justified and there are even
reports that the White House will endorse Israeli
annexation of all the illegal settlements on the West Bank at some point either before
or
immediately after the upcoming Knesset election to help Bibi. And don't look for any
dissent from even the most extreme views developing inside the White House or the State
Department. The president has completely surrendered to the Israel Lobby while National
Security Adviser John Bolton, Pence and Pompeo are all outspoken supporters of war with Iran.
And nearly all the important government posts dealing with the Middle East are staffed by
Jewish Zionists, to include the president's son-in-law and two Donald Trump lawyers. The most
recent addition to that sorry line-up is Peter Berkowitz, who has been appointed head of the
Policy Planning Staff at State. Berkowitz studied at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is
co-founder and director of
the "Israel Program on Constitutional Government."
And Congress would also be singing the "amen" chorus in support of U.S. intervention to help
the country it has ridiculously but nevertheless repeatedly described as America's "best friend
and closest ally." The occupied mainstream media would echo that line, as would the millions of
Christian Zionists and every one of the more than 600 American Jewish organizations that in one
way, shape or form support Israel.
Buchanan warns that the U.S. could find itself in real trouble, particularly given the
attacks on Iraq, where Washington still has 5,000 troops, hugely outnumbered by the local
pro-Iranian militias. And American aircraft carriers could find themselves vulnerable if they
dare to enter the Straits of Hormuz or Persian Gulf, where they would be in range of the
Iranian batteries of anti-ship missiles. He concludes that a war for Israel that goes badly
could cost Trump the election in 2020, asking " have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation
should ever cede to another, even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their
choosing but not of ours?"
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National
Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that
seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
The president has completely surrendered to the Israel Lobby while National Security
Adviser John Bolton
To be fair, Trump never promised to curb Israeli aggression during his campaign. He promised
to back them and that's what he's doing. So this suggestion that "he's letting us all down"
is just silly. Now, on other stuff, yeah, you can make a case. And let's be real, if Jeb Bush
or Bernie Sanders or Hillary were in office they'd be backing "our ally in the Middle East"
too.
@Lot Iran was invited by
Syrian legit gov. Lebanon was prevented from total rout by Hezbollah from the actions of the
evil Zionist .Hezbollah sought and received help to confront evil Zionist. Who ever asked the
Jews to show up in ME anywhere in the ME? Who? Yemen is a war that ahs been fought by Houthis
. Houthis has been there for centuries They are fighting a war instigated by Israeli vassal
Saudi . Iraq has been turned into dust by Jew run USA attack It is slowly coming to life.
Now don't read the script from the middle Start from the beginning . Start from the
beginning ad be ready for the end . End will not be written by devious Jewish country .
"'But there is an even more important reason to give two cheers for Israel and to think of
it, despite its excesses, as exemplary: Israel is nationalist."'
Maybe McConnell is paid to praise Israel or maybe he just your typical simple minded
tunnel vision conservative. I gotta say my kind of conservative values, or maybe they should
be called traditional values will likely stay the same but what wont stay the same is my
voting for any of these conservative stupids.
I'm a registered Independent voter independent because I believed Americans should be
independent of 'political parties' and not follow them like sheep, but vote for the closest
thing they can get to a candidate of good character, some brains and a sense of fairness for
the people. I voted for the actual America first GOP presidents, the elder Bush I and Nixon,
otoh I also voted for the Dem America first presidents Kennedy and Carter.
Independent voters like myself make up 37% of registered voters in the US .that makes both
the dems and repubs 'minority parties' ..neither of them can win without us.
Independent voters got to be independent because they paid more attention to the big picture
and issues in politics overall than the followers of the parties .most of them are more
'traditional', including objecting to US entanglement with foreign nations. .the exact
opposite of current GOP conservatism.
So it is absolute nitwittery to try and attract traditional voters by championing Israel as a
model for US nationalism. Israel gives nationalism a bad name. It is asking us to step in a
pile of steaming cow shit to pattern the US after Israel.
A lot of these Israeli provocations are, as noted, Netanyahu electioneering. Hence, they are
likely to stop or be diminished (the Gaza border massacres excepted) if Bibi either wins the
election and can form a new government or loses and is driven from power with the opposition
forming a new government. Worst case scenario is a continuation of the present situation with
Bibi unable to form a government and having to fight yet another election. This would result
in still further Israeli escalation until finally Iran or Hezbollah retaliates and the US is
dragged in. Or he might just formally annex the West Bank and drive out the Palestinians to
the applause of Trump and his supporters.
There are other dangers as well, especially the collapse of Saudi Arabia and the UAE as a
result of their defeat in Yemen. The US is sending 5,000 troops to SA just in time to defend
the House of Saud from a possible overthrow or to fight on behalf of one part of that
sociopathic family against another part.
"President Donald Trump, who canceled a missile strike on Iran after the shoot-down of a
U.S. Predator drone to avoid killing Iranians, may not want a war. But the same cannot be
said of Bibi Netanyahu." He observes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is facing
re-election on September 17th, and though most polls indicate that he will win, the
opposition to him is strong based on his personal corruption and his pandering to the
country's most extreme right-wing parties. So Bibi is concerned that he might lose and even
go to jail and there is nothing like a little war to make a leader look strong and
righteous, so he is lashing out at all his neighbors in hopes that one or more of them will
be drawn into what would be for Israel, given its massive military superiority, a
manageable confrontation.
It's a good analysis, but a little different to the subjugation of US interests to Israeli
ones that is normally talked about inasmuch Netanyahu personal advantage is the key factor. I
don't think many people in Israel would approve of Netanyahu doing something so obvious as
getting Israel into an inconclusive war just before an election. Especially as the war is one
that might bring the US in but would be unlikely to motive the US to destroy the Iranian
regime, wiche had time to make their facilities (nuclear) too duplicated and dispersed for
airstrikes to work.
The Palestinians are the ones Israelis are happy to get tough with, even the supposedly
leftist Ehud Barak has said the Palestinians of Gaza must be deterred more. Talk of war with
Iran is just that, it really is, unless they do something stupid.
For Israel, getting the US to totally crush Iran would be great, but that will require
America to be provoked by Iran, which is something they are loath to do. Iran is not going to
fight a war they cannot possibly hope to win if they can help it, and they have said there
will not be one. I don't think Bolton is any influence on Trump, and Pompeo is a
never-Trumper turned Trump boot licker rather that a force in the administration in his own
right.
He concludes that a war for Israel that goes badly could cost Trump the election in
2020, asking " have we ceded to Netanyahu something no nation should ever cede to another,
even an ally: the right to take our country into a war of their choosing but not of
ours?"
Trump never loses sight of his own self interest. A war before the Israeli election is not
going to help Trump win reelection, and he did say recently he was open to talks with Iran,
which left a distraught Netanyahu unsuccessfully trying to get through to Trump and gave Ehud
Barack one of his few opportunities to criticise the utility for Israel of Netanyahu's
relationship with Trump.
"... As for the Israelis, they don't want the man who thinks he might be "King of Israel" talking to the Hitlerite Persians. They suddenly sprayed Iran's local Middle East proxies with drone-fired rockets – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – just in case the wretched, financially broken and inflation-doomed Iranians were tempted to chat to the crackpot in the White House. But the Israelis wasted their ammunition. Rouhani is not mad. America has to drop its sanctions against Iran if Trump wants to talk, he said. ..."
"... And when Rouhani made it clear that he was not interested in "photo-ops" – an obvious allusion to the pictures of Trump and Little Rocket Man – what did the po-faced Washington Post ..."
"... Indeed, had Ahmadinejad's further political ambitions not been firmly crushed by his country's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, we might just have witnessed a meeting between two of the world's leading political nutcases. Ahmadinejad, it may be recalled, was the Iranian who claimed that a holy cloud was suspended over his head for 20 minutes when he addressed the United Nations in New York. Now that is a phenomenon which Trump may also have experienced – although at least he had the good sense not to tell us of it. ..."
"... In the first eight months after Rouhani became president in 2013, the Iranian state hanged at least 537 people. In January of 2014, he had, according to a report in the Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat ..."
"... When the shah of Iran wanted to acquire nuclear technology in 1974, according to documents in the US National Security Archive, he said that Iran had an "inalienable right" to the nuclear cycle and that it would not accept obligations "dictated by the nuclear-have nations". ..."
"... In theory, what Macron is trying to do, if Le Monde ..."
"... But what Macron is really doing – which is what almost every EU leader is doing – is trying to preserve the peace of the Middle East long enough for the Americans to elect a serious, intelligent, boring and moderately honest political leader to replace the mentally unbalanced and very dangerous current holder of the highest office in the US. ..."
"... Robert Fisk writes for the Independent , where this column originally appeared. ..."
History in the Middle East is unkind to us westerners. Just when we thought we were the good
guys and the Iranians were the bad guys, here comes the ghostly, hopeless possibility of a
Trump-Rouhani summit to remind us that the apparent lunatic is the US president and the
rational, sane leader who is supposed to talk to him is the president of the Islamic Republic
of Iran . All these
shenanigans are fantasy, of course – like the "imminent" war between America and Iran
– of which more later.
As for the Israelis, they don't want the man who thinks he might be "King of Israel"
talking to the Hitlerite Persians. They suddenly sprayed Iran's local Middle East proxies with
drone-fired rockets – in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – just in case the wretched,
financially broken and inflation-doomed Iranians were tempted to chat to the crackpot in the
White House. But the Israelis wasted their ammunition. Rouhani is not mad. America has to drop
its sanctions against Iran if Trump wants to talk, he said.
It still amazes me that we have to take all this stuff at face value. No sooner had Trump
waffled on about Rouhani being "the great negotiator" than we saw all the White House
correspondents dutifully taking this nonsense down in their notebooks – as if the
American president was presidential, as if the old dream-bag was real, as if what he was saying
had the slightest bearing on reality.
And when Rouhani made it clear that he was not interested in "photo-ops" – an
obvious allusion to the pictures of Trump and Little Rocket Man – what did the po-faced
Washington Post tell us in its subsequent report? Why, that Rouhani had "dashed hopes
of a potential meeting with his US counterpart". Ye Gods! What "hopes" do they still have in
their homegrown crackpot president after these two and a half years of his threats and lies and
racism? Have they learned nothing?
It's as if – for the American media – Trump is unhinged in Washington but a
Kissinger the moment he lands in Biarritz (or London or Riyadh or Panmunjom or a Scottish golf
course, or perhaps, one day, Greenland). And Rouhani – who may be a "great negotiator"
but is also a very ruthless man – is therefore supposed to play the role of Iran's
previous president, the raving, crazed, Holocaust-denying Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Indeed, had Ahmadinejad's further political ambitions not been firmly crushed by his
country's "supreme leader", Ayatollah Khamenei, we might just have witnessed a meeting between
two of the world's leading political nutcases. Ahmadinejad, it may be recalled, was the Iranian
who claimed that a holy cloud was suspended over his head for 20 minutes when he addressed the
United Nations in New York. Now that is a phenomenon which Trump may also have experienced
– although at least he had the good sense not to tell us of it.
Ahmadinejad, you may also remember, was the president whose claim to have won the 2009
presidential elections brought millions of protestors onto the streets of Iranian cities until
they were brutalised and imprisoned into submission. His cheeky smile, chipmunk eyes and
Spanish armada beard could not persuade Iranians that the "alternative facts" of his
presidential victory were real.
Everyone knew that Ahmadinejad would never be given a finger on any nuclear button –
many doubted if he knew the difference between nuclear physics and electricity – but he
provided at the time a hate figure to rival Gaddafi or any other of the ravers of the Middle
East.
But now Trump wears Ahmadinejad's international mantle of insanity and the Iranian
presidential seat is today held by a far more pragmatic individual. For let's not be romantic
about Hassan
Rouhani . Back in 1999, when he was a humble deputy chief of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, Rouhani condemned pro-democracy demonstrators as " muhareb " and "
mofsad " (corrupt on earth) – opponents of the Islamic Republic, whose
punishment would be death.
In the first eight months after Rouhani became president in 2013, the Iranian state
hanged at least 537 people. In January of 2014, he had, according to a report in the Arabic
daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat , visited Ahwaz to deal with "a number of sensitive files"
left untouched by Ahmadinejad. These included Hashem Shaabani and Hadi Rashedi – both
human rights activists in the minority Arab community in southwest Iran – who had been
condemned to death for "waging war on God", "spreading corruption on earth" and "questioning
the principle of velayat-e faqih" (guardianship of the jurist).
Shaabani's poetry, in both Persian and Arabic, was famous; he was a founder of an institute
which encouraged Arabic literature and culture among Iranians. Rouhani signed off on the
executions; Shaabani and Rashedi were hanged in a still-unidentified prison.
But it is Rouhani's negotiating skill which has apparently impressed Trump, who also has
little time for minorities. And when you recall that one of Trump's Republican predecessors in
the White House, Ronald Reagan, arranged for the Israelis to deliver missiles to Iran in 1985
in return for the release of US hostages in Beirut, you can see why Trump might think it
strange that Rouhani would turn down a meeting with him. After all, during the Iran-Contra
affair the then Iranian speaker of parliament, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, was deeply involved in
the enterprise.
But even if Rouhani was fool enough to flirt with Trump's offer – which he was not
– his fate would have been similar to the poet Shaabani's if he had dared to talk to the
US president without the full restoration of the nuclear treaty.
It doesn't take much spreading of "corruption on earth" in Iran – let alone disavowing
the views of the Supreme Leader Khamanei – to catapult a learned cleric into prison.
Having learned from his foreign minister in Biarritz what the American deal was supposed to be,
Rouhani wisely did not touch it. The US had broken the nuclear treaty and reimposed sanctions
– so Trump would have to rejoin the treaty signatories and lift sanctions for any hope of
a meeting with the president of the Islamic Republic.
Of course, the Iranians will no more go to war with America than America will go to war with
Iran. We all know that – except for those who blast us all with "brink-of-war" scenarios
in the Gulf. We've been through Iranian ship-minings in 1987 without declarations of war.
Besides, what's so new about an Iran insisting on its "sovereign" right to peaceful nuclear
power?
When the shah of Iran wanted to acquire nuclear technology in 1974, according to
documents in the US National Security Archive, he said that Iran had an "inalienable right" to
the nuclear cycle and that it would not accept obligations "dictated by the nuclear-have
nations".
Which is pretty much what Iran did accept in the nuclear agreement which Trump tore
up on behalf of the United States. And I still have a clipping from The Times of
November 1972, in which my then colleague David Housego was reporting from Tehran that the shah
had declared that Iran's defensive frontiers extended beyond the Persian Gulf into the Indian
Ocean!
In five years, the shah calculated, his arms build-up would make Iran the largest military
power in the Middle East. The shah ruled with torture and executions, was crazed about the
dangers of communism, and power-mad to the extent of celebrating his empire's rule in 1971 with
what he called "the biggest party on earth" in the ruins of Persepolis. How Trump would love to
have been there.
Well, Macron may be able to turn himself into the "Great G7 Intermediary", although all
others who have tangled with Iran have been brought low by the experience. Think poor old Jimmy
Carter, destroyed by the hostage-takers at the US embassy in Tehran. Think Reagan, almost
brought low by Irangate. Think Colonel Oliver North. Or envoy Robert McFarlane. Or Terry Waite.
Or Barack Obama, for that matter, his Iranian policy torn up by Trump.
In theory, what Macron is trying to do, if Le Monde has got it right, is
persuade Trump to allow Iran's principal petroleum importers to continue buying oil from the
Islamic Republic. This includes Turkey, China, Japan, India and South Korea. In return, Iran
would itself return to the original nuclear agreement. That's the message Macron sent back to
Tehran with Iran's foreign minister, who airbussed into Biarritz for his briefest of meetings
with the French president.
But what Macron is really doing – which is what almost every EU leader is doing
– is trying to preserve the peace of the Middle East long enough for the Americans to
elect a serious, intelligent, boring and moderately honest political leader to replace the
mentally unbalanced and very dangerous current holder of the highest office in the US.
Well, good luck to the Americans. For at present, they are confronting not the lunatic rogue
state which Messers Bolton and Pompeo have nightmared up for Trump, but a nation governed by
bravely defiant, ruthless, and – yes – devious men. For Iranians understand America
far better than Americans will ever understand Iran.
Pop on over to the BP spreadsheet and find the regional consumption tab. For some regions
there are countries broken out and for others, not. But on this tab you can get granularity
on what kind of oil, what constituent part of crude, was consumed.
Japan. The population decline is actually pretty recent -- only since 2010. Their decline
in consumption is popularly attributed to population reduction, and I have gotten this wrong,
too, but consumption decline has been since 1995 with population gain for 15 of those years.
In more detail, their consumption decline is not gasoline. They have increased gasoline burn
since 1995. (The Prius is the 2nd most popular car in Japan and it first went on sale in
1997, so Prius didn't kill gasoline burn, which has increased).
It's middle distillates and Fuel Oil that are way down. Stuff that fuels big commercial
engines. That's what has fallen. Fuel Oil is more than maritime bunker fuel. It powers big
stuff. There was a sharp uptick of Fuel Oil consumption . . of 44% in 2012 because it was
Fuel Oil that was called on to generate electricity when all the reactors were shut down
during the quake panic. But the reactors returned and Fuel Oil resumed its decline.
One last thing that could blow all those paras out of the water. Japan had until recently
more refinery capacity than internal consumption. It's a lot like Singapore. The crude comes
in and product exports and this seems to somehow corrupt all measurements. The govt recently
shut down many of the refineries. It wasn't voluntary. Gov't ordered. Now Japan has to import
fuels, not just crude. Quite a lot. Which likely confuses the consumption measurements
further.
Ok I read this blog quite regularly but now I'm confused. US oil production has actually
fallen since the start of the year?
Dennis, can you respond to that? I thought I was just reading in the last post that the
current completion rate in the Permian was enough to raise production for five more years or
so. July is probably skewed because of the hurricane, but what gives?
It's definitely slowing. See my first post on June monthly production. When you add all the
states with shale production, there is no growth from May to June. Yes, July should be down
significantly due to the hurricane, but I expect no growth from shale.
Dennis sees an increase, Ron sees it plunging. I see it flat for a few months, and slowly
trending down. Pick your poison.
Yes the increase is pretty small for tight oil over the next 5 years only an average
annual rate of increase of 344 kb/d for US tight oil from 2019 to 2024 for the flat
completion rate scenario. This is a far cry from the 1620 kb/d increase in US tight oil
output from Dec 2017 to Dec 2018, a factor of 4.7 times slower on average than the rapid rate
of increase in 2018.
No US C+C output in June 2019 was 12,082 kb/d and in Dec 2018 US C+C output was 12,038
kb/d, so output has risen, but not by much. Yes a flat completion rate could lead to a rise
in tight oil output until 2025, though conventional output could fall to offset this.
Conventional output has been falling of late as fewer new conventional wells have been
completed for the past 6 months.
The current financial strain on shale producers is likely to intensify as many companies that
took on debt after the 2016 oil slump face large debt maturities in the next four years. As
of July, about $9 billion was set to mature throughout the remainder of 2019, but about $137
billion will be due between 2020 and 2022, according to S&P.
Seems that there will be more bancurupt filings in the years to come.
What is interesting is the footnotes. The first one says: " The supply of existing oil
production naturally declines at an **estimated 7 percent per year** without further
investment. Significant investment is needed to offset this natural decline and meet the
projected demand growth." The 7 percent figure caught my eye.
Also see the footnote about the switch over to Biofuels but Biofuels are such a very small
amount.
Continuing to look at the Regional Consumption tab from the World Stat stuff.
There is this category called Others. BP defines it as:
" 'Others' consists of refinery gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), solvents, petroleum
coke, lubricants, bitumen, wax, other refined products and refinery fuel and loss."
This is not trivial afterthought. This is over 20% of the total oil consumption for nearly
all countries/regions. 24% for the whole world, and that deserves a !!!
It's 41% for India, also deserving a !!! I happen to know this derives from LPG, a hugely
popular transportation fuel in India.
China, 30%.
US 22.6%
India's total oil consumption last year was 5.9%. Light distillates had 10% growth,
gasoline 8.9%. Others, 6%. EVs and hybrids did nothing to gasoline burn there, which you
would expect for such a narrow niche product for rich people in year-round warm cities. They
didn't drive much anyway. And of course rural driving is a big thing in India, per the recent
item about political campaigns travelling place to place by road.
China's total oil consumption last year was +5.6%. Light distillates +7.3%. Kerosene/jet
fuel + 14% (!!!) Others, 7.1%.
And ditto.
As noted above Japan's consumption drop has been from lost economic activity, not
population, and it burns more gasoline today than in 1995, so Prius didn't do much there.
Their big loss is in middle distillates, because they shut down a lot of factories. Repeat,
population ROSE in Japan up to 2010. Only since then has it fallen and middle distillate
consumption (and Others consumption) has been falling steadily since 1995, even when
population was rising.
First you lose your economy, then you lose your food.
(Caveat about refinery exports from previous comment)
From the EIA monthly I see the US oil and condensate production was:
April 12. 123 Mbpd
May 12. 115 Mbpd ( – 8 000 bpd / 0,1%)
June 12. 082 Mbpd ( – 33 000 bpd/ 0,3%).
Will be very i teresting to see the production for July and August including new pipeline
capacity. To me it seems like the DUCS that was good have now been used, Baker Hughes drill
statistick document number of riggs still go down. In January EIA and Rystad believed US oil
production would reach 13 Mbpd in 4th Quartile 2019, the truth is this might already be below
12 Mbpd . As they told the growth in US shale have be funded by borrowed money , now
investors have far from get back what they where promissed, they are pissed off
There is no good real time data, at least not publicly available, on global stocks but US
stocks have declined so far this year ( https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCESTUS1&f=W
). It seems to me that we are starting to see the effect now on lower OPEC production (cut or
whatever reasons) and LTO not growing as fast as forecasted.
A quote from IEA's last OMR (
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/august/economic-woes-hold-sway-over-geopolitics.html
): "If the July level of OPEC crude oil production at 29.7 mb/d is maintained through 2019,
the implied stock draw in 2H19 is 0.7 mb/d, helped also by a slower rate of non-OPEC
production growth." Note that this assumes LTO-growth in US causing the market to be
oversupplied next year
The market sentiment is currently bearish on oil for whatever reason (US LTO growth,
economic slowdown, etc.), you can see this on the yield curve that Art provides, the curve
has become more flat ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDENJx2XUAIR5lC.png:large
). I find the herd mentality of the oil market interesting and would not be surprised if the
herd changes direction in a not too distant future. The big question mark I see is what will
happen with the Iran-deal if/when stocks continue to decline.
Even though Norway is "the darling of alternative transport", EV sales are still a small part
of their transportation mix. All-electric 7.8%, Plug-In hybrids, 3.6%, and Hybrids 4.0%.
Without the impact of EVs, their consumption would likely have been higher.
It looks like Nick Cunningham, the author of the article below, reads peakoilbarrel.com
"The more important point is that the oil industry is slowing down more generally.
Most oil forecasters expected explosive production growth to continue through this year
and into 2020. But with June U.S. production at 12.082 mb/d, output is only about 80,000 bpd
above levels seen at the end of 2018. In other words, growth has been pretty slow this
year.
Financial stress is really setting in, forcing drillers to cut back. The rig count fell by
12 in the last week of August, part of an ongoing slide since reaching a peak late last year.
Bankruptcies are on the rise. As the Wall Street Journal notes, an estimated 26 U.S. oil and
gas companies have declared bankruptcy this year, which is close to the full-year 2018 total.
More are expected.
Worse, there is a tsunami of debt that comes due in the years ahead. According to the WSJ,
roughly $9 billion worth of debt was set to mature over the second half of 2019. But a
whopping $137 billion in debt matures between 2020 and 2022, a massive total that stems from
the huge debt issuance following the oil market meltdown a few years ago. A serious reckoning
is just around the corner."
Raymond James recently estimated that over the last three years the U.S. decline rate for oil has doubled from
1.6 to 3.2 million barrels per day. The drilled but uncompleted well inventory ("DUC") is back to normal, so the
number of wells being drilled and the number of wells being completed is now about the same. We need over 12,000 new
horizontal oil wells completed each year to hold production flat and the number of completed wells will need to go up
each year.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA") forecast at the beginning of this year was that the U.S.
shale oil plays were just getting started and that production would increase by at least 2 million barrels of oil per
day ("MMBOPD") each year for several more years.
Now if you believe that U.S. shale production will increase by 2 million barrels per day each year for several
more years, then I have a bridge that I think you might be interested in. But let's just play "what if", or what if
it really did increase by 2 million barrels per day for the next five years.
According to the EIA's Drilling Productivity Report, December 2018 shale production, all basins, was 8,232,750
barrels per day and the legacy decline, for all basins, averaged 6.14 percent per month or 505,737 barrels per day.
Legacy decline of over one million barrels per day would be a crippling requirement of shale producers. But not to
worry, that is simply not going to happen. Now total US production did increase by two million barrels per day 2018.
In fact, according to the EI.s Monthly Energy Review, US production increased by 2,064,000 barrels per day in 2018.
But for the first 7 months of 2019, total US production has declined by 54,000 barrels per day.
USA production appears to have hit a snag. July production is now below November 2018 production.
In my opinion, legacy decline in shale production has reached a point where new production only replaces legacy
decline. In fact, legacy decline may have reached a point where it is crippling shale oil production.
Those who have followed this blog for years know that Texas oil production is reported by the Texas Railroad
Commission. But their data is very slow coming in, sometimes it is more than a year before all the data has come in.
However, Dean Fantazzini, Energy economist, Deputy Head of MSU's Chair of Econometrics and Mathematical Methods in
Economics, has developed a program that uses the vintage data to make a pretty good estimate of the actual data. His
past corrected data has been relatively accurate.
If Dr. Fantazzini's data is correct then Texas peaked in December 2018 and has declined by 280,000 by June.
All the below charts were created from the EIA's Drilling Productivity Report. The data is through September 2019
and the last few months is, of course, an estimate. Historically the estimate for those last few months has been
overestimated.
Notice the last six months is pretty much a straight line. That is because most of it is just an estimate.
It looks like the Permian is pretty much the story as far as US shale is concerned.
The Permian is now just over 50% of total US shale production.
Permian Legacy Decline has been slowly rising and now sits at about 6%.
Eagle Ford has the highest legacy decline rate, now about 8.5% per month.
It looks like shale production, outside the Permian, has pretty much hit the wall. Pay no attention to those last
four months. They are just the EIA's wild ass guess.
In conclusion: Very high legacy decline, now over 6% per month, is shale's Achilles heel. Of course, there are
other problems as well. Bankruptcies are rampant, running out of sweet spots and the price of oil is just not high
enough. It appears that the USA has peaked, or peaked until the price of oil rises at least $20 a month.
Dean's charts self correct after a couple of months. Good estimates. Red Queen is already catching up. And,
it will catch up faster the next six months from June, as most of the independents have severely cut back on
capex.
Your Wall Street journal link has a firewall. Never mind, I got through. Good post.
Pioneer has not only reduced its capex, it's reduced its workforce by 25%. Apache has given up on
the Alpine High, their biggest capex. It's 90 % gas, how stupid can you get? Yadda, yadda, Yadda. Just
google the company for capex, and put 2nd quarter 2019. Voila!
Your sure to get a positive statement from the company, but just concentrate on the capex going
forward. For example, we're losing money had over fist, translates to reduced operating expenses will
provide an increased return for 2019. Get serious. None of these companies are going to say, we are
screwed.
EOG could make it, most of the rest are totally screwed.
"I have no doubt in my mind that U.S. shale will peak, plateau and then decline like every other basin in
history," Al-Falih told reporters at OPEC's Vienna headquarters. "Until it does I think it's prudent for
those of us who have a lot at stake, and also for us who want to protect the global economy and provide
visibility going forward, to keep adjusting to it."
Dr. Raymond Pierrehumbert will be proven right belatedly.
The article does say US production still has an up side, but prices would have to be higher.
If there is
not enough supply then oil prices will obviously go higher as the did in 2003-2005 and in 2012-13.
US drilling rig count is very low at the moment being only 742, at it's highest recently the US could
have 1,400 drilling rigs working.
1,400 drilling rigs will certainly complete enough wells so new supply would exceed decline rates. When
oil prices are over $100 as they were in 2012 and the number of drilling rigs are 1,400 then you can wake me
up.
You want to focus on horizontal oil rigs. The count was as high as 1100, but many of those rigs
were lower power rigs no longer economic to operate, a lot of the current rigs are higher power and far
more efficient at drilling 3300 meter laterals commonly drilled today.
Holy f*ck Hugo, you are a raving lunatic. The oil prices can't go higher, otherwise there will be a
repeat of 2008. Clearly you are incapable of learning from the past.
Yeah, there is sort of a contradiction there. Sorry about that. But we are seeing the physical limits hit
in much of the world, regardless of the price. But if oil hits $80 to $100 a barrel, a lot more shale
could be produced. But that will not change things in the long run. It could delay peak oil by a year or
two.
Essentially we hybrids you can cut consumption in half for personal transportations. That's a
lot of oil saved. Also hybrids have much smaller battery then EV and as such use it more
efficiently.
(1) Oil fired power plants were phased out after the 1st (US peak 1970 allowed OPEC to impose
embargo) and 2nd oil crisis (peak oil in Iran 1975) not because of a planned, voluntary
transition
(2) Hirsch's slow mitigation. The 2008 oil price shock was a warning. Where are we 10 years
later? Are we on a path away from oil?
(3) EV maintenance cost must include replacement batteries in the car and in your garage (to
store power from solar panels – drive less in winter). The inverter for my solar panels
lasted only 5 years
(4) EV s recharged from grid are mainly coal power driven
(5) The era of cheap, easy oil ended in the early 2000s (when the North Sea peaked), before
the Iraq war
"EV s recharged from grid are mainly coal power driven"
Not in the USA, where coal makes up less than 25% of electricity generating capacity, down
from 40% in less than 10 years (primarily due to replacement with tight nat gas
production).
And some states, like the biggest in the country, get less than 5% electricity from coal,
imported from neighboring states via the grid.
I see EVs and modern ICE vehicles as too complicated, even though they seem quite reliable
for a few hundred K Km. My God, even modern tire valve stems have batts and transmitters
linked to idiot displays because people are now too stupid to check their tire inflation.
Valve stem price $200 $300 per? Extrapolate to battery and propulsion software, (proprietary
software), that stops all future jobber replacement parts beyond belts and fluids.
Anyway, I have a rebuilt 1981 Westfalia that looks and runs like a dream. It is worth more
than I have invested in it, in fact it is currently worth 7X what my showroom condition 2005
GMC work truck is worth, (The truck with 150,000 Km on it and maintained to new condition).
The most complicated system on the Westie is a resistor pack "running" some intake temp
sensors to adjust mixture mix on startup. My electronic tech buddy was looking to fix a
friends jeep last week. The horn wouldn't work. He thought it was .well, a horn. No it isn't.
It is a sending unit that transits to a brain box that sends a signal to a device that says,
"Make horn noise now". Computerised, of course. My Father- in-law had some kind of Buick that
would flash the occasional warning light about a door. Price to swap out the module? $900.
Excess complexity needless complexity.
I keep seeing a modern Mad Max in my head. Instead of an insanely laughing Mel Gibson hot
wiring a fuel tanker we'll see a meter toting nerd testing leads and wires and asking if
anyone can read this damn code?
Paulo, your meter toting nerd is more likely going to be a nerd with a laptop, an OBD port
dongle and a Controller Area Network Bus (CANBUS) sniffing setup, fuming about a strange
(proprietary) implementation of the CANBUS protocol. My undestanding of the CANBUS
arrangement is that all devices are attached to the Controller Area Network (CAN) and
assigned a unique id. In the case of the friend's jeep, pressing the horn button results in a
packet being sent across the CAN addressed to the horn. All devices on the network receive
the packet but only the horn responds to it and switches on. I assume a second packet would
switch it off.
The theory is that CANBUS should allow a single network/power cable to daisy chain to all
the devices in the vehicle and control them, as opposed to having, for example, several wires
to control three speed wipers with intermittent wiping as well. It remains to be seen how
well CANBUS will stand the test of time but, it is likely to see increased adoption,
especially with EVs.
Hi Paulo,
I share your concern about vehicles becoming too complex to fix with local skill/local
machine, etc. I used to handle many repair tasks myself when younger, but things have become
a complicated spaghetti mess under hood.
And of course, this problem affects just about all kinds of vehicles built in past 3-4
decades. I'd guess well over 95% of the vehicles running around on the roads are 'fragile'
due to complexity of the systems. EV maybe less so, since there are simply less systems at
play.
A guy in Germany has over 900,000 km on a Tesla. I'm guessing he had had to have the battery
pack changed out, but didn't see that info.
Another issue along these lines is the energy supply line.
With Petrol, there a very complicated system to get the juice from the source rock to the
target tank. Such as a refinery.
That looks very fragile to me.
Reliance on that kind of complex system in a chaotic world is very risky.
The supply line for electricity can be just as complex, but just like you point out the
possibilities with the Westfalia, I point out that the electricity supply line can also be
much simpler. If you have some equipment (dry solid material with no moving parts- PV panels,
inverter, wiring/plug), your personal or local supply change for transport juice can be very
short, and durable.
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Before commenting please read Robert Parry's ..."
"... . Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. ..."
Film 'Official Secrets' is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg August 29, 2019 •
37 Comments
A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion,
is largely accurate, but the story is not over, says Sam Husseini.
T wo-time Oscar nominee Keira Knightley is known for being in "period pieces" such as "Pride
and Prejudice," so her playing the lead in the new film "Official Secrets," scheduled to be
released in the U.S. on Friday, may seem odd at first. That is until one considers that the
time span being depicted -- the early 2003 run-up to the invasion of Iraq -- is one of the most
dramatic and consequential periods of modern human history.
It is also one of the most poorly understood, in part because the story of Katharine Gun,
played by Knightley, is so little known. Having followed this story from the start, I find this
film to be, by Hollywood standards, a remarkably accurate account of what has happened to
date–"to date" because the wider story still isn't over.
Katharine Gun
worked as an analyst for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent
of the secretive U.S. National Security Agency. She tried to stop the impending invasion of
Iraq in early 2003 by exposing the deceit of George W. Bush and Tony Blair in their claims
about that country. For doing that she was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act -- a
juiced up version of the U.S. Espionage Act, which in recent years has been used repeatedly by
the Obama administration against whistleblowers and now by the Trump administration against
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Gun was charged for exposing -- around the time of
Colin Powell's infamous testimony to the UN about Iraq's alleged WMDs – a top secret
U.S. government memo showing it was mounting an illegal spying "surge" against other U.N.
Security Council delegations in an effort to manipulate them into voting for an Iraq invasion
resolution. The U.S. and Britain had successfully
forced through a trumped
up resolution, 1441 in November 2002. In early 2003, they were poised to threaten, bribe or
blackmail their way to get formal United Nations authorization for the invasion. [See
recent interview with Gun .]
Katherine Gun The leaked memo, published by the British Observer , was big news in
parts of the world, especially the targeted countries on the Security Council, and helped
prevent Bush and Blair from getting the second UN Security Council resolution they said they
wanted. Veto powers Russia, China and France were opposed as well as U.S. ally Germany.
'Most Courageous Leak' It was the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy,
where I work ( accuracy.org ), Norman
Solomon, as well as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who in the U.S. most
immediately saw the importance of what Gun had done. Ellsberg would later comment: "No one else
-- including myself -- has ever done what Katharine Gun did: Tell secret truths at personal
risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it. Hers was the most important --
and courageous -- leak I've ever seen, more timely and potentially more effective than the
Pentagon Papers."
Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers
Gun said: "I went to the local bookshop, and I went into the political section. I found two
books, which had apparently been rushed into publication, one was by Norman Solomon and Reese
Erlich, and it was called Target Iraq . And the
other one was by Milan Rai. It was called War
Plan Iraq . And I bought both of them. And I read them cover to cover that weekend, and
it basically convinced me that there was no real evidence for this war. So I think from that
point onward, I was very critical and scrutinizing everything that was being said in the
media." Thus, we see Gun in "Official Secrets" shouting at the TV to Tony Blair that he's not
entitled to make up facts. The film may be jarring to some consumers of major media who might
think that Donald Trump invented lying in 2017. Gun's immediate action after reading critiques
of U.S. policy and media coverage makes a strong case for trying to reach government workers by
handing out fliers and books and putting up
billboards outside government offices to encourage them to be more critically minded.
Solomon and Ellsberg had debunked Bush administration propaganda in real time. But Gun's
revelation showed that the U.S. and British governments were not only lying to invade Iraq,
they were violating international law to blackmail whole nations to get in line.
Mainstream reviews of "Official Secrets" still seem to not fully grasp the importance of
what they just saw. The trendy AV
Club review leads : "Virtually everyone now agrees that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a
colossal mistake based on faulty (at best) or fabricated (at worst) intelligence." "Mistake" is
a serious understatement even with "colossal" attached to it when the movie details the
diabolical, illegal lengths to which the U.S. and British governments went to get other
governments to go along with it.
Gun's revelations showed before the invasion that people on the inside, whose livelihood
depends on following the party line, were willing to risk jail time to out the lies and
threats.
Portrayal of The Observer
Other than Gun herself, the film focuses on a dramatization of what happened at her work; as
well as her relationship with her husband, a Kurd from Turkey who the British government
attempted to have deported to get at Gun. The film also portrays the work of her lawyers who
helped get the Official Secrets charge against her dropped, as well as the drama at The
Observer , which published the NSA document after much internal debate.
Observer reporter Martin Bright, whose strong work on the original Gun story was
strangely followed by an ill-fated stint at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has recently noted
that very little
additional work has been done on Gun's case. We know virtually nothing about the apparent
author of the NSA document that she leaked -- one "Frank Koza." Other questions persist, such
is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign governments to get UN votes or for other
purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with allegations made by former NSA analyst
Russ
Tice about the NSA having massive files on political people?
Observer reporter Ed Vulliamy is energetically depicted getting tips from former CIA
man Mel Goodman. There do seem to be subtle but potentially serious deviations from reality in
the film. Vulliamy is depicted as actually speaking with "Frank Koza," but that's not what he
originally
reported :
"The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency
which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The
Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the
United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the
assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an
erroneous extension, and hung up."
There must doubtlessly be many aspects of the film that have been simplified or altered
regarding Gun's personal experience. A compelling part of the film -- apparently fictitious or
exaggerated -- is a GCHQ apparatchik questioning Gun to see if she was the source.
Little is known about the reaction inside the governments of Security Council members that
the U.S. spied on. After the invasion, Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser spoke in blunt
terms about U.S. bullying -- saying it viewed Mexico as its patio trasero , or back yard
-- and was Zinser was compelled to resign by President Vicente Fox. He then,
in 2004 , gave details about some aspects of U.S. surveillance sabotaging the efforts of
the other members of the Security Council to hammer out a compromise to avert the invasion of
Iraq, saying the U.S. was "violating the U.N. headquarters covenant." In 2005, he tragically
died in a car crash
.
Documents
leaked by Edward Snowden and published by The Intercept in 2016 boasted of how the NSA
"during the wind-up to the Iraq War 'played a critical role' in the adoption of U.N. Security
Council resolutions. The work with that customer was a resounding success." The relevant
document specifically cites resolutions 1441 and 1472 and quotes John Negroponte ,
then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "I can't imagine better intelligence support
for a diplomatic mission." (Notably, The Intercept has never published a word on "
Katharine Gun ." )
Nor were the UN Security Council members the only ones on the U.S. hit list to pave the way
for the Iraq invasion. Brazilian Jose Bustani, the director-general of the international
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. was ousted in an effective coup by John
Bolton in April of 2002 . Bolton is now national security adviser.
"Official Secrets" director Gavin Hood is perhaps more right than he realizes when he says
that his depiction of the Gun case is like the "tip of an iceberg," pointing to other deceits
surrounding the Iraq war. His record with political films has been uneven until now. Peace
activist David Swanson, for instance, derided his film on drones, " Eye in the Sky ." At a D.C. showing of "Official Secrets,"
Hood depicted those who backed the Iraq war as being discredited. But that's simply untrue.
Keira Knightley appears as Katherine Gun in Official Secrets (Courtesy of Sundance
Institute.)
Leading presidential candidate Joe Biden -- who not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but
presided over rigged
hearings on in 2002 – has recently falsified
his record repeatedly on Iraq
at presidential debates with hardly a murmur. Nor is he alone. Those refusing to be held
accountable for their Iraq war lies include not just Bush and Cheney, but John Kerry and
Nancy
Pelosi .
Biden has actually faulted Bush for not doing enough to get United Nations approval for the
Iraq invasion. But as the Gun case helps show, there was no legitimate case for invasion and
the Bush administration had done virtually everything, both legal and illegal, to get UN
authorization.
Many who supported the invasion try to distance themselves from it. But the repercussions of
that illegal act are enormous: It led directly or indirectly to the rise of ISIS, the civil war
in Iraq and the war in Syria. Journalists who pushed for the Iraq invasion are prosperous and
atop major news organizations, such as Washington Post editorial page editor
Fred Hiatt. The
editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer , Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News.
After Gun's identity became known, the Institute for Public Accuracy brought on Jeff Cohen,
the founder of FAIR, to work with program director Hollie Ainbinder to get prominent
individuals to support
Gun . The film -- quite plausibly -- depicts the charges being dropped against Gun for the
simple reason that the British government feared that a high profile proceeding would
effectively put the war on trial, which to them would be have been a nightmare.
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact.org .
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry'sComment Policy.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks,
and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment
does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 19:49
Saw the film today. Solid work; recommended.
Did her ultimate court appearance really go down in such a dramatic fashion? I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised if it did: English courtroom proceedings may not deliver better
justice than U.S. ones, but they're definitely more entertaining.
William , August 31, 2019 at 19:06
U.S. Government officials should be indicted for war crimes. It is quite clear that U.S.
officials conspired to ensure that an invasion
of Iraq would take place. The U.S. and Britain -- George Bush and Tony Blair -- initiated a
war of aggression against Iraq, and under
international law should be tried for war crimes, just as numerous German officials were
tried and convicted of war crimes.
No U.S. politician has called for investigation, and the main stream media has not touched
this topic. It is unquestionably clear that
the U.S. congress is a collection of spineless, cowardly, corrupt, greedy men and women. They
have allowed the U.S. to become a rogue,
criminal nation.
Katherine Gun is awesome! I heard her speak as part of a panel of whistleblowers –
wish there were many more like her
michael , August 31, 2019 at 08:15
Inequality.org reports that the majority of our top 1% are corporate executives. Finance,
which reportedly accounted for 3% of our economy in 1980, now accounts for 30%. Many of the
US's 585 billionaires have monopolies in their business domain, no different from the Robber
Barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. "Stability is more important than democracy",
the market hates uncertainty, and our foreign policies, determined by think tanks staffed and
funded by our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia, will continue to push for the greed of our
Richest. "Democracy" is a just a hypocritical bon mot for stealing and destroying.
The Republicans have always supported these people. What is worrisome is that the Democrats
have come to the same place as the GOP, since donations– pay-to-play- lead to
re-elections. The Democrats have deserted the Poor and working class, since they have no
money for pay-to-play. Our 17 technologically advanced Stasis work in concert with Congress,
our entitled government bureaucrats, and their lapdog main stream media to "make things
happen" for our Richest. How long before people like Assange, Katherine Gunn, Chelsea
Manning, Edward Snowden, Binney, Kiriakou etc learn that it pays to keep their mouths shut?
Transparency and whistleblowing is punished. Maybe other approaches are needed?
Tony , August 31, 2019 at 07:26
Very interesting to see what inspired her to act the way that she did.
Of course, the supporters of the war had various motives.
But one motive behind President Bush's plan was revealed by Russ Baker in his book 'Family of
Secrets' page 423.
He recalls a conversation with Bush family friend and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. He
says that he told him:
"He (George W. Bush) was thinking about invading in 1999."
Bush apparently said:
"If I have a chance to invade if I had that much (political) capital, I'm not going to
waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have
a successful presidency."
So there we have it, he thought that a war would boost his presidency.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 05:16
"The editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer, Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News."
That's a repulsive little nugget I would never have known otherwise.
Thanks to Sam Husseini for this account. The film is playing in my town, at least for this
coming week; I plan to get to it.
RomeoCharlie29 , August 30, 2019 at 19:24
This is a really interesting story and one I knew nothing about, although I was one who
opposed the Iraq war because to me it was obvious the whole WMD issue was bullshit. Now I
understand the perception that that war was an American/ Brit thing but you might recall that
America's deputy Sheriff in the Pacific, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was Gung
ho for the war and committed Australian troops to the ill-fated endeavour with the result
that our country has subsequently become a target for ISIS inspired terrorism. Australia's
Opposition Leader at the time, Simon Crean led a vocal opposition to the war but "Little
Johnny" as we called him was not to be denied. Incidentally I don't think he has ever
admitted being wrong on this.
Xander Arena , August 30, 2019 at 18:15
Tip of an iceberg is right. Iraq was the second big lie of the 21st century. I wonder how
the world will react to the University of Alaska Fairbanks report which proves fraud at NIST,
and arguably reveals aiding and abetting of treason by the contractors who wrote NIST's
analysis of the WTC7 destruction. The UAF report drops Tuesday 9/3/19, and chisels away at
the big lie that preceded all the related Iraq deceit. BTW great article :)
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:49
I enjoyed the article and learned some things, but it does seem a bit of Hollywood
promotion at the same time.
If only Gun's sacrifice had stopped the invasion it would have been a sensation. As is,
the UN did not sanction the invasion, making that effort a bit moot, and since the reveal of
NSA bugging the world under Obama that dulls the sensibilities of those who might today have
otherwise been shocked, shocked like the Gary Powers U-2 spy plane downing over the USSR and
Ike being caught in a lie on TV.
But overall, knowing the downhill Gun's livelihood has taken over the 15 years makes the
story more of a warning for whistle blowers than inspiration. Maybe Gun will be well
compensated by the movie makers!
Neil E Mac , August 30, 2019 at 15:54
En fin!
bevin , August 30, 2019 at 14:13
One thing is certain: The Observer of 2019 would not publish a story like this. That is
one of the major changes since 2003: the capitalist media has tightened up. There are no
longer papers competing to attract readers at risk of cozy relations with the State. The
Observer/Guardian today – since the Snowden revelations- does what it is told.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:16
"In 2005, he tragically died in a car crash."
Unfortunately -- or fortunately? -- this no longer seems to be credible when it comes to
those who have gone ouit on a limb to challenge the Deep State, or the US version of the Deep
State.
Can Bush and Blair be charged with crimes? In connection with the Third Reich there is
AFAIK no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. Well, Iraq was also full of
'humanity." These guys belong in The Hague. Or in Iraq, doing community service.
In connection with Ellsberg's reviewing the evidence and concluding there was no
evidentiary justification for invading Iraq -- I wanna say, you didn't need to be Ellsberg or
any kind of expert to see clearly that there was no evidence that justified invading Iraq.
Millions of common folk could see this clearly. That is why over 14 million people worldwide
demonstrated against the planned illegal invasion. That is why people like me when to NYC, to
Washington, and also the front our local US Post Office in small towns all over the country
to protest the country's being lied into war. And were greeted mostly with thumbs-up from the
passers- and drivers-by.
The people knew it was all a pack of lies. It was the gullible PRESS that ginned up this
show. Remember Judith what's her name at the NYT? These people also should be indicted as war
criminals.
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:19
Judith Miller, the NYTimes reporter who did maybe the most to make the invasion of Iraq,
is the last name you were seeking.
SteveF , August 30, 2019 at 12:22
The timescales are interesting, we have the alleged US blackmail to get this illegal war
'approved' by the UN and in the same timescale we have the Jeffery Epstein story unfolding
and the corresponding allegations that he was a CIA/Mossad agent operating honey traps to
entangle the rich and famous.
The evil machinations of our governments are indeed breathtaking.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on
your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping it just that way.
America's history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and
control of an empire, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately
concerned with America's relationship with Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and
the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from
prominent American politicians, you have tissue of lies not unlike that that was constantly
being created by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least
concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out the only candidate it had, brave and informed enough
to speak to truth in some of these matters.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with weaving dreams
about this or that creative social program while the resources and close attention dedicated
to destruction in a dozen lands make them all impossible.
At the sae time, there is an almost complete lack of information and courage about
anything that is happening in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively
important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American
establishment's methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it.
While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their
numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange, especially when you
consider the scale and scope of America's many dark works. Mostly, we see only "willing
helpers" carrying on with their sensitive, secretive careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the "star" liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old
puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of
Obama's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles
making legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear. Biden has a long record
of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, most likely to get the
nomination too.
Act, from America's CIA, no different in principle and in law to those of the old
Argentine military junta's massive efforts at dragging people off the streets, drugging them,
and throwing them out of planes over the ocean, something they did to thousands. Oh, and
during that wonderful project there were no objections from America, only silence.
Aimee , August 30, 2019 at 22:31
Excellent post. Agree completely. Tulsi was our only hope and she never had a chance. We
are doomed.
Coleen Rowley , August 30, 2019 at 23:29
Here are some of the reasons for the ever lessening concern over US-NATO-Israel-Saudi's
(aka our current Empire's) wars: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/recipe-concocted-for-perpetual-war-is-a-bitter-one/
By the way my co-author and I tried unsuccessfully to get this published in about 15
different US papers before Robert Parry posted it on Consortiumnews.
Robert Edwards , August 30, 2019 at 11:17
It's time these liers and war criminals are brought to Justice – I know that's
wishful , but sometimes wishes come true America must get back to a country run on integrity
and honesty, otherwise all will be lost in the spiral of evil
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost. Has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous outside influences like depression or war and the growth of competing
states and the loss of the dollar's privileged status, are going to change the reality.
America's feeble democratic system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it
was constructed with just that in mind.
john wilson , August 31, 2019 at 05:07
I think think the real worry is that these days they don't even bother to lie anymore and
they just do what they want. Think Venezuela.
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:42
"Other questions persist, such is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign
governments to get UN votes or for other purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with
allegations made by former NSA analyst Russ Tice about the NSA having massive files on
political people?"
This also stands out , as given what we now know is standard modus opendi of CIA / Mossad
operations ,due to the Epstein arrest and ensuing information , who knows what is used to
leverage other nations to follow along with US and in this case UK demands.Birds of a feather
fly together.
Very good report by Sam Husseini.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:32
Absolutely. It is an obvious avenue now to investigate: How did the Epstein operation
impact on the decision to invade Iraq? How were teh votes wrung out for the war authorization
in October 2002?
Regarding Kerry, as a resident of Mass. I couldn't believe that Vietnam vet Kerry would
vote Yes on the war authorization act. I called his office a number of time to beg him to
vote no. Rumors emanated from within his office in Boston or wherever that phone calls from
constituents were running 180 to 1 urging him to vote NO. But he voted YES anyhow.
I simply believe that Yalie Kerry didn't see what was up with the obvious lying that drove
the runup to an illegal invasion. This is the kind of scenario where one now has to wonder --
and ask openly -- whether Kerry had been compromised in some way that made him vulnerable to
blackmail. Why the hell else would he vote so stupidly?
Recall that Scott Ritter ran afoul of some kind of sex trap and so he, one of the most
knowledgeable and outspoken critics of the fake WMD narrative, was effectively muzzled.
Did Kerry have a little skeleton in the closet somewhere?
The same could be asked of all the esp. Democratic legislators who voted YES. Because we
now understand which state in the EAstern Med wanted the war most and profited the most from
it. We now know how deep and how wide the tentacles of that state's intelligence service
intrude into our own national sphere, our Congress, our own intelligence services, our media,
and, most likely, our military. Epstein seems to been part f this web of pressure and
blackmail.
Epstein is gone, but Ghislaine Maxwell apparently still runs free.
Let's bring her in for questioning specifically about pressure applied on the Oct. 2002 vote.
(Although some speculate that she, too, is already dead.)
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:23
At a time when despair in political affairs is very depressing ,it is very refreshing to
see that the voices of reason are being vindicated.
I really want to see this film as this is the first time that I hear of the voice of
Katherine Gun .Bless her heart for standing up and her efforts to warn of deception . Does
the film make any mention of Dr.David Kelly's so-called suicide / murder ? Will have to wait
ans see.
Thank you CN for once again coming through for your excellent report.
Pablo , August 30, 2019 at 10:15
Lawrence Wilkerson (Powell's Chief of Staff?) told me that Collin knew Bush was
fabricating, but went to the U.N. as a "loyal foot soldier".
AnneR , August 30, 2019 at 08:25
Thank you, Sam Husseini, for this overview of the background – real story – to
the film Official Secrets.
To be frank, I'd not heard of Katherine Gun's revelations at the time – not
surprising because I don't think that the US MSM gave the leak any oxygen. They were all too
gung-ho for the war.
While the film undoubtedly soft-pedals some of the story and likely doesn't reveal or make
explicit as much as we'd all hope, I really do hope that it receives at least as much
publicity (good) and viewing as that execrable film Zero dark Thirty which basically
supported the CIA and its torturers. But somehow I doubt that.
TomR , August 31, 2019 at 06:19
Zero Dark Thirty is just about the worst bullshit fake narrative put out by the CIA that
I've ever seen. I watched it but cringed with the dramatized fake narrative that the CIA is
famous for – think the bullshit 9/11 US govt. narrative – if you or anyone else
believes that totally bunkum govt. narrative – well, I feel sorry for you.
Druid , August 31, 2019 at 17:28
Im a good- movie buff. I avoided Zero Dark Thirty. Not a farthing for those lies
Sylvia Bennet , August 30, 2019 at 07:51
I applaud Keira Knightley and all who were involved in bringing this story to the public.
It is vital that more people who have the eyes and ears of the public speak out on these
issues. Sadly, most of them keep their heads below the parapet. With the Main Stream Media
colluding with corrupt corporations and governments to lie or distort the truth, we need
decent people with influence to step up before it is too late.
Toxik , August 30, 2019 at 02:42
Looked at my local theaters and Official Secrets will not be shown.
jmg , August 29, 2019 at 18:39
Katharine Gun's case can also be very relevant for Julian Assange's defense:
"Within half an hour, the case was dropped because the prosecution declined to offer
evidence. . . . The day before the trial, Gun's defence team had asked the government for any
records of advice about the legality of the war that it had received during the run-up to the
war. A full trial might have exposed any such documents to public scrutiny as the defence
were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of
aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1989. . . . In 2019 The
Guardian stated the case was dropped 'when the prosecution realised that evidence would
emerge that even British government lawyers believed the invasion was unlawful.'"
So Katharine Gun, like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc., by revealing corruption and
crimes, maybe didn't obey the code of silence of organized crime, government sector, but
that's not a law.
For example, the US Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information,
explicitly outlaws any classification that covers up crimes or embarrassing information.
This means that whistleblowers like Katharine Gun or Chelsea Manning, and investigative
journalists like Julian Assange are the ones defending the law here, while the US and UK
governments are the criminals.
lindaj , August 29, 2019 at 22:10
Hear, Hear!
Me Myself , August 30, 2019 at 12:11
The espionage act has and would protect those who were responsible for the war I
believe.
If we could Abrogate the espionage act it would make are representatives more
accountable.
I was unaware of Katherine Gun she is clearly a standout person and will join the ranks of
are most respected truthers.
WTF Burkie , August 31, 2019 at 14:05
Our not are.b.c. burkhart
evelync , August 30, 2019 at 13:34
And the secrecy, apparently, is required in the name of "national security" .that's what I
was told by a Harvard JFK School of Government associate when I emailed 200+ of 'em to
express my outrage over their withdrawal of Chelsea Manning's honorary degree when Pompeo and
Morrell bullied them. I responded with – that's INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE at Harvard
– as a "respected" educational institution you should be front and center critiquing
foreign policy instead of helping to bury the wrongdoing ..no wonder voters didn't trust the
establishment candidates in 2016 but the DNC was too much a part of it all to see or care
what was going on. Except for Tulsi Gabbard who resigned at DNC VP in protest for what was
being done to the Sanders campaign and to endorse Sanders instead of Clinton. The DNC knee
capped the campaign of the one person who had won peoples' trust for his honesty.
We have incompetent people with no moral fiber making terrible decisions and burying the
mistakes under secrecy, a fear based "code of silence", as you say.
Biden touts his being chosen by Obama for VP; therefore "he's qualified".
Since Clinton and Biden were the most dangerously ambitious critics of Obama, I think he may
have chosen to add them to his administration as VP and Sec of State to practice "keep your
friends close and your enemies closer" .but his decision was very costly to the lives of
people around the world including the Caribbean and South American countries whose wealth our
oligarchs coveted.
And as far as Honduras is concerned those political choices by Obama sadly explains refugees
fleeing from that violent country even now ..thanks to our failing to declare the 2009 Coup a
"military coup". One of Clinton's "hard choices". Obama and Biden went along with that of
course.
Daniel Immerwahr's "How to Hide an Empire" tells the sordid tale of how waterboarding was
used long before Bush II – used on the freedom fighters for their independence in the
Philippines after the Spanish American War and we took over as imperialists ..
Most people, I think, don't know all the gruesome details of our aggression but they now know
enough to be troubled by it. Few political candidates have the backbone to criticize
wrongheaded foreign policy.
I'm disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard won't be permitted to join Bernie Sanders at the
September 12 2019 "debate" as the only ones who speak out on how wrong for this country and
the world our foreign policies have been. This courageous woman should be heard.
When Bernie was challenged in the 2016 Miami debate on his enlightened views on Cuba and
other Caribbean and South American countries, Clinton used Cold War rhetoric to attack him.
She was shocked, I tell you, shocked that he would not grind his heel on the Cuban people. I
wondered at the time whether she really believed the crap she was selling or just put on a
good political show for the national security state.
We so need transparency if we want to be a real democracy.
Sam F , August 30, 2019 at 21:06
Very true that transparency is essential to democracy. That also requires lifelong
monitoring of officials and their relatives for paybacks and other influence. But (for
example) Florida has an Sunshine Act that merely moves the bribes into other channels, and
may be the most corrupt state. I am investigating extensive racketeering there involving
state officials stealing conservation funds. They can be quire careless because their party
runs the entire state including state and federal judiciary, and instantly approves whatever
their rich "donors" want to steal. But the FBI and DOJ refuse to take action when given the
evidence on a silver platter – no doubt because they are appointed by the same party.
Theft is their sacred right and duty, to protect their country from its people.
michael , August 31, 2019 at 07:30
Florida's Sunshine laws were on display at Epstein's only trial, much of it still sealed
from public view.
Will Trump's intimations about meeting with Rouhani win the footrace? His competitor?
Israel's determination to get the Mideast theater of WW3 started in earnest. Racking up two
declarations of war in as many days (Lebanon and Iraq) ain't too shabby a head-start. The
game is to deprive Trump of the initiative. The Israelis are smelling capitulation and a
fresh outbreak of post-JCPOA yakking. The time is now. Trump had better get with the program.
He still has a chance to look like Presidential Instigator. Failing that, he'll just have to
be dragged in unceremoniously and then scramble post facto to look like Instigator. It's a PR
dilemma. His military's already there, poised for action. This may be the first war to launch
right over the head -and better judgement- of JCS Head Dunsford himself. False flag momentum
is a funny thing. The time couldn't be riper for war to get a jump on cooler heads.
After all, War has its own thoughts on the matter and will only let human beings dither
for so long before taking the helm and asserting its own predilections:
"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation
survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came."
--Lincoln Second Inagural
Magnier on Nuttyahoo's escalating provocations encapsulates the most recent series of
events, although he doesn't attempt to link the actions to the upcoming elections. Hezbollah
threatened direct retaliation against Occupied Palestine; Iraq chose to blame the Outlaw US
Empire; Syria remained silent; the G-7 said nothing. The recent proposal by Iran to refurbish
one pipeline and build another to Syria's coastline would certainly become a Zionist target.
So, for the project to have the proper security, Occupied Palestine needs to be liberated.
Nasrallah isn't known as a bluffer, while Nuttyahoo's prone to be too aggressive. Do the
Zionists see the current situation as possibly the final time they have some sort of an
advantage as Magnier seems to imply and attack since they know the Outlaw US Empire won't?
Iran for Multilateralism and Rule of Law, trusting themselves to abide by JCPOA, even if,
as defined as failing, an invitation to Europeans to decide not be tempted by the US to
remove themselves from their only future, and an appeal to the US to honour the
responsibility of their veto sit on the UNSC where the lengthiest document was signed.
"... Almost four decades ago then-candidate George H.W. Bush used the phrase "voodoo economic policy" to describe Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes for the rich would pay for itself. He was more prescient than he could have imagined. ..."
"... For voodoo economics isn't just a doctrine based on magical thinking. It's the ultimate policy zombie, a belief that seemingly can't be killed by evidence. It has failed every time its proponents have tried to put it into practice, but it just keeps shambling along. In fact, at this point it has eaten the brains of every significant figure in the Republican Party. Even Susan Collins, the least right-wing G.O.P. senator (although that isn't saying much), insisted that the 2017 tax cut would actually reduce the deficit. ..."
"... During the 2016 campaign Donald Trump pretended to be different, claiming that he would actually raise taxes on the rich. Once in office, however, he immediately went full voodoo. In fact, he has taken magical thinking to a new level. ..."
"... My favorite until now came from Art Laffer, the original voodoo economist and recent recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Why did George W. Bush's tax-cutting presidency end not with a boom, but with the worst economic slump since the Great Depression? ..."
"... But Trump has gone one better. As it has become increasingly clear that the results of his tax cut were disappointing -- recent data revisions have marked down estimates of both G.D.P. and employment growth, to the point where it's hard to see more than a brief sugar high from $2 trillion in borrowing ..."
"... Officials have floated, then retracted, the idea of a cut in payroll taxes -- that is, a tax break for ordinary workers, rather than the corporations and wealthy individuals who mainly benefited from the 2017 tax cut. But such action seems unlikely, among other things because top administration officials denounced this policy idea when Obama proposed it. ..."
"... The truth is that Trump doesn't have a Plan B, and probably can't come up with one. On the other hand, he might not have to. Who needs competent policy when you're the chosen one and the king of Israel? ..."
From Voodoo Economics to Evil-Eye Economics
Are Democrats hexing the Trump boom with bad thoughts?
By Paul Krugman
Almost four decades ago then-candidate George H.W. Bush used the phrase "voodoo economic
policy" to describe Ronald Reagan's claim that cutting taxes for the rich would pay for
itself. He was more prescient than he could have imagined.
For voodoo economics isn't just a doctrine based on magical thinking. It's the ultimate
policy zombie, a belief that seemingly can't be killed by evidence. It has failed every time
its proponents have tried to put it into practice, but it just keeps shambling along. In
fact, at this point it has eaten the brains of every significant figure in the Republican
Party. Even Susan Collins, the least right-wing G.O.P. senator (although that isn't saying
much), insisted that the 2017 tax cut would actually reduce the deficit.
During the 2016 campaign Donald Trump pretended to be different, claiming that he would
actually raise taxes on the rich. Once in office, however, he immediately went full voodoo.
In fact, he has taken magical thinking to a new level.
True, whenever tax cuts fail to produce the predicted miracle, their defenders come up
with bizarre explanations for their failure.
My favorite until now came from Art Laffer, the original voodoo economist and recent
recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Why did George W. Bush's tax-cutting
presidency end not with a boom, but with the worst economic slump since the Great Depression?
According to Laffer, blame rests with Barack Obama, even though the recession began more than
a year before Obama took office. You see, according to Laffer, everyone lost confidence upon
realizing that Obama might win the 2008 election.
But Trump has gone one better. As it has become increasingly clear that the results of his
tax cut were disappointing -- recent data revisions have marked down estimates of both G.D.P.
and employment growth, to the point where it's hard to see more than a brief sugar high from
$2 trillion in borrowing -- Trump has invented ever more creative ways to blame other people.
In particular, he's now claiming that the promised boom hasn't arrived because his opponents
are hexing the economy with bad thoughts: "The Democrats are trying to 'will' the Economy to
be bad for purposes of the 2020 Election."
Can opposition politicians really cause a recession with negative thinking? This goes
beyond voodoo economics; maybe we should call it evil-eye economics.
To be fair, the claim that Democrats are hexing his boom is a secondary theme in Trump's
ranting. Mostly he has been blaming the Federal Reserve for its "crazy" interest rate hikes.
And the truth is that last year's rate increases pretty clearly were a mistake.
But blaming the Fed for the tax cut's fizzle won't wash. For one thing, the Fed has
actually raised rates less than in previous economic recoveries. Even more to the point, the
Trump economic team was expecting Fed rate hikes when it made its extravagantly optimistic
forecasts. Administration projections from a year ago envisioned 2019 interest rates
substantially higher than what we're actually seeing.
Put it this way: The Trump tax cut was supposed to create a boom so powerful that it would
not only withstand modest Fed rate hikes, but actually require such hikes to prevent
inflationary overheating. You don't get to turn around and claim betrayal when the Fed does
exactly what you expected it to do.
Aside from blaming everyone but himself, however, how will Trump deal with the failure of
his economic promises? He has taken to demanding that the Fed roll the printing presses,
slashing interest rates and buying bonds -- the actions it normally takes in the face of a
serious recession -- even as he claims that the economy remains strong, and unemployment is
in fact near a historic low.
As many people have noted, these are exactly the actions Republicans, including Trump,
denounced as "currency debasement" when unemployment was far higher than it is today and the
economy desperately needed a boost.
Since the Fed is unlikely to oblige, what else might Trump do? Officials have floated,
then retracted, the idea of a cut in payroll taxes -- that is, a tax break for ordinary
workers, rather than the corporations and wealthy individuals who mainly benefited from the
2017 tax cut. But such action seems unlikely, among other things because top administration
officials denounced this policy idea when Obama proposed it.
Trump has also suggested using executive authority to reduce taxes on capital gains (which
are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthy). This move would have the distinction of being both
ineffectual and illegal.
What about calling off the trade war that has been depressing business investment? This
seems unlikely, because protectionism is right up there with racism as a core Trump value.
And merely postponing tariffs might not help, since it wouldn't resolve the uncertainty that
may be the trade war's biggest cost.
The truth is that Trump doesn't have a Plan B, and probably can't come up with one. On the
other hand, he might not have to. Who needs competent policy when you're the chosen one and
the king of Israel?
"But blaming the Fed for the tax cut's fizzle won't wash. For one thing, the Fed has actually
raised rates less than in previous economic recoveries. Even more to the point, the Trump
economic team was expecting Fed rate hikes when it made its extravagantly optimistic
forecasts. "
Yes the Trump economic team is insane and clueless. But the Fed has been tightening since
2013 when Bernanke began tapering QE.
So now all good liberals are crying recession (which would hurt Trump in the election) but
the Fed is blameless?
Monetary policy is ineffective. Then why don't we get rid of the Fed's vaunted
independence? Then why does it matter if Trump tweets at Powell?
This isn't directed at Anne but at the general comment reader and Krugman admirer.
"... In 1945, when Western Europe was on its knees, the USSR had just lost an estimate of 35% of its GDP and China was just restarting its civil war after a century of devastation, only the USA had its economy intact. That meant the USA was, in 1945, both the industrial and financial superpower. The only thing that stopped it from being the world's superpower was the fact that the USSR managed to block access to a good portion of the globe, and the fact that China would be closed for the capitalists for more than 30 years. ..."
"... By the end of the 1970s, the American economy had clearly reached a point of exhaustion. After an agonizing double-dip crisis in 1980-2, the Plaza Accord of 1985 finally bring German and Japanese ascension dreams to an end -- but it also buried the American ambition to continue to be both the industrial and financial superpowers. The USA was now only the financial superpower. ..."
"... Americans can simply print money in order to import whatever they need to survive. It's up to the rest of the world to sustain its value, since they need USDs to make international trade. That's why the USA is the only country in the world that doesn't suffer from inflation when it prints money; instead, the crisis breaks at the weakest link of the trade chain (usually, a Third World country). ..."
"... But the price is deindustrialization: as the USA imports increase, it becomes cheaper to produce anywhere else (as in "another country"). And even that can only go insofar as the rest of the world doesn't break (i.e. until the Third World can sustain it). ..."
"... The 2008 crisis was impressive not because it was a financial one, but because it had its epicenter at the USA (as in opposition of at another random Third World country, as was the case of 1997). 2008 was a structural, not a cyclical, crisis. ..."
"... The capitalist part of the globe is now effectivelly a zombie economy: the First World countries can't rise the interest rates because that would bankrupt their precious big corporations; but they also can't lower then anymore because they are already essentially in negative territory. ..."
In the capitalist world, any given country needs two conditions in order to be the world's
superpower: industrial superpower and financial superpower. Think of it as the world of
boxing: you have to have two belts in order to be considered the undisputed world
champion.
In 1945, when Western Europe was on its knees, the USSR had just lost an estimate of
35% of its GDP and China was just restarting its civil war after a century of devastation,
only the USA had its economy intact. That meant the USA was, in 1945, both the industrial and
financial superpower. The only thing that stopped it from being the world's superpower was
the fact that the USSR managed to block access to a good portion of the globe, and the fact
that China would be closed for the capitalists for more than 30 years.
In 1972, China was opened. In 1974-5 there was the oil crisis, which would, in hindsight,
strip the USA from its industrial superpower status. But the problem, before that, wasn't the
USSR, but two small countries that lost the war: Germany and Japan.
The (re)rise of Germany and Japan is a telltale about the nature of capitalism, and why
unipolar worlds are, in the long term, impossible in capitalism under a Nation-State
configuration. Let's talk about it.
In 1948, the Marshall Plan was passed and executed. With it, Western Europe was revived.
But why did it work? Simple answer: the plan paid Western Europe in USD. Since the USA was
the only industrial superpower in the capitalist world at the time, that meant the ravaged
Western European countries could, with American currency, buy excess American industrial
capacity to rebuild themselves.
Japan didn't receive funds from the Marshall Plan, instead, it received the Dodge Plan,
which was reverse Marshall Plan, and possibly the first documental evidence of what we would
call today "austerity". It was a monumental failure: there was a series of strikes in 1948-9,
and the plan was quickly withdrawn. Japan's redemption would only come one year later, with
the Korean War. With the Korean War, American bases were installed on Japanese soil, and,
with it, more than USD 1 billion (which was a fortune at the time, more than what, e.g.
Germany, received through the Marshall Plan) was injected in Japan. The country was saved by
an accident of History.
So, how did the USA exerted absolute power over the capitalist half of the world? We can
visualize it clearly here: the other countries had to buy from the USA in order to rebuild
and reindustrialize. For that, they needed USD. That, on its part, reinforced its financial
sector and the US's Treasury bonds (sovereign debt). In exchange, the USA could simply
dictate the other countries' foreign policies (see the Suez fisco for a very illustrative
case).
But it is not possible for a country to be the industrial and financial superpower forever
in the capitalist system: as the other countries reindustrialize, the amount of value on them
also increases. That makes their trade accounts turn positive (i.e. "black"). If one's trade
account is positive, then that means another country (or countries) must be negative. As
other countries begun to be awash with Dollars, they begun to be able to buy things with them
not only from the USA, but also from each other. The Dollar weakened, but American exports
didn't become necessarily cheaper: the USD was now the standard world currency.
Since the Dollar didn't weaken from the trade point of view, the USA begun to bleed out in
this front: German and Japanese cheap industrialized goods begun to dominate. Then, as
industrial competition begun to saturate, commodities also begun to get more expensive. The
oil crisis of 1974-5 just wasn't worse for the USA because it hurt Germany, Japan and,
specially, the USSR more.
By the end of the 1970s, the American economy had clearly reached a point of
exhaustion. After an agonizing double-dip crisis in 1980-2, the Plaza Accord of 1985 finally
bring German and Japanese ascension dreams to an end -- but it also buried the American
ambition to continue to be both the industrial and financial superpowers. The USA was now
only the financial superpower.
But even then, how did the USA manage to keep its proeminence? Well, one important factor
was that, albeit Germany and Japan were industrially strong, they were small: there comes a
point where scale is decisive. But another very important factor was China: after 1972, the
US industrial elite begun to outsource its manufacturing infrastructure to China, in order to
enjoy its huge population. Since China was a Third World country, it imposed no immediate
threat to the USA.
The post-1972 world then had a sole superpower (in the capitalist world) that actually was
a binary system: USA with the financial, China with the industrial titles.
After the fall of the USSR (1991), the Eastern European markets were open and its assets
sacked. This gave the USA little bit more time, roughly correspondent to the Bill Clinton
governments (1993-2000). But it was only that: borrowed time.
This part is dedicated to why the capitalist world behaves like it does since the
post-war.
Contrary to other mercantile systems (e.g. Late Bronze Age, Antiquity), capitalism has a
novelty: the capitals' account (the "financial part").
That happens because capitalism is the first system capable of putting production under
unconditional command of commerce. To put it another way, people work (i.e. produce) in order
to sell, not to consume the produce themselves. The "world (free) market" therefore
determines what is produced, under what conditions, and by how much.
How does it happen? By reducing human labor to the form of abstract labor (i.e. labor in
general, as a substance). This "substance" is value. With value, you can transform any labor
in a quantitative form. This quantitative form is time. But you can't exchange time, and,
even then, time oscillates: some workers are faster than others, or work under more ideal
circumstances. The solution to this is money: money is a historically determined commodity
which is "elected" as a universal means of exchange. It is stripped from its original use
("retired") and is ascended to the post of being useful only as money. Money is, thus, the
universal commodity, the commodity whose use is serving as being the one capable of being
exchanged for any other commodity.
By reading this quick explanation, you must be asking? Where are the Nation-states in this
story? Well, the fact is, capitalism doesn't need Nation-states to exist. Not only that, but,
in the long term, Nation-states are prejudicial to capitalism. It's goal is what Marx called
the "world market"; to that, Nation-states are an obstacle.
Why then do Nation-states exist? Simple: because that was the concrete political reform
the bourgeoisie found to topple feudalism. That, and the technological limitations of the
time (which exist until our times). They had to swallow reality and try to build the "world
market" through Nation-states. Call it "really existing capitalism" for ironic purposes, if
you want.
The USA is a Nation-state that issues the USD, which is the universal fiat currency of the
post Bretton Woods era. But the USA is still a capitalist Nation-state in a
capitalist-dominated world. That means its tendency is still to form the world market, not to
be a self-sustaining fief.
So, it is the Nation-state that is responsible to -- in the context of the world market --
produce the most valuable commodity in capitalism: money.
If you produce money, you don't have, from the capitalist point of view, the need to
produce anything else: money transforms into any other kind of commodity (fetichism of the
commodity, alienation of labor). Americans can simply print money in order to import
whatever they need to survive. It's up to the rest of the world to sustain its value, since
they need USDs to make international trade. That's why the USA is the only country in the
world that doesn't suffer from inflation when it prints money; instead, the crisis breaks at
the weakest link of the trade chain (usually, a Third World country).
But the price is deindustrialization: as the USA imports increase, it becomes cheaper
to produce anywhere else (as in "another country"). And even that can only go insofar as the
rest of the world doesn't break (i.e. until the Third World can sustain it).
The 2008 crisis was impressive not because it was a financial one, but because it had
its epicenter at the USA (as in opposition of at another random Third World country, as was
the case of 1997). 2008 was a structural, not a cyclical, crisis.
The system itself broke. 2008 only didn't collapse the USA because the Fed acted quickly
and essentially ransacked the American people in order to keep the big banks et al afloat.
There was some allocation to Third World countries (such as Greece), but the overall effect
was limited. The capitalist part of the globe is now effectivelly a zombie economy: the
First World countries can't rise the interest rates because that would bankrupt their
precious big corporations; but they also can't lower then anymore because they are already
essentially in negative territory.
This left us with China. Why didn't China go down in 2008? The answer is equally simple:
because it is not capitalist. Needless to say, Cuba and North Korea were also left unscathed
by the 2008 meltdown.
"If decoupling shaved a few points off global GDP, hurt American businesses, or pushed the
world into recession, well that's the price o' freedom."
I believe that there is a US deep state, but are the ones with the most power business
interests or those with more of an interest in changing world order. Corporations have
invested a lot in gutting our manufacturing and sending it overseas primarily to China. I
suppose they will not be happy to lose money, so will push back. Trump has to worry about an
election, and would another president also follow Trumps China decoupling?
Also - "The U.S. Military's Greatest Weakness? China 'Builds' a Huge Chunk of It"
Both plans (Carney's and Trump's) won't work in my opinion.
The problem is that capitalism doesn't operate based on national interests, but on
profits: if the prospective profit rate is not high enough, the capitalists won't invest.
The USA can't decouple from China without abdicating its world superpower status. The most
it could do is to induce industry to get out of China and go to other countries not called
USA -- but then, it would just transfer the problem to another place (from China to a
constellation of countries), not solve it. The USA will continue to deindustrialize as its
hyperconsumer population becomes ever more expensive relative to the other countries' labor
power. The only solution would be for it to abdicate the USD as universal currency -- but
that would defeat the purpose of continue to be the sole superpower.
Even if the USA manages to transform China into a wasteland and all the other countries
fully industrialized, that would mean it would become an anachronistic, Ancient
Régime-like, aristocracy; it would be a matter of time before this confederation of
industrialized countries to topple the USA. In other words: even in its most successful
scenario, the USA would be killing China only to create an even bigger China 150 years from
now. That can happen, but is very unlikely.
Carney's plan also won't work, because that wouldn't solve the crisis of profitability
capitalism is suffering from now: you would've been just replacing the USD with another
hyperimperialistic fiat currency.
It's funny how symmetrical both plans are: Trump wants to destroy China in order to create
an even bigger (borderless) China; Carney wants to destroy the USA only to create an even
bigger (borderless) USA. In the first case, it would be a confederation of
hyperindustrialized countries; in the second case, it would be an hyper-elite of true
"masters of the universe" governing over a scify-worthy dystopia.
In a
study of 29 fracking-focused oil and gas companies by the Sightline Institute and the
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), only 11 companies posted
positive free cash flow. Even then, the figures were paltry. Collectively, the group only
reported $26 million in free cash flow for the second quarter, "far too modest to make a
significant dent in the more than $100 billion in long-term debt owed by these companies, let
alone reward equity investors who have been waiting for a decade for robust and sustainable
results," the report said.
I think a key point about a future shale bust is that it will leave very little in long
term assets. In other busts, someone comes along to cherrypick the assets with potential
profitability – its the early investors who get burnt. But if shale operators aren't
even breaking even on cashflow excluding early borrowings, then its likely that any attempt
to consolidate and shrink the industry to make it profitable would fail in the absence of a
significant price rise. Since a typical fracked well for tight oil or gas has about 18 months
production, this means that constant capital inputs are essential, an investor can't just get
a free ride for a few years on past investments.
What this means in reality is that a year or more after the inevitable bust, there will be
a massive drop off in production. Ironically of course this will lead to exactly the sort of
price rise the industry is craving – but by then it may be too late. It could of course
also be highly disruptive to the world fuel market if the US suddenly finds itself needing a
few million barrels a day of SA crude.
I tend to think of shale as an out of the money option, that the industry keeps on early
exercising to generate the appearance of a going concern, despite it losing money. As absurd
as this model of events sounds, it would predict that in a consolidation, these assets would
be picked up by oil majors, who would "mothball" till higher prices. Of course the longer
these bozos are allowed to pump at capital depleting oil prices, the less there is for the
eventual buyer in bankruptcy.
There's an interesting story in Reuters today about how towns in the Permian are starting
to make long-term bets on shale production there, in the form of investing in education and
infrastructure. It seems like the entrance of oil majors sent a signal to people there that
the bust hasn't come yet and apparently won't come for a little while. After reading the
coverage of fracking on NC and Bethany McLean's book Saudi America this seems like a bad
idea, as the financial problems of fracking stem from physical limitations of the technology.
It doesn't seem like a big oil company would be able to solve this problem, besides maybe
having deeper pockets and greater ability to ride out low prices, but that still doesn't make
fracking profitable, just less unprofitable. Here's the link:
Yes, I fwded that link to Yves & Lambert earlier today – the key thing to me is
that the oil majors don't make such long-term investments lightly. From the story:
Some of the smaller producers that pioneered shale drilling in the Permian, such as
Concho Resources (CXO.N), Laredo Petroleum (LPI.N) and Whiting Petroleum (WLL.N), are
downshifting as West Texas oil prices have lost 16% and natural gas has tumbled 36% over
the past year.
But the world's biggest oil majors are increasingly taking control of the Texas shale
business, and their drilling plans – sometimes sketched out in decades rather than
years – are envisioned to withstand the usual price drops.
The Permian Strategic Partnership, a group of 20 energy companies operating in the area,
promises to spend $100 million to promote training, education, health care, housing and
roads. The partnership chipped in $16.5 million for the charter school initiative, which
will open its first campus in August 2020 and plans to offer public education to 10,000
students over time.
The only thing in all this that is baffling me is that Wall st. just keeps giving loans to
and buying bonds for these companies to the tunes of 10s of billions of dollars. Everyone on
Wall St can't all be willfully in denial and completely blind to the fact that these were bad
investments from the beginning and that continuing to give them money is just throwing good
money after bad. Everyone makes a bad investment from time to time, but the solution isn't to
just burn money indefinitely to turn it into a zombie corporation when there are no signs it
will ever be profitable – indeed from what I have read fracking and shale's best ROI is
right after the well is turned on, after that it only gets worse so these bad investments are
only gangrening and rotting faster and faster. Yet still, ever more more money from Wall st.,
the same people who chide any and all public services for being unprofitable and engendering
unprofitable subsidized behavior.
So if they can't all be that stupid, the only other explanation is that at least some of
them are just plain evil. In this case that would entail them working on "greater fool
theory" where they are planing something like the old sub-prime mortgage CDOs. Something
like: 1. package all this festering financial garbage they created into illegible little
financial products; 2. pay-off the rating's agency to give this repackaged garbage AAA
rating; 3. sell to sovereign wealth, retirement, and pension funds; 4. take out
credit-default swaps and other bets against the garbage they have sold off because they know
it is going to imploade; 5. run like hell; 6. blame poor people for destroying the economy
while begging for a government bailout as a result of fallout from destroying the world
again.
I'm somewhat familiar with Noble Energy, one of the 29 companies the authors claim to have
examined.
They report Noble as having a cash flow deficit of $499 million, a full 20% of their grand
total for all 29 companies. The grand total, of course, purports to demonstrate the weakness
of the US shale plays.
The thing is, the cash flow from Noble's shale operations in Texas and Colorado is solidly
positive. The company has a cash flow deficit because it is finishing up its share of the
Leviathan project offshore Israel, which by this time next year will have that country energy
independent while enabling a massive shift from coal to natural gas as their primary energy
source. Not a bad thing, IMO.
The anti-hydrocarbon jihadists have some valid points, but they also generate a lot of
propaganda that has no relation to reality. This "study" is an example of what happens when
you know the answer you want before you do your investigation.
The risks and benefits of hydrocarbon energy is an important question. Unfortunately
there's a lot of garbage produced on both sides.
Why should the Shale Business feel bad about bleeding money? It isn't their money. It is
"other peoples' money". It is investors' money. As long as the Shale Business operators are
retaining for their personal selves some of the "investor peoples' money" which they are
bleeding from investors, why should they feel bad about it? Maybe their whole business model
was based on bleeding other peoples' money till other people have no more money left to
bleed. . . . and keeping a little bit of the money-bleed for themselves.
It's like with mosquitoes . . . . mosquitoes aren't "bleeding" blood. They are sucking
blood. It is the animals they are sucking blood FROM . . . which are bleeding blood. If the
animals eventually die from blood loss, the mosquitoes at least got some blood in the
meantime.
And so it is with the shale frackers. They aren't bleeding money. They are sucking money.
The investors they suck money from are the people who are bleeding money. And if the
investors finally die from money loss, the shale frackers at least got some money in the
meantime.
"A reason to go long on NG? US consumption rate is mind-boggling. NG is now banned for new
construction in some regions."
Should get interesting when NG prices start rising considering that Power companies have
been shutting down lots of coal and nuclear plants & replacing then with NG plants. It
would not surprise me to see power prices soaring to 35 to 50 cents per kwh in the US. I
would imagine lots of people that use NG or Propane for heating also find it difficult to
heat their homes in the winter.
My advice is to relocate someplace with moderate weather: Not too cold (heating) or not
too hot (air conditioning) as energy prices rise. Either build new or retrofit your home to
be extremely energy efficient. My guess is that probably 50% of US home are not going to be
livable without affordable heating & cooling. During the bubble years lots of poor
quality homes need cheap energy. Not sure if many of them could be retrofitted because of
poor layouts & construction.
Also a good idea not to relocate near any major urban regions. I would imagine high
unemployment, uncomfortable living conditions is going to make a lot of unhappy &
desperate campers: ie lots of violence, riots, general despair.
Unless you have 25,000 gal Buried Propane tank to last you a Lifetime, I'd consider lightly
populated areas of the Ozarks, IMO Need to be above 1500 feet elevation and have ancient
water. I've been buying remote land with and without grid access for decades. If anyone wants
to share strategies email me at my handle at gmail. Texas Energy much too Fragile and
Centralized. Solar 2.0 will allow abundant battery-optional energy. You can light a mansion
with a handful of 18650's, so you really don't need much in that way of eChem Storage. Note
that Li Batteries are on the Sept 1st Tariff List. So if you been thinking of a BattleBorn
LFP (Lithium Phosphate) Battery for your RV or UPS, now may be the best time for a while.
"It would not surprise me to see power prices soaring to 35 to 50 cents per kwh in the
US."
Over what sort of time frame? Maybe for short periods in the short term but, prices like
that would result in massive surges of capacity growth for wind and solar. LCOE for solar and
wind are now under 2c per kWh in some locations and I suspect at some point in the next
decade they will both have an LCOE of under a cent per kWh. 35 to 50 cents? Please!
IslandBoy Wrote:
"Maybe for short periods in the short term but, prices like that would result in massive
surges of capacity growth for wind and solar."
I doubt it. Electric prices in Germany are about 35 to 40 cents per kwh, and they have a
lot of solar & wind which is backed by cheap Polish Coal fired power plants. Issue with
both Solar & wind is intermittent generation. Every watt produced by solar & wind in
the US is backed by NG fired plants. There is no massive storage system to back Solar &
wind production. The only reason why Solar & Wind works is due to the very low cost of NG
prices & the fast ramp up/ramp down of NG fired turbines which can change output in just
a minute or two.
US power companies are borrowing billions to replace old coal fired & nuclear plants
with new NG plants. That debt isn't going disappear even if NG prices go through the roof.
The US also has an grid that is showing its age likely needing $300B to $500B in investment
for updates and to replace worn out equipment and distribution lines over the next 25 years.
We also have to pay a huge cost in decommission shutdown Nuclear power plants (currently
shutting down between 2 & 4 Nuke plants per year).
The USA is dead broke with $23T in national debt, and about $70T in unfunded pensions
& entitlements. Currently the only way the US economy can function is with ultra low
interest rates so it can continue to borrow trillions to keep its doors open. Sooner or later
the USA is going to run out road to kick the can, and my guess is that all comes apart in the
2020s.
The US lacks a skilled workforce for the electrical grid as there are few young workers in
the industry. Most of the US power companies are in panic mode because their boomer workers
are retiring & they cannot find replacements:
Plus NG is the #1 resource in the US for home heating and Domestic hot water. So even if
somehow NG is completely eliminated (very improbable) from power generation it does nothing
to solve heating needs.
I can only respond by saying I think Watcher is on to something with regards to money. US
Politicians are unlikely to let a lack of money get between their voters and the voters'
energy needs. If money is what is needed, it will be borrowed or "quantitatively eased" or
whatever (created out of thin air!). That applies to tight oil now and will probably apply to
renewables any time they are seen as a viable substitute for FF. I follow developments in the
solar PV, EV and battery space very closely. You might be surprised at some of the stuff that
is coming down the pike!
The only production preventing Oil from peaking as far back as 2013-2014 was US Shale,
which can only function by borrowing Billions from gullible investors that will never be paid
back. If investors were not so gullible, US production would have peaked years ago. Global
Peak Oil is controlled by cheap & easy credit. Take away the credit punch bowl and US
Shale production collapses, and global production peaks. PO is no longer dependent of
geology, but credit.
FWIW: I suspect Shale drillers are going to have a hard time finding more investors
willing to part with their capital, especially when Oil prices are very low. That said its
possible that the Federal gov't (via Fed) will step in and start buying billions of shale
debt (via QE or some other financial bailout mechanism) so Shale drilling can continue on. It
appears that the US is running into liquidity problems again as Bond markets are showing
signs that they are freezing up again.
Banks and investors took away the punch bowl, and second quarter losses reflect that. Third
is going to be the same, and too late for any price increases to reflect anything but losses
for this year. No positives going into 2020. Their best option is to find adoption. And being
a bunch of spoiled brats, that's going to be somewhat difficult.
I agree that shale has been the biggest contributor to increase in global oil supply.
However it has also distorted the entire industry.
If the shale companies had to make a profit each year, global supply would have been a
less and prices much higher.
This in turn would have supported e&p investment around the world. The fall in
investment has been due entirely to shale companies that have been allowed to run at a loss
for so many years.
I don't think we would see a massive rebound in E&P if US shale was eliminated. Shell,
Exxon, BP and other started pulling back on Megaprojects back in 2012-2013, since it was
doubtful that it would be economical. Basically megaprojects (deepwater & arctic)
required $120 to $150 (in 2013 dollars) per bbl to be economically. I don't believe those
prices would be sustainable as it would result in demand destruction as consumers would cut
back on consumption. The fact that Oil majors were looking at Arctic and deepwater back in
2010-2013 indicates they are reaching the bottom of the barrel for production. There was a
long term trend of declining exploration finds even when exploration budgets increased.
At this point any major rebound isn't going to make a difference, if a Oil major started
on a new megaproject it would be between 5 and 7 years before new oil reaches the market, and
very unlikely to offset declines from existing production (5% to 7% annual declines). We are
already behind the curve on gains from any new projects to offset ongoing declines with out
shale growth). Perhaps a some of the declines in existing fields could be offset some with
higher oil prices. Still reaching to scrap the bottom by trying to extract trapped oil in
fields in terminal decline. With all of the supergiants in terminal decline (with the
exception of Kazakhstan), its going to be very difficult to expand production further.
Personally I am guessing that global production has already peaked or within the next 18
months if we are lucky). Its difficult to pinpoint an exact period since their are way to
many variables to gage effectively. That said I cannot say my record for guessing peak
production is any better than winning a lottery, but as the window narrows due to depletion
and a shrinking supply of future projects the guessing gets a lot easier.
Shale had already taken off by then and predictions of possible productions were being
made and importantly have come true.
The majors would have realised there would be too much oil in the short to medium term, so
they sensibly postponed more expensive drilling.
How this mess with heavy indebted shale companies and years of under investment plays out
I am not sure.
Probably a lower and sooner peak oil than would otherwise have been.
Not sure anyone has said US has peaked, the point is that US tight oil growth will slow
and it is not apparent that any other nations are increasing output in 2019, so far the drop
by OPEC/NOPEC has been greater than any US increase in 2019 and it is looking like 2019
output will be lower than 2018 if current trends continue. When we get to the point that oil
prices rise to $80/b, I expect OPEC/NOPEC will increase output, but we do not know when that
will be and it is certainly possible that US output might be falling at a faster rate than
the rest of the World's rise in output so the net might be a plateau or decline.
Note also that my "medium URR" estimates might be too optimistic, if my "low URR
scenarios" prove correct, the peak is likely to be earlier (2022/2023), and if there is a
fast transition to EVs, more public transport, etc perhaps the peak in World C+C output could
be earlier still. I doubt this will be the case, but in the past I doubted that World C+C
output would exceed 80 Mb/d, I was wrong then and I may be wrong now.
Hugo, something peaked in 2011, so I'd say the peak oil gang is onto something worth
listening to. Perhaps you disagree. The graph is a bit dated, but you get the point I'm
sure.
I'd say calling peak oil to be in 2018/2019, vs to be within 2022 to 2026 time frame, is
pretty much splitting hairs. Perhaps you're just smarter than everyone else here and don't
tolerate such loose parameters?
How did you come to your prediction, riding on Dennis' coattails, or do you have any original
ideas of your own to contribute?
The assumptions make all the difference. And no one can accurately predict what will happen
the rest of the day, much less tomorrow.
The key to the future, so far, is how the majority of independents will fare. Dennis sees
prices improving so that many of them heal up, and production is restored to a norm. Ron sees
them as totally messed up, which is more my take.
And I am also betting on the majors. They don't lay out hundreds of billions of dollars
for downstream without a big plan in mind. And, that plan could not call for those
investments to be totally useless in ten years. It wouldn't surprise me to see the skies over
the shale areas filled with golden parachutes.
Ten years, or less, based on EOGs quarterly tell sheet. Do you opt for the golden
parachute soon, or use your own just before the plane crashes?
This attack was 750 miles from Houthi territory.
Round trip would be 1,500 miles.
A Predator has a published range of 1,150 miles.
My guess is they are infiltrating Saudi Arabia, attacking from much closer than 750 miles out
and maybe sacrificing the drone. Sort of like the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Tokyo in WWII, for
similar purpose. With a similar result. Message sent, message received.
It's a one way trip. The drones used by houthis don't fire a missile and then fly home, they
are the missile. The drone is mounted with a 30kg warhead and it is flown into the target,
usually in a swarm attack.
The White House policy of taking Iranian oil exports to "zero" still has a long way to go,
thanks in no small part to China ,
and also despite Pompeo
touting this week that US sanctions have removed nearly 2.7 million barrels of Iranian oil
from global markets.
US frustration was evident upon the release of the Adrian Darya 1, with Gibraltar resisting
Washington pressures to hand over the Iranian vessel, given as its en route to Greece, American
officials are now warning that they will sanction anyone
who touches the tanker .
Seizing on Washington's frustration as part of its own "counter-pressure" campaign of recent
weeks, Iran has again stated if it can't export its own oil, it will make waterways unsafe and
"unpredictable" for anyone else to to so .
It appears that the US (25% of global oil consumption/waste?) has but 3 choices. 1. Become
Trading partners with Russia and Iran. 2. Get serious on Energy Transition execution. 3. War,
Terror and more regime change 4. Deploy the Alan Parsons Project. https://youtu.be/Ei_GZnrr1nw?t=23
What say You?
Usually 1 and 3 are combined in the resource rich country aren't they? Then it goes wrong
some way down the road when the new regime 'turn', and things get worse than before
Here you go, chew on this. The day there are the initial 2 mile long lines at gasoline
stations, not just in the US but all over the world . . . that day we will still see
announcements of record oil production globally.
This is species killing stuff. Wall Street popular saying . . . no one rings a bell at the
top. Well, no one is going to give you any warning whatsoever that oil scarcity deaths start
that month. You will know nothing of it. You will be told it is all from some temporary
factor that will soon be fixed.
So if you see something now that looks like a warning sign, it's probably not legit.
Perhaps. OPEC is producing at 2011 levels. The world is kept at bay from peak oil only by US
shale production. And US shale production is on shaky legs, just trying to stay ahead of the
red queen.
I just don't see this blind optimism that US shale will continue upward for the next 5 to
6 years.
I well remember when it was said that: "When Saudi Arabia peaks, the world peaks". That
was just not correct. But now it is obvious that when the US of A peaks, the world peaks.
Sanctions are not affecting Venezuela's oil production. It is collapsing for another
reason. And it will take them a decade or more to recover when they finally settle their
economic problems.
But there will always be political problems. They are likely to get worse, not better.
Peak oil will be when the most oil is produced, not what could be produced if there were
no political problems anywhere in the world.
Opec will not save the world and neither will USA . The problem is that all the increase in
the last few years is from shale or LTO ,call it what you will . Problem is that this is
mostly + 45 API so poor in middle distillates . In reality peak oil is when the^ black goo^
peaks . NGL's ,NGPL,s ,bio fuels, LTO and the term ^all liquids^ are used as a fig leaf to
hide the real peak of the ^black goo ^ . We are past peak as far as the ^black goo^ is
concerned .
"The problem is that all the increase in the last few years is from shale or LTO ,call it
what you will . Problem is that this is mostly + 45 API so poor in middle distillates . "
In 2005 (!) on Bloomberg tv channel someone said, in other words, that the most valuable
oil to make kerosene of is increasingly difficult to get. I guess that kerosene is a middle
distillate.
The shale oil boom might last for many decades, for what it is worth
The shale oil boom might last for many decades, for what it is worth.
Shale production may continue for a decade, or a bit longer, but not decades. However,
that is not the point. The point is, how long can shale continue to increase
production.
The legacy decline for shale varies between 5% and 6% per month! The EIA's Drilling
Productivity Report says US Shale production will increase by 85,000 barrels per day in
September. Probably not, but that is not the point. To get an increase of 85,000 barrels per
day, they had to have new well production of 649,000 barrels per day. That is because they
had 564,000 barrels per day of legacy decline. For every one barrel per day of increased
production, they had to produce 7.64 barrels per day of new oil because they had 6.64
barrels per day of legacy decline.
The more they produce the more they have to produce just to stay even.
For every one barrel per day of increased production, they had to produce 7.64 barrels per
day of new oil.
This is the key point regarding shale oil production. The higher the production, the more
new production is needed to increase production. It's essentially an exponential function.
Shale oil production will not increase for much longer because it's not physically possible
to drill/frack at a sustained exponential rate.
Shale production is not oil production, it's mining.
You need 3 drilling teams, 4 fracking teams and get over long time a constant production.
When you want to increase (say you have enough acres, as enough ore in a iron mine) you hire
2 new teams, as in mining employing a new excavator and conveyor belts.
So, like in a mine, when you fire a team production drops almost immediately.
The big ones (XON) in the Permian do Shale oil mining exactly like this – they have
own drilling and fracking team, working constantly.
The same thing as mining is when you have to drill your b-class acres. As in a mine when
the ore veins run out in thickness.
So either close your mine, hire more teams to maintain production or life with decreasing
production at constant costs when the qulity is declining.
I've left out technical progress. This is just a cost reducer (need less drilling /
fracking teams to do the same output).
Eulenspiegel, your mining example is not a good comparison at all. That is because new mines
don't decline in production by 6% per month.
Here is the exponential function of shale oil. They must produce new oil at the decline
rate just to stay even. Growth in production is only accomplished if they produce more oil
than declined that month.
But if they do produce more oil than the decline rate, then the decline will be even
higher the next month. That is, if they had to produce 649,000 barrels of new oil in
September to grow production by 85,000 barrels, then to grow oil by a like amount in October,
they will have to produce more than 649,000 barrels. The more they increase production each
month, then the more they will have to produce the next month just to stay even.
When production increases, the monthly loss through legacy decline also increases.
Therefore just producing the same increase as they did last month will not do. They must
always continue to increase by more than they did last month just to stay even.
Ron, in my opinion it is a better model than conventional oil.
In conventional oil, you can pump 20 years after drilling. For 50 you'll have to do more
things like water flooding etc. So increasing production is just drilling a few more holes
(and install the additional infrastructure).
In mining, you have a decline rate of 100% / day.
You send a team in, they mine 100 tons of ore in their shift, move out and production after
their shift is 0.
When you want more ore, you have to send in a team next day again.
Having 1 minint team gives you constant ore / day. Firing them gives you sudden production
of 0.
So with LTO you send a fracking team in to create 1 well, produce oil for a few months
(I'm exaggerating) and then you have 0 production again.
So you have to send in the team again. And again.
If you use 1 team drillling constantly new holes. you'll have nearly constant production
(after the first ramp up time of overlaying declining productions, in reality a few
years).
Increasing production means more teams constantly drilling new holes (as in mining: drill
hole, fill with explosives, boom, carry away ore, repeat).
The big question for the peak shale oil is here: How many drilling/fracking teams can be
payed and supplied with anything they need for working efficient. It's not just hiring
teams.
To employ more teams they need more road capacity, sand capacity, water transport, take
away pipelines, more stuff you know better than me.
As in deep mining: The elevator capacity / tunnel train capacity limits the maximum
possible production. For increasing production, you have to increase everything, and then
hire new teams.
So the question is: How much money do they invest to stretch all these capacities.
Well the world's conventional oil production certainly peaked a while ago. Even if one treats
Venezuela and Canada as conventional because their production was usually in forecasts, the
USA fracking has to be considered a separate thing. The industry cycle is different, the
grade produced is different, the economics are "different." The tail is *very* different as
without new drilling the entire patch would disappear in less than three years. Blap, gone to
stripper wells.
This is the age of Trump. I know for us simpletons it makes sense the average would be
production. I'm not sure how Trump would do it, but I'll bet the tangerine could make 2019
peak the best ever. A world depression followed by war.
No, but OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 58% of world oil production, is down 667,000 barrels
per day, April to July. I doubt that the other 42% of world oil production is up anywhere
near that amount.
The 2019 7 month average for OPEC + Russia + Canada is 1,629,000 barrels per day below
their 2018 average.
I have posted that chart up top, just below OPEC+ Russia.
Thanks for valuable informstion Guy, in my mind from what I have read the shail oil have
change some caracter espesialy in 2019. It have become more light that means lower quality.
If quality goes down this will mean less profit if any at all to drill new wells after all
exspensives, loan balones are payed. The good thing is it seems now low sulfur diesel demand
increase because new IMO rules and prices, refinery margins in Asia increases. But it might
be this will have minor Impact for WTI price as they demand more heavey oil , brent i.e for
their marine diesel..
Inventory draws should begin to pick up for the US soon. 1 million in pipeline from the
Permian to the coast. Exports to increase, Cushing to decrease, and production mostly flat. A
lot of the Permian production has been going to Cushing as an outlet. Depends on how much can
be loaded on to ships, now, and how much lite oil can be sold. Pipelines are going to be
losers for awhile. Additional pipelines need to take note.
There are two, sure fire, statistics and reports that will define where we are going. You can
argue them, but you will lose. One is the EIA monthly 914 report, the other is the Texas RRC
permits. There's some DUCs, but by this time, I consider them as normal DUCs between drilling
and completion as is norm. And the 914 May show it up a little for June, but I don't see it
going up further. Or, much more.
Attached is the latest LTO data from the monthly EIA 914 page. The main difference that I
can see is the drop in the monthly production growth from 2018 to 2019. 2018 production
growth averaged 153 kb/d/mth. 2019 production growth over the first seven months has dropped
to an average of 97 kb/d/mth. The total July increase over June was 107 kb/d/mth. The biggest
increases for July came from Sprayberry (33 kb/d) and Wolfcamp (46 kb/d).
Every week we watch these invenstory draws/builds and every week the commentariat is out
to explain how they drive the price fluctuations. Except there's -80% correlation between oil
price and USD Index. Implying that events that have nothing to do with these blessed
draws/builds have much greater pull on price changes... More here: "
Failure of price forecasting: the unit of account conundrum "
It looks like an accumulation at the time crude oil wti.
After the price will cross any border of the triangle with powerful candle we can open
BUY/SELL entry. Potential profit will be in 3...5 times bigger than risk.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was
the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was
the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the
winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going
direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way -- in short, the period was so far
like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being
received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. - Charles
Dickens
Whatever was invested in China over the last 20 or 30 years would have to be invested in
the US.
I don't understand why any investor, or the stock market, would provide that level of
investment. Where would be the return?
The US built its industrial base on 150 years of investment before 1970, because it has a
continent in which to expand, and a determination not to become a UK vassal state, again.
And then there is climate change ..where China's new industrial areas will become
threatened by rising sea levels
In a sense, Synoia's remarks vindicate Trump's bogus assertion that trade war is necessary
for national security. At least in this sector, he is probably correct about the security
risk. Of course, his disastrous solution is something he overheard on FoxNews from his now
dimwit economic advisor – the one who would not recognize a recession if it bit him in
the nose.
Can we really make guns and bullets and tanks and planes without US manufacturing? We
would probably have to depend on allies for that. Alas, we are not so palzy-walzy with China.
There is Germany – a stalwart of machining savvy – but Trump would rather mock
German leaders on Twitter than do biz with DE.
Trump's bogus assertions could only be vindicated if he enunciated an industrial policy,
including the missing skills, training and money to repatriate manufacturing, which destroys
the investment by our beloved multinationals in Mexico, China and elsewhere.
I was gently pointing out that Trump has his head so far up his a.., that one can hear him
talking.
It is true that one must blow apart the pro-globalist consensus, and this Trump has done.
(Not passing TPP was a clear win, and we should take that win. So far as I know, TTiP is off
the front burner now, too). It is also true that tariffs have to part of any solution. But
beyond this, coherence eludes the administration. Clearly, industrial policy is part of the
solution. Warren's plan doesn't provide it, either.
I understand that such talk is considered old fashioned, these days,lol but does
"Industrial Policy" include things like "paying the Workers" or even just "Not Screwing the
Workers"?
Or is that a separate hill to climb?
NC and NC Commentariat is excluded from this snark and cynicism.
I think of my grandad's small manufacturing business in Houston we built the brewery, the box
plants the can plants and a lot of the refineries, as well as a whole bunch of other stuff
that's now rusting away.
but a big part of his Ethos was taking care of his workers.
Talking about that ethos, today, anywhere else but here, seems somehow quaint.
after 50 years of financialised globalisation and Free Capital, I think that Ethos needs to
be stated right out front, and as clear as a bell, so the lawyers and pols can't wiggle out
of it.
like the mentioned "job training", but larded with MBA's running the show that's what the
people who will write the rules Believe "trade is always good!", "maximise transactions!",
etc.
the entire Belief System we operate under most often without thought needs to go.
otherwise, any "reindustrialisation" will be as i have feared was the plan all along: to wait
until we're desperate enough to arbitrage, and will work for pennies to provide the Chinese
Middle Class with cheap plastic pumpkins.
Thanks for this analysis. And the word Hysteresis. Could be the dilution of trauma, but it
never goes away. You'd think it would function like a social vaccine, no? But clearly the
only thing that can cure it is equity and security. Where's our HAL? We need a computer to
maintain social equality. I also agree that Liz's Economic Patriotism is puffery in most
places. Increasing exports is an absurd goal when the world is deindustrializing. Becoming
nationally self-sufficient is a much better goal. Foundries and forges are the biggest
polluters so their use will be modest. I remember only about 2 or 3 years ago we were all
very smug about the fact that China had no machine tool industry. The Chinese have really
knocked us all back on our heels. But my take on all this is it is time for change and we
shouldn't fight the last war. We should adapt using all our science and technology and
creativity. We should do Environmental manufacturing. How many engineering, physics,
agriculture, aquaculture, chemistry departments (to name a few) couldn't supply us with state
of the art technology to turn all our exorbitant recycling into new useful machinery? It
might be expensive when we can't externalize the heat, pollution and waste as we used to
under old fashioned machine manufacturing, but the payoff for the environment will be
earth-changing. And we might even learn to survive.
Our current industrial policy consists of:
* Allowing big corporations to avoid taxes
* Destroying/marginalizing labor unions
* Being in bed with the Chambers of COmmerce
* Hand outs to yuuge corporations (via sweetheart contracts)
*Price supports to large corporate farmers
*Enforcing patents, trademarks for yuuge corporations
*Big finance to large corporations and saving TBTF banks
^Bankruptcy laws that favor big business
*NAFTA and other trade treaties to help multinationals
*H1B and other visas that reduce labor costs for big employers
*Not prosecuting corps that employee undocumented works
*Destroyng economies of developing countries to favor our exports
*fomenting unrest wherever industries are nationalized to help our corps
*Aggresively defending the almighty dollar by every means possible
*Funnelling tax payers funds to universities for research to help big Pharma
*Making sure our Insurance and RE sectors are subsidized through loans and bailouts
I'm sure there are more but I can't think of all of them.
Who says we don't have an industrial policy?
"Oh";
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
The bottom line!
As an added comment I just can't believe that this is what would not have been expected with
any sniff of "globalization" back in it's birthing 30 years ago. What did Americans expect?
We dominated the post WW2 years in good manufacturing jobs while most of the world was
licking their wounds from that war; the rest of the world has caught up and passed us by
assisted by the globalization of flows of funds with the click of a mouse. Labor can't move
like that. The "Renaissance" of Jobs" is a farce and an illusion. Unless the US comes up with
something so new in manufacturing and can control that process for decades to come it is
descending more an more into a 3rd world status; a super wealthy small upper class and the
rest in "rickshaw" land. Even trade "wars" will not help.
The Chinese government has a pact with its population: the government makes sure the
economy is structured to provide jobs and the people promise not to overturn the government
through revolution.
When it is existential, then it becomes important. The US has simply stated that "The
Market" will determine what makes sense. Nothing existential there.
So people became disposal, fungible assets for the MBAs to run their spreadsheet numbers
on. For years they could assume that they could simply rehire skilled labor. However, that
skilled labor is retiring or becoming out of date, so the workers are no longer fungible. The
bleating begins about the lack of skilled labor because "somebody else" was responsible for
providing the skilled labor training. So most US firms have gone the Tim Cook route and
out-sourced to other countries that have trained workers and engineers over the past 20
years.
It will require a major paradigm shift from both government and corporations to change the
trends.
The Chinese government has a pact with its population: the government makes sure the
economy is structured to provide jobs and the people promise not to overturn the government
through revolution.
The American government has a pact with its population: the government makes sure the
economy is moved abroad and promises to kill the people if they attempt to overturn the
government through revolution.
And it's not just "the government" -- it's more the other MIC: The Marketing Importing
Complex. Apple is worth nearly a trillion dollars, that's 1/12 of China's GDP!
They could have used not so much of that money at all to train several workforces and
build many factories. But that's not what brings in the big executive compensation.
And related to the loss of a skilled worker base is the loss of patents needed to compete.
Although many patents for original inventions still originate in the US, subsequent patents
on improvements originate not in a lab, but from the shop floor. For example, the original
machinery for producing microchips may well have originated here, but as that industry moved
overseas, so did the patents on improvements. I doubt that we could compete in the
manufacture of LEDs, flat-screen TVs or monitors etc. even if we could do so economically:
the patents for the machines to make these things now reside overseas, in the hands of those
manufacturers that have been improving them for decades.
Good little post. A timely reminder that we've been bleeding those jobs and it's an
ongoing process, but we've already bled a lot of them away.
It's now been 20 years since PNTR with China. The direction has become clear. It's going
to take a tremendous amount of political will to change that direction. There are early signs
of a change, but not enough, yet.
Tariffs will need to be part of the answer. Fiscal policy and federal contracts will need
to be part of it. New regulatory bodies with new powers to enforce federal policy, too.
Also, my inner-Matt Stoller would like to remind us all that anti-monopoly is going to
need a prominent role, too. The business model of private equity has been to buy up a all
competitors in a particular niche, become a single supplier to the government, outsource to
cut costs. Then, jack up prices to boost margins.
'skills-based immigration' doesn't have a good track record. Look at H1B visas. They've
been turned into a vehicle to import low wage labor, and then enable outsourcing.
> 'skills-based immigration' doesn't have a good track record. Look at H1B visas.
They've been turned into a vehicle to import low wage labor, and then enable outsourcing.
The US H1B is an employment based non-immigrant visa, easy for corporations to use for
their own purposes – especially when the person's right to reside relies upon their
continued employment at their sponsoring employer.
Canada has a points based immigration system for the majority of immigrants (others are
family reunification etc.) that is not employment based. Those getting the required points
are given permanent residency (with a path to citizenship within 4 years). They can move from
job to job at will. Its how I became a Canadian citizen.
I was thinking about this the other day in response to the Economist's recent article
about a new boom in employment.
Does anyone know if scam artists, ransomeware senders, illegal salvagers, and stolen goods
fencers would be counted as part of official employment statistics?
There's a whole section of the economy that is growing right now based upon illegally
raiding closed down big box stores and selling the goods on eBay. Similarly, just like in any
other time when inequality is high, scams and efforts to deceive others for profit are on the
rise.
That's perceptive. I would bet Manhattan on Google maps has many, many more "firms" than
Manhattan at street level, where you see a "For Rent" sign on every block.
Pretty sure it was one of many misspellings, and that what was meant was "tooling." Hard
to take articles seriously when the writer doesn't even bother to run them through
spellcheck.
Somebody up there never read The Grauniad , nor appreciated how it came to earn that particular
nickname . Hard to take comments seriously when the writer doesn't even bother to
consider the proverb "let he who is without sin cast the first snote".
The bad news is that what is also lost is a caring-about-getting-details-right culture.
Nearly extinct, in fact, at the business level, and I would sadly include
engineering-intensive businesses (based on what little I have experienced.)
The good news is that North America has plenty of the human resources (and physical plant)
we are talking about, mostly within a short drive of the border, even.
I would actually be more inclined to despair about the former than the latter.
An alternative view that is hard to evaluate from this data we should be looking a
domestic manufacturing economic value, not jobs. While loss of jobs is certainly bad, isn't
it ameliorated if the manufacturing activity is taking place in the US? Hard to evaluate with
given data.
Not necessarily. The problem with trying to evaluate "value" in trans-national Apple- or
Walmart-style value chains is that the dominant player (Apple, Walmart) recognizes almost all
of the value-added. (One could add " regardless of where that value is created" but, as
Veblen pointed out a hundred years ago, there is no way to disentangle productive value from
"buying and selling," so there is no "correct" way to assign value.)
The fact that Foxconn in China pays really low wages and has relatively tight profit
margins leads to the conclusion that the value contribution per capita of Apple employees
(because contractors don't create value either) is if I recall correctly several million
dollars per employee. If that manufacturing work was done in the U.S., the value-per-employee
would be much lower (still very high) but the wages paid, and worker living standards, would
be much higher. (This would also be true, though to a lesser extent, if they doubled or
tripled the wages of their Foxconn workforce in China.)
On top of this, of course, are the income-recognition and tax games that multinationals
play. Economists know about these but somehow seem to think national data provide (a
different set of?) "true" representations of value-added anyway.
It is interesting to know that for furniture the timber is felled here in the US, the
timber milled into lumber here, kiln dried here, packed into containers here, shipped from
here to China, turned into furniture, knocked down, shipped here and reassembled here.
Not sure where the savings are but I suspect that the goal was to maximize profit and
minimize taxes.
Of course no one will be left to buy furniture except on credit.
I've been thinking about not only the manufacture of things like that but the
craftsmanship that went into it (once upon a time).
I noticed the street lamps in Hollywood. The older ones that still work are black and
elegantly designed steel. The part holding the lamp, the steel is bent like an arm flexing
biceps.
The newer ones are taller. But just steel, bland, straight, can see them anywhere
( M aterial M eets T ool X sales) – expenses = profit or
loss
Got tooling?
> . . . Apprenticeships and training are good, but why not consider skills-based
immigration that brings in the worker we'd otherwise have to wait to train?
Piss off. After the tooling industry was destroyed by cheap Chinese labor, you want to
bring them in to further destroy it or take it over?
Cheap Chinese labor in fact offshore labor is at best a canard and generally not far from
a deception which repeated often enough becomes fact.
A good approach is to look at the labor quotient that is the cost of labor necessary to
create a finished product.
For example in aluminum manufacture using the Hall process to reduce bauxite the majority
of the cost is in electricity perhaps as much as 90%+ and labor cost is around 5%. So any
manger worth his paycheck moves the operation to a a region of low power cost e.g. Iceland,
Bonneville power territory, TVA. Labor cost is minimal perhaps 5%.
At one time the labor cost for textiles was around 17 % with the aim of the mills to drive
the labor quotient to 12% through automation.
In addition if labor costs were the driving force in manufacturing it would be reasonable
for all of U.S, manufacturing to relocate to low wage states such as Mississippi or the
Dakotas.
And one should note that the multinationals are not shy of hiring U.S. labor at their
factories here in the US.
The goal of U.S. corporations is to take advantage of tariffs (taxes) and the greater
flexibility of accounting in offshore locations.
Before my ex customers and I parted ways, they used to get me to quote tooling work and
then send the work to China. The reason given, my price was too high and they could get if
for a fraction of that in China. No, it wouldn't be the same tool, but they liked to think
they were getting an equivalent.
Before I gave up on them and fired my rotten customers, I used to ask "where is my one
dollar per day cop", my one dollar per day teacher, my one dollar per day politician" so that
my cost are in line with the Chinese? That drew a blank stare every time with no answer.
Tooling work is labor intensive and not comparable to generating electric power.
I view tooling as society's precious metal. It is the "means of production". The lawyers
and politicians (one and the same from my viewpoint) running the country for their own
benefit (they could not care less about you or me) make their money by charging the victim
that darkens their doorway $500 bucks an hour. For them, they produce nothing and take it
all, and their view of wealth generation is distorted by their occupation. They are quick to
hand money to the biggest corporations to make them richer (see Wal-Mart and Amazon's massive
billions in subsidies), but a little guy like me can rot in hell.
Globalization is a disaster, no matter where one cares to look.
Send the work to China has been dying since 2005. Didn't you notice? US heavy
manufacturing has ex-material extraction almost looks now where it was in 2000. That isn't
necessarily a good thing. Debt driven illusions can kill.
> After the tooling industry was destroyed by cheap Chinese labor, you want to bring
them in to further destroy it or take it over?
No, I don't. If there's a sane industrial policy, then (a) there's more than enough work
for everybody and (b) we can pay "prevailing wages" as we ought to do. I think in this case
the country is in such a hole we can add on, and the game is not zero sum. Not the same as,
say, meatpacking.
Big if, there. The managers and owners that would influence industrial policy will waste
no time in bringing over 10,000 or 100,000 or however many they wanted, and swamp the
industry with cheap labor.
According to Cook, there are millions upon millions of toolmakers and machinists in China,
so even a million wouldn't be missed. Toolmaking becomes the new meatpacking.
My bet is there will be no sane industrial policy.
A possible "Black Swan" in all this national manufacturing quandry is the fragility of the
supply chains involved. Today, the costs of shipping materials and goods across an entire
ocean are managed through scale, (Embiggening Shipping Incorporated,) computerized
scheduling, (Just In Time Ordering,) and cheap energy, (Fearless Fred's Fracking Et Cie.) Any
one of those inputs could go asymmetric and make the exercise of Materials Globalization
uneconomic. Then people would have to either pay more for something or do without. Either
outcome would reduce aggregate economic activity in the nation. The social result would be
another example of 'hystereisis,' people remembering what their and family members standards
of living once were, and taking that for a 'normal' that has been stolen from them. A process
similar to that which preceded the French Revolution will be in play.
It also helps to have clusters of similar industries in the same location. This gives new
companies an area with lots of folks with the appropriate skills. We lost these "centers of
manufacturing excellence" when so much of it got off-shored. It'll take significant efforts
to bring them back.
You are of course correct but good people have been making this argument for the last 40
years with virtually no impact on corporate behavior. I'm no expert in Chinese manufacturing
but I would have to think by now the technical capacity in China – not saying
everywhere but certainly in large parts of the export sector – is very high. Yet the
wages and working conditions are still terrible. So much for productivity = wages.
True. In a stable environment, labour availability 'drives' wages. That was the secret the
Unions levered to success. Restrict the supply of labour and squeeze the owners. Find a
"fair" balance and the Golden Age ensues. The "fair" part of that equation was redefined, and
here we are.
A risible 'Snark' if you will.
Lambert claims to have been a "model railroader" when young. Such virtue in one so young! I,
poor deplorable, primarily associated with louche and gauche railroaders and tabletop gamers.
So it is understandable that he grabbed the Iridium Ring while I merely took a circular ride.
The "Eternal Return" in all it's refulgent glory. (I should meditate more on my exorcising of
'amor fati.')
To quote a friend who hires workers for factories in the US and China,
"Manufacturing in the US is a nightmare. At our facility our only requirement for assemblers
was a high school degree, US citizenship, passing a drug and criminal background check and
then passing a simple assembly test: looking at an assembly engineering drawing and then
putting the components together. While the vast majority of Americans were unable to complete
the assembly test, in China they completed it in half the time and 100% of applicants passed.
An assembler position in the US would average 30 interviews a day and get 29 rejections, not
to mention all the HR hassles of assemblers walking off shift, excessive lateness, stealing
from work, slow work speed and poor attitudes. The position starts at $12 an hour in flyover
country which is pretty reasonable compared to other jobs that only require a GED and no
prior work experience and offers medical, dental and annual raises with plenty of opportunity
to move up in the company and earn the average salary for a Production Assembler, $33,029 in
US, if they stay for five years.
Identical positions in China pay the same wages as other positions there with only a high
school degree and no work experience. Yet the applicant quality is much higher and this
applies to the white collar support professionals: schedulers, quality inspectors, equipment
testers and calibrators, engineers, supply chain managers, account managers, sales. Their
labor quality is simply higher. At the end of the day, high-end and middling manufacturing is
not moving to the US or Mexico because average people in flyover country are dumb as
rocks."
1. Just curious but does your friend say what the wages are in the Chinese plants? Do they
reflect the quality of the applicant pool? Based on the talent levels you describe, they
should all be making $100K/yr. At least 50. And not having to live in dormitories. Maybe the
fact that your friend has access to such a talented workforce at starvation wages has
something to do with workers not really being free? Why do we call it free trade, anyway?
2. I have no reason to doubt the fact set you describe. But it could have turned out
differently, and the reason it didn't was that companies that were developed and initially
made huge profits in this country decided to take the jobs elsewhere because they could make
even huger profits. Everything else flowed from that.
Thanks, as Tim Cook points out, to the quality of Chinese public education, which our own
elites have been busily destroying. It's almost like after the neoliberals took over in the
mid-70s they "burned the boats" so there was no way back to what the country was; a more
vivid way of saying "hysteresis," I suppose.
$33K if you stay five years, how friggin generous. I wonder, how much is "your friend"
pulling down shuttling between US and China? I'll bet it's a lot closer to $330K than
$33K.
$12 an hour is a joke and you will get what you pay for. "Flyover" country or not, but I
suppose the distinction is important to bigots that want to mentally justify exploiting the
class.
I know plenty of people that bust their ass in multiple jobs for not much more than your
"friends" generous $12 an hour and they are hardly "dumb as rocks". Maybe "your friend" needs
to look at his recruiting skills.
My rural neighbors and friends in southern Michigan are these $12 hour workers your friend
references. Did your friend mention "mandatory overtime"? or "zero hours"?. What this means
is when you go to your job at 7am you may be sent home at 9 (they have to pay you for 2hours
during which you clean the plant), or at 2pm when your shift ends in an hour they let you
know they want you to stay until 5. Forget a weekend, you find out on Friday if you have to
work Saturday, on Saturday you find out about Sunday. I have friends that have worked 74 days
in a row with no day off, then they are on temporary shutdown for 20 day (unpaid of course!)
while the plant re-tools or absorbs unsold inventory. Your work week is driven by the whims
and profits of the the corporation.
There is no security in these jobs, not weekly, monthly and certainly not as a career. The
factory may close or re-locate abruptly due to the some corporate buy-out, merger, or
re-location to a more lucrative tax-free/low labor pay location. Sometimes the physical
location in your little town re-opens with a new name, new owner, usually lower pay, but
always the same insecure employment story.
These are not jobs you would encourage your children to take on as a career, jobs you build
families and buy homes with.
I've designed and installed measurement/control equipment in exactly the type of US
facility this commenter is describing. The reason the applicants are "dumb as rocks" is that
the company culture drives all others away. Why go to a sh#tty factory with no windows, weird
hours, and an obnoxious tailorist environment, when you could get paid the same or more at a
car shop (even just the guy/ gal washing the cars) or a construction (even just a laborer).
The bottom level of factory work in the US sucks. Hiring managers know anyone who is worth
anything will quit in a month or two so they set up the process to subtly screen for people
that will stay (i.e. already had the self esteem wrung out of them by previous experiences).
Techs have it a bit better, since they actually have a path up the ladder that isn't a lie.
But the environment is deeply depressing, like a bad stereotype of the 1930s. I honestly hate
going to US factories.
If you fish on the bottom, you catch bottom fish. What's the problem? $12/hr maybe OK for
college kids looking for a summer job; for me its a slap in the face. 30 yrs
millwright/welder/fabrication and machining. 3 trade schools at own expense; own tools. No
drugs whatsoever, ever. You want people to be professionals you have to treat them like that,
and that begins with the pay package. Maybe your friend needs to be told this, verbatim.
Thinking over Lambert's last paragraph, can the economic system that got us into this mess
also be capable of getting us out of it? Well, no. There are too many vested interests and
too many salaries (note that I did not say wages) that are depending on the current system
continuing – which it can't.
What Warren's "Economic Patriotism" does not attack. People have a rough idea what
"revolution" means. They have no idea at all what "big structural change" means. I suppose if
we swapped in "hope and" for "big structural" we'd have an idea of what she's getting at.
Lambert: this is a great post but I fear you are only scratching the surface. In addition
to what you cover, I would add, off the top of my head:
1. If the data were to go back to the mid-70s, you would see substantially higher numbers for
firms and employees in tooling industries than in 2002. The decline since 2002 is just a
fraction of the skill and talent we have lost.
2. US multinationals, real manufacturers or virtual manufacturers like Apple, are simply not
interested in re-shoring. There is no convincing cost-benefit argument. You might be able to
show a company that they could make boatloads of money by building a new facility in the US
but they would (rightly) tell you that, if that were truly the case, they could make MORE
boatloads by building it in Mexico or China. Trump can bluster all he wants but the real
problem is that US manufacturing is not cost-competitive in a free-trade environment.
3. Which gets to the larger point. The great thing about manufacturing is that anyone, with
training and experience, can get good at it with (enough of) the right investment in tooling,
training, and experience. Adam Smith could already see 250 years ago, before there ever was
big-time manufacturing, that machinery changed everything – substantially more output
with substantially less skilled labor. That has been the story for the last 250 years. (John
Commons wrote a great piece 100 years ago on shoemaking – search Philadelphia
Cordwainers – that showed how in this industry there was a constant dance of expansion
of market, new technology, deskilling, and relocation of work in search of lower cost labor.
Jefferson Cowie wrote a modern version about RCA more recently but exactly the same
story.)
I was at the UAW when work started moving to Mexico in a big way. There was a lot of bluster
about the fact that "they" were not going to be able to do the work, and for many years there
was a lot of truth to that. But with enough time and investment, of course eventually they
could. (Modularization of work comes in here, too, as it is a good way to incrementally shift
work to lower wage locations as skill levels grow.) I see no evidence that there aren't many
firms in China that can do technical work at the highest level, even if the "average" level
of work is much lower, with wages and working conditions much lower than you could get away
with in this country.
The conclusion can only be that globalization invariably leads to a race to the bottom. It
has to. (Even in Germany, wages haven't grown with productivity, because even in Germany
workers have no "hand," as George Costanza would say.) This is why I hate Dean Baker's
argument that the solution is to subject doctors and lawyers to the same degree of global
competition as manufacturing workers face. It is true that costs would come down but in a
further race to the bottom. It's no solution, it's just spreading the misery.
This is why I'm a socialist.
> globalization invariably leads to a race to the bottom. It has to.
That's not a bug.
> I hate Dean Baker's argument that the solution is to subject doctors and lawyers to
the same degree of global competition as manufacturing workers face.
True, but the professionals might have a "come to Jesus" movement that would obviate the
need to pass such a bill.
We have seen a lot of "foreign" medical 'professionals' in our meanderings through the
American Medical Complex these last three years. An oncologist from Delhi, India, a plastic
surgeon from Karachi, Pakistan, a research oncologist from Cracow, Poland, a Registered Nurse
from Brazil, etc. etc. These people are working and living here in America in pursuit of the
Gold Ring. (One Ring of Gold to rule them all.)
Until America institutes a National Health Service and caps medical professional salaries,
nothing will change.
The main problem is structural. To mangle an infamous statement from the Vietnam War: "We had
to destroy the society to save it."
I think those who make the decisions should face the consequences of those decisions. That
would be -- executives. The fact that they can insulate themselves from negative consequences
in the larger society is the only reason they get away with it. That, and the fact that its
illegal to kill them.
I also believe the workers should control the means of production, preferrable by employee
ownership and the use of credit unions.
Hysteresis and path dependencies are other ways of saying systems with memory.
Systems with memories are metastable, which means they don't have unique (or maybe even
finite) sets of steady-state solutions, given the fundamental noise in the system.
In such systems, the law of large numbers is not valid.
Thus, most of orthodox economics is mathematically invalid, unless liquidity is turned up
to the point that it is completely memoryless, responding only to the latest instantaneous
event.
Such a system would destroy all memory bearing systems in it's path -- human beings are
memory bearing systems.
The problem how I see it is that everyone was talking about how we before moved most
investment from agri to manufacturing, we'd move it all from manufacturing to services.
The only problem with that is that it ignores a lot of history and worse yet, it would
turn blind eye to some clear conclusions.
As in the above seemed to implicitly assume all service jobs would be better jobs than all
manufacturing jobs. Which is not true, as you can't really compare tooling engineer (to take
example from above) with a hairdresser.
As with any mass change, the majority of the service jobs created woudl be low-skill,
low-paid ones. They would have to be, because there just would not be enough of people with
the right skills (and aptitudes).
Yes, maybe evenutally shifting to the majority of jobs to service sectors is as
unavoidable as shifting majority of jobs out of agri few hundreds of years ago. But still,
would not it be better (for the society and the country) to do it gradually, via automation
(as part of the capital investment cycle), than just moving manufacturing offshore to the
cheapest-possible?
The problem here is not with the companies.Even if they have enlightened shareholders
(hahahah. The amorphous mass that are the investment funds?) who are willing to take lower
returns short/medium term to do the right thing, they may get destroyed by competition who
has no such qualms.
If the government is a servant of the country, and not just the few lobbyist, then this is
very clearly the task of the governmnet, making sure that it works out. Well, except the
problem is, if you have a few short years election cycle, no-one cares more than slightly
less than the cycle, because they want to get re-elected, and you don't get re-elected on the
strength of the policies you implemented 20 years ago.
Another thing we need to acknowledge here is that while this all, in an international
context, is not an entirely zero-sum game, it's a workable approximation. Because policies
that will help Americans (or Europeans or others) will often hurt elsewhere.
There's no chance China would be now where it is w/o the massive offshoring to it. It's
pretty night impossible for a lot of low-income countries to bootstrap themselves when facing
a much more developed competition, that's just fact of life (the skills won't develop
themselves, someone has to invest into them, and that won't happen if all you have is a poor
internal market).
There can be a workable equilibrium between say the EU and the US. There cannot be a
workable equilibrium between the US and the Africa (I'll use the US and Africa as examples,
put in whatever you want) w/o the US giving up some of its wealth (=some of the wealth of its
people).
But tbh, this is where the wealth distribution matters (and why it doesn't need to be a
zero-sum game). If the internal US wealth distribution was different, leaving even a
reasonable chunk on the table for Africa would not matter that much. It would still mean
Africa was developing slower than with say Chinese-like policy (and single-midedness), but it
would.
Of course then we run into a different problem. The current lifestyle of <1bln people
in "first world countries" can't be really replicated across 8-9bln. But I'm getting so far
away from the original problem that I'm not going to go there.
> If the government is a servant of the country, and not just the few lobbyist, then
this is very clearly the task of the governmnet, making sure that it works out. Well, except
the problem is, if you have a few short years election cycle, no-one cares more than slightly
less than the cycle, because they want to get re-elected, and you don't get re-elected on the
strength of the policies you implemented 20 years ago.
Perhaps term-limiting the Presidency with the 22nd Amendment was a bad idea. One wonders,
in any case, why the Democrats supported it, after FDR.
I enjoyed my career in manufacturing, starting with my discovery of the Western Electric
Statistical Quality Control Handbook and then learning to apply statistical analysis to
manufacturing processes in pharmaceuticals. Alas, the FDA still favors compliance to
regulation over skilled process design, optimization and control.
Anyway, thanks for the article. The US was the primary manufacturer of machine tools at
the start of 1980 and now we are ranked seventh. We have lost this basis for manufacturing
and along with that, we are at risk of losing entire generations of manufacturing expertise
at all levels from product development and design to finished goods output.
While my coursework in college allowed me to work in technical manufacturing you alsu
point out the bias that now exists against pursuing a career in manufacturing and wonder if
the selling of higher education rather than training in skilled vocations like machining has
fundamentally changed how we value manufacturing?
I can remember in the 60s where there were innumerable small machine shops around Detroit
servicing the aerospace community during the ramp-up to Apollo. All gone now.
I'm curious as to what the growth was during the Obama years vs. the Trump years in both
establishments and employment by NAICs code. Do you have a link? Your table goes from 2002 to
2018, but what about the years in between?
Based on the bls.gov data, manufacturing jobs only increased by 496K during Trump. That's
not much. In fact, the trend line is very similar to Obama's.
Lambert, thanks for the analysis. I will note your last line,
"I'm not sure that's meaningful absent an actual industrial policy, democratically arrived
at, and a mobilized population (which is what the Green New Deal ought to do)."
That is exactly what my Green
New Deal Plan is designed to do. My mentor was the late Professor Seymour Melman, who was
one of the world's top experts on the machine tool industry, and who warned as far back as
1988 in a book called 'the demilitarized society' that the U.S. was at the 'point of no
return' exactly because the industrial machinery industries were in such bad shape. In fact,
he felt that it was not possible for these industries to regenerate by themselves, thus the
point of no return, so they needed help from the government to revive, and there needed to be
large scale importing of engineering talent from what I would call more advanced countries to
'train the natives', as he put it (not sure if that is pc at this point). (If anyone is
interested, I posted a description of Seymour's work at
NakedCapitalism , )
Tim Cook's comments have been chilling because he is pointing out the systemic nature of a
manufacturing base, like a forest if it gets too small, the whole thing effectively
collapses. At this point, it seems to me, the U.S. can only 'bring back manufacturing' by
engaging in huge public works projects, require domestic content, and help companies produce
the associated parts and equipment. It would be especially important to require, after a few
years, that the machinery be produced in the U.S. This is the sort of thing the Chinese do in
their sleep, but most of the elite have been living in Reagan's brain for so long they forgot
they can use the Federal government for nation building. I tried to counter some of the
myths of manufacturing , as I put it, in my book "Manufacturing Green Prosperity"
What do you do when the finance-types in control of all these firms say, "No thanks"? Tim
Cook complains that the skill base isn't here – which by now it might not be –
but the real driver is lower labor costs elsewhere. Guaranteed profits like in the MIC?
Left in Wisconsin, thanks for replying. I think you need a form of national planning. not
gosplan type, more like in the one to two trillion per year range, that the Feds directly
spend -- I would advocate on a green new deal plan, for instance. That's not exactly
guaranteed profits a la MIC, and a friend doesn't want me to use the word 'infrastructure
industrial complex', but I think the Chinese did something rather similar, they planned the
building of vast public works, and they knew that would provide a huge market for
manufacturing firms. i think this sort of dynamic helped before in american history, think of
encouraging rail in the 19th century or the public works in the new deal. i wrote about this
in American Prospect . If
you have 'domestic content' laws for all the parts being used for the public works, then you
don't have to worry about lower wages overseas. It's absolutely necessary that the Green New
Deal people put that in their language, I don't know if they will
My understanding is that GATT allowed for domestic content if it was for 'general
infrastructure'. Don't know about WTO, but it may be the same, I remember having a
conversation with someone about this in 2008 so maybe it is WTO. Judging by what Trump is
getting away with, maybe all you have to do is declare something a matter of 'national
security' .but frankly I don't know. What the US, during Obama's administration, did to
India, which was trying to use domestic content to build their solar industry, is
unconscienable (sp) then India sued back when several US states tried to do the same thing.
Clearly if there was support for a green new deal, there would be support enough to tell the
WTO to go to hell, or what would probably happen, the WTO rules would change with enough
pressure
Sorry, but manufacturing has been in recession this year Lambert. Be aware the tied of
revisions. From a pratical pov, Obama or Trump doesn't matter. But due to massive junk bond
allocations and imo exhausted heavy manufacturing companies, they are in trouble going
forward.
China itself is overrated right now as well. This board lives in denial on this issue.
"... Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them. ..."
"... The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best." That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history. ..."
"... As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion. ..."
"... Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before." ..."
"... The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans. ..."
"... As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq. ..."
"... Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security." He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous, to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question. ..."
"... The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes? ..."
"... Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic war. ..."
Gabbard calls out the betrayers; Dems try to forget their heroes Mueller and Biden are among them.
Estimates of the number of civilians who died during the war in Iraq range from 151,000 to 655,000. An additional 4,491 American
military personnel perished in the war. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, toxicologist at the University of Michigan, has organized several
research expeditions to Iraq to measure the contamination and pollution still poisoning the air and water supply from the tons of
munitions dropped during the war. It does not require any expertise to assume what the studies confirm: disease is still widespread
and birth defects are gruesomely common. Back home, it is difficult to measure just how many struggle with critical injuries and
post-traumatic stress disorder.
The gains of war in Iraq remain elusive, especially considering that the justifications for invasion -- weapons of mass destruction,
Saddam Hussein's connection to al-Qaeda, the ambition to create a Western-style democracy at gunpoint -- remain "murky at best."
That's a quote from the 9/11 Commission's conclusion on the so-called evidence linking Iraq to Osama bin Laden's group, which actually
did carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history.
As far as stupid and barbarous decisions are concerned, it is difficult to top the war in Iraq. It is also difficult to match
its price tag, which, according to a recent Brown University study, amounts to $1.1 trillion.
Gore Vidal once christened his country the "United States of Amnesia," explaining that Americans live in a perpetual state
of a hangover: "Every morning we wake up having forgotten what happened the night before."
The war in Iraq ended only nine years ago, but it might as well have never taken place, given the curious lack of acknowledgement
in our press and political debates. As families mourn their children, babies are born with irreversible deformities, and veterans
dread trying to sleep through the night, America's political class, many of whom sold the war to the public, have moved on. When
they address Iraq at all, they act as though they have committed a minor error, as though large-scale death and destruction are the
equivalent of a poor shot in golf when the course rules allow for mulligans.
As the Robert Mueller fiasco smolders out, it is damning that the Democratic Party, in its zest and zeal to welcome any critical
assessment of Trump's unethical behavior, has barely mentioned that Mueller, in his previous role as director of the FBI, played
a small but significant role in convincing the country to go to war in Iraq.
Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security."
He also warned that Saddam could "supply terrorists with radiological material" for the purposes of devising a nuclear bomb. Leaving
aside any speculation about Mueller's intentions and assuming he had only the best of motives, it is quite bizarre, even dangerous,
to treat as oracular someone who was wrong on such a life-or-death question.
Far worse than the worship of Mueller is the refusal to scrutinize the abysmal foreign policy record of Joe Biden, currently the
frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Of the Democrats in the Senate at that time, Biden was the most
enthusiastic of the cheerleaders for war, waving his pompoms and cartwheeling in rhythm to Dick Cheney's music. Biden said repeatedly
that America had "no choice but to eliminate the threat" posed by Saddam Hussein. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
his blustering was uniquely influential.
The former vice president now claims that his "only mistake was trusting the Bush administration," implying he was tricked
into supporting the war. This line is not as persuasive as he imagines. First, it raises the question -- can't we nominate someone
who wasn't tricked? Second, its logic crumbles in the face of Biden's recent decision to hire Nicholas Burns, former U.S. ambassador
to NATO, as his campaign's foreign policy advisor. Burns was also a vociferous supporter of the war. An enterprising reporter should
ask Biden whether Burns was also tricked. Is the Biden campaign an assembly of rubes?
Instead, the press is likelier to interrogate Biden over his holding hands and giving hugs to women at public events. Criticism
of Biden's "inappropriate touching" has become so strident that the candidate had to record a video to explain his behavior. The
moral standards of America's political culture seem to rate kissing a woman on the back of the head as a graver offense than catastrophic
war.
Polling well below Biden in the race is the congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard. She alone on the Democratic stage has made
criticism of American militarism central to her candidacy. A veteran of the Iraq war and a highly decorated major in the Hawaii Army
National Guard, Gabbard offers an intelligent and humane perspective on foreign affairs. She's called the regime change philosophy
"disastrous," advocated for negotiation with hostile foreign powers, and backed a reduction in drone strikes. She pledges if she
becomes president to end American involvement in Afghanistan.
When Chris Matthews asked Gabbard about Biden's support for the Iraq war, she said, "It was the wrong vote. People like myself,
who enlisted after 9/11 because of the terrorist attacks, were lied to. We were betrayed."
Her moral clarity is rare in the political fog of the presidential circus. She cautions against accepting the "guise of humanitarian
justification for war," and notes that rarely does the American government bomb and invade a country to actually advance freedom
or protect human rights.
Gabbard's positions are vastly superior to that of the other young veteran in the race, Pete Buttigieg. The mayor of South Bend
recently told New York that one of his favorite novels is The Quiet American , saying that its author, Graham Greene,
"points out the dangers of well-intentioned interventions."
Buttigieg's chances of winning the nomination seem low, and his prospects of becoming a literary critic appear even lower.
The Quiet American does much more than raise questions about interventions: it is a merciless condemnation of American exceptionalism
and its attendant indifference to Vietnamese suffering.
Americans hoping for peace won't find much comfort in the current White House either. President Trump has made the world more
dangerous by trashing the Iran nuclear deal, and his appointment of John Bolton, a man who makes Donald Rumsfeld look like Mahatma
Gandhi, as national security advisor is certainly alarming.
America's willful ignorance when it comes to the use of its own military exposes the moral bankruptcy at the heart of its political
culture. Even worse, it makes future wars all but inevitable.
If no one can remember a war that ended merely nine years ago, and there's little room for Tulsi Gabbard in the Democratic primary,
how will the country react the next time a president, and the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declare that they
have no choice but to remove a threat?
Norman Solomon, journalist and founder of the Institute for Public Accuracy, knows the answer to that question. He provides it
in the title of his book on how the media treats American foreign policy decisions: War Made Easy .
Where ae the people who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? Should they be tried for lying to the American public?
4500 troops killed and over $1.1 TRILLION wasted with no good results .With hundreds of thousands of Iraq's killed. .
Where are they, indeed? They are still running US foreign policy; that's where they are. They are pundits in all the major media;
that's where they are.
I cannot even imagine what historians will say about the uncanny persistence of these charlatans' influence in this era after
a consistent record of disastrous, abysmal misadventures.
You don't have to look too hard to find them. Bolton, Pompeo, and other neocons are hiding in plain sight. The Military Industrial
Complex is embedded in our foreign policy like a tick on a dog.
Because you'd be knocking out a storm trooper instead of the emperor, at least as far as Bush goes. Same for why the focus is
on Bolton rather than simply Trump.
I CAN see an argument that Trump/Bush knew what they were doing when they brought those people in though. f you feel that way
and see it more of an owner of a hostile attack dog then yeah, you'd want to include those two too.
Here stands Tulsi. A woman, who, unlike their conventional troupe, can win this election. They reject her because... what? Moar
war? She's not the member of the Cult? Or it's simply some sort of collective political death wish?
They reject her because she had the temerity to speak truth to power and supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 race. She stepped
down from her position as Vice Chair of the DNC to endorse Sanders. She has real courage, and earned their wrath. She's not perfect
but she's braver and stronger than almost the entire field. Only Bernie is on par.
And Bernie is the one they also hate, maybe a little bit less openly. Thus they reject those who can win the election. It's either
a self-destructiveness or they think that it's better to keep on losing than to rebuild the party into what it needs to be.
Democrats and the Republican establishment, both, love war. It wasn't a coincidence that Hillary Clinton chose Madeleine Albright
to be a keynote speaker at "her" party convention ("we think the deaths of a half million children are worth it"). Liberals know
that there isn't really any "free" free, and that taxing the rich won't match their dreams -- it is the blood and bones of innocent
foreigners that must pay for their lust. Establishment Republicans are more straightforward: they simply profit off the death
and destruction.
This is why Trump is being destroyed, and why Tulsi is attacked. If only "she" (the one who gloated over Khameni's murder)
had been elected, we'd be in a proxy war with Russia now! A real war with Iran! This is what the American people want, and what
they'll likely get when they vote another chicken-hawk in come 2020.
Tulsi, like Sanders is a 'danger' to everything Israel wants.
So, all...all the main 'news' networks and online sites don't like them and give more coverage to the same old Dem bull peddlers
like ignorant Booker and the lousy opportunist low IQ Kamala Harris and Gillibrand.
Manafort and his ilk can be tried and convicted for their lies. I guess if the lie is big enough we grant a pass on any need for
prosecution. Justice for all? I don't think so.
Max Blumenthal posted a powerful piece at Consortium News (7/31/2019) about Biden's central and south American mis-adventures.
Biden still extols his own policies however disastrous. The hubris of the man is worse than nauseating.
Whether one thinks Gabbard has a shot at the nomination or not, it's important to keep her on the stage in the next round of debates.
Go to Tulsi2020.com
and give her just one dollar (or more if you can)
so she has enough unique contributors to make the next round. And if you get polled,early on give her your vote.
The total US costs related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are expected to be considerably larger than $1.1 trillion, according
to this study:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu...
Try $4-$6 trillion, according to the author of the study.
Long after I, Andrew Bacevitch and Hillary Clinton have gone to our reward, there will still be thousands of wounded warriors
from these US Middle East adventures dependent on VA benefits for their survival and competing with civilian seniors for government
handouts. A war with Iran would make the US fiscal situation that much worse.
The religious folks who were so anxious to protect family values only a few years ago seem to have their heads in the sand
when it comes to the financial future of today's young Americans.
A few weeks ago, I made a token contribution to Tulsi Gabbard's campaign to help her qualify for the July Democratic debates.
She will need more new contributors to qualify for the next round of debates.
Tulsi hasn't a chance of the nomination, but she's exposing things and maybe more people will get a clue about what's really going
on with American lives and taxes being squandered for the profit of the few who benefit from these atrocities and wars abroad,
done in the name of all Americans.
Being a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard for the very reasons that the author writes, has me agreeing with everything he has promoted
in his piece.
However, to answer his own question as to why Americans are lured into commenting on such innocuous and foolish things in such
an important election such as Biden's touching of women, is answered by the author's own prose.
He states that Americans are only provided such nonsense from the press that is monitoring the election process. What else
can people talk about? And even if many Americans are clearheaded enough to understand the charade of the current Democratic debates,
what or who will actually provide legitimate coverage with the exception of online sites as the American Conservative, among others?
If most Americans were actually thinking individuals, Tulsi Gabbard would be a shoo-in for the presidency in 2020. However,
given the two factors of a highly corrupted mainstream press and too many Americans not studying enough civics to understand what
is going on around them, it is highly unlikely that Tulsi Gabbard will even get close to the possibility of being nominated...
Cheney, mentioned in the article, was pure evil. I voted for GB2 for two reasons. 1) He was a very good Texas governor. He actually
got anti-tax Texas to raise taxes dedicated to support education, in return for stricter standards for teachers. A good trade
since Texas public schools were awful. 2) Dick Cheney. I thought he was the adult in the room that would provide steady and reliable
guidance for Bush.
Boy was I wrong about Cheney. "Deficits don't matter". Just watch the movie Vice. Christian Bale does an incredible job portraying
the pure evil of Cheney and the Military Industrial Complex. The movie is chilling to watch. And it is basically true. Politifact
does a good job of scoring the accuracy of Cheney's role in the Bush administration as portrayed in the movie.
"... "Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have #Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted . ..."
"... As TAC previously reported , the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions. ..."
"... "The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions," writes Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits." ..."
British Gibraltar ordered the ship's release to ease tensions. Washington wasn't having any of it.
•
A ship approaches supertanker Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar on July 6, 2019. – Iran demanded on July 5, 2019
that Britain immediately release an oil tanker it has detained in Gibraltar, accusing it of acting at the bidding of
the United States. Photo by JORGE GUERRERO / AFP) (Photo credit should read JORGE GUERRERO/AFP/Getty Images)
Despite eleventh hour efforts on the part of the U.S. to detain the Grace
1 Iranian oil tanker seized by the Royal Navy in July, the vessel was released Thursday. Gibraltar's Chief Minister said
he had accepted a pledge from Iran that if the tanker was released, it would not be taken to Syria.
The Grace 1 was seized last month by the British Royal Navy for alleged
European Union sanctions violations. The British claimed that Iran was using the tanker to ship oil to Syria.
Before the last minute U.S. legal action, authorities in Gibraltar had
announced they would release the Grace 1 and drop legal actions against the ship's captain and crew in order to ease
tensions.
The U.S. application was scheduled to be heard later on Thursday by the
Gibraltar Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of Justice sought to extend the detention of the oil tanker, but the
Gibraltar Supreme Court later dropped the detention order, essentially moving evaluation of the U.S. request to another
government agency for consideration,
according
to CBS. In the mean time, the tanker is free to leave.
The U.S. filing seems to confirm
reports
that the U.S. urged the British detention of the Iranian ship in July.
"
Having failed to accomplish its objectives
through its
#EconomicTerrorism
-- including
depriving cancer patients of medicine -- the US attempted to abuse the legal system to steal our property on the high
seas," tweeted Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. "This piracy attempt is indicative of Trump admin's contempt for the
law."
After the British decision to detain the Grace 1 in July, Iran seized
the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero as it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tensions with Tehran have escalated since the Trump administration
withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and resumed economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Without citing specific
evidence, the
U.S. has blamed Iran
for recent attacks on other oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.
"Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have
#Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in
Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations,
tweeted
.
As
TAC
previously
reported
,
the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the
European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions.
"The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions,"
writes
Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of
merchant ships through international straits."
It is unclear whether UK Prime Minister
Boris Johnson
will support Washington's maximum pressure campaign
against Iran. But the American decision to pursue its case in
Gibraltar's courts may indicate that Britain is unwilling to further escalate tensions with the Islamic Republic.
Barbara Boland is
's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her
on Twitter
@BBatDC.
How current prices correlate with Pompeo statement that "We have taken over 95 percent of the
crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the
market." ? Something really strange is happening here.
Notable quotes:
"... Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the public in order to defend a dangerous policy. ..."
"... Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with that. ..."
"... When Pompeo has been asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the Iranian government's behavior, and instead he boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people: ..."
"... We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market. ..."
"... Pompeo is deception, lies, absolute dishonesty. But of course that is the mark of the trump regime in general terms. ..."
Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not
being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than
leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is
persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the
public in order to defend a dangerous policy.
Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of
issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with
that. He probably thinks that there is no price to be paid for constantly lying and
misrepresenting things to the public and Congress, and so he keeps doing it.
The more important reason why Pompeo keeps deceiving the public is that he is also eager to
please the president, and so he has to keep claiming success for failing policies because
reports of success are what the president wants to hear. When Pompeo's ridiculous op-ed came
out last week, one of the common questions that many people asked was, "Who is the audience for
this?" The point these people were making was that the "argument" in the op-ed was so facile
and nonsensical that it can't possibly have been intended to persuade anyone, so the purpose of
it had to be to placate Trump and reassure him that the policy "works."
Miller does an outstanding job picking apart Pompeo's various claims and using Pompeo's
previous contradictory claims against him, and he shows that the Secretary's defense of
"maximum pressure" is a joke to any minimally informed person. But as far as Pompeo is
concerned, all that matters is that Trump sticks with the policy. When Pompeo has been
asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the
Iranian government's behavior, and instead he
boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people:
I remember, David – I'm sure no one in this room, but many here in Washington
said that American sanctions alone won't work. Well, they've worked.We have taken
over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we
have taken it off the market.
Miller addressed Pompeo's use of economic damage as proof of the policy's success this
way:
Using economic damage to gauge the success of sanctions is like using body counts to
measure success in counter-insurgency -- it's an indicator that your policy is having an
effect, but does not necessarily imply you're any closer to achieving strategic
objectives.
For a hard-liner like Pompeo, continuing with a destructive and bankrupt policy is a matter
of ideology and an expression of hostility towards the targeted country. It doesn't matter to
hard-liners if the policy actually achieves anything as long as it does damage, and so they
take pride in the damage that they cause without any concern for the consequences for the U.S.
and Iran. Rational critics of this policy rightfully object that this is just aimless
destruction, but the destruction is the point of the policy.
It only appears incompetent until you discover who benefits, and it isn't the majority of
Americans. Who has benefited so far? The Plutocrats, oligarchs, Israel, Saudi, MIC, Big Oil,
Big Rx, immigration related services. This is just a partial list, but guess who it doesn't
include?
Any nation that allows "freedom of speech" has made the assumption that either everyone is
honest or everyone is smart enough to know bull sh !t when they hear it.
"... It is bizarre that Qatar was the one country/sheikdom in the Gulf that openly stood by Iran ..."
"... Shale is already deeply unprofitable and always has been. Big-dollar investors like pension funds have continued funding it due to (a) hype and (b) lack of alternative putative sources of return, but it's finally starting to sink in that shale has no future. ..."
Lambert
here: "Both MBS and MBZ consider the last-minute cancellation of the US retaliatory strike [for
Iran shooting down a US drone] a personal affront and humiliation because Trump did not accept
and follow their positions and demands for action. Both MBS and MBZ are now convinced that not
only the US demonstrated weakness and lack of resolve, but that Pres. Trump was personally not
committed to fighting Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms." Oh, let's you
and him fight!
By Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research at the International Strategic Studies
Association (ISSA) and Senior Editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs publications (including
the Global Information System: GIS), was, for more than a decade, the Director of the US House
of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.
Originally published at OilPrice.com .
All attention is focused on the twists-and-turns of the very noisy US-Iran dispute in the
Persian Gulf, but all the while the People's Republic of China (PRC) is rapidly and quietly
consolidating a dominant presence in the area
with the active support of Russia.
Beijing, as a result, is fast acquiring immense influence over related key dynamics such as
the price of oil in the world market and the relevance of the petrodollar. The PRC and the
Russians are capitalizing on both the growing fears of Iran and the growing mistrust of the US.
Hence, the US is already the main loser of the PRC's gambit.
The dramatic PRC success can be attributed to the confluence of two major trends:
(1) The quality and relevance of what Beijing can offer to both Iran and the Saudi-Gulf
States camp; and
(2) The decision of key Arab leaders -- most notably Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al Sa'ud (aka MBS) and his close ally, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi,
Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (aka MBZ) -- to downgrade their traditional close
ties with the US, and reach out to Beijing to provide a substitute strategic umbrella.
Hence, the PRC offer to oversee and guarantee the establishment of a regional collective
security regime -- itself based on the Russian proposals and ideas first raised in late July
2019 -- is now getting considerable positive attention from both shores of the Persian Gulf.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman appear to be becoming
convinced that the PRC could be the key to the long-term stability and prosperity in the
Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.
Iran is also considering the expansion of security cooperation with Russia as an added
umbrella against potential US retaliation.
Overall, according to sources in these areas, the US was increasingly perceived as an
unpredictable, disruptive element.
The profound change in the attitude of the Saudi and Emirati ruling families, who for
decades have considered themselves pliant protégés of the US, took long to
evolve. However, once formulated and adopted, the new policies have been implemented
swiftly.
The main driving issue is the realization by both MBS and MBZ that, irrespective of the
reassuring rhetoric of US Pres. Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, their bitter nemesis -- Qatar
-- is far more important to the US than the rest of the conservative Arab monarchies and
sheikhdoms of the GCC. The last straw came in early July 2019 in the aftermath of the visit of
the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, to Washington, DC.
Sheikh Tamim received an extravagant reception from both Pres. Trump in person and
official Washington. Trump lavished praises on Qatar and the Emir , and emphasized the
US renewed commitment "to further advancing the high-level strategic cooperation between our
two countries".
There are good reasons for the US preference of Qatar.
The Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar is by far the most important US base in the entire greater
Middle East. Qatar is mediating between the US and several nemeses, including Afghanistan,
Iran, and Turkey. Qatar is providing "humanitarian cash" to HAMAS in the Gaza Strip, thus
buying quiet time for Israel. Qatar has given generous "political shelter" to numerous leaders,
seniors, and commanders of questionable entities the US would like to protect but would never
acknowledge this (including anti-Russia Chechens and other Caucasians, and anti-China Uighurs).
Related:
Gibraltar Releases Iranian Tanker
Qatari Intelligence is funding and otherwise supporting the various jihadist entities
which serve as proxies of the CIA and M?T ( Milli ?stihbarat Te?kilat?: the Turkish
National Intelligence Organization) in the greater Middle East (mainly Syria, Iraq, Libya,
Jordan, Yemen) and Central Asia (mainly Afghanistan-Pakistan, China's Xinjiang and Russia's
Caucasus and the Turkic peoples of eastern Siberia).
On top of this, Qatar is purchasing billions of dollars' worth of US-made weapons; and
paying cash on-time (unlike the habitually late Saudis who now cannot afford to pay what
they've already promised).
Moreover, the Middle East is awash with rumors that Qatari businessmen saved the financial
empire of the Kushner family by investing at least half-a-billion dollars in the 666 5th Avenue
project in New York. The rumors are very specific in that the investment was made for political
reasons on instruction of the Emir . In the conspiracies-driven Arab Middle East, such
rumors are believed and serve as a viable motive for the policies of the Trump White House: an
ulterior motive the Saudis and Gulfies cannot challenge.
"They discussed coordination of forthcoming regional crises and diplomatic initiatives.
They agreed that the current dynamic vis-à-vis the US could lead to either a US
capitulation and withdrawal, or to a major escalation all over the greater Middle East.
Soleimani believed the latter option was more likely. Therefore, Soleimani and Zarif
discussed how to better utilize the Russian and PRC umbrella to not only shield Iran against
US onslaught, but to also convince the Arab states to stay out of the fighting."
A lot of focus on the Arabs but only a brief mention of the Israelis. I suspect this is
why Soleimani believes escalation is likely: the Israelis are the main driving force pushing
the U.S. take out Iran. My question: How tight is Adelson and Netanyahu's grip on the strange
orange man?
'How tight is Adelson and Netanyahu's grip on the strange orange man?'
I think the refusal to retaliate against Iran for shooting down a drone has already given
an answer to this question. If my guess is correct then we can expect a new outbreak of the
wars between the Deep State and the various populist factions now gaining ground. It seems
the folk are tired of the burdens of empire in spite of being propagandized by their betters
day and night. Better watch out for another major terrorist attack, I suppose.
It is bizarre that Qatar was the one country/sheikdom in the Gulf that openly stood by
Iran, if only because of the idiotic Saudi attempted embargo of it, while at the same time
Qatari funded mercenaries in Syria fought Iranian backed Hezbollah forces there.
As bizarre
as Russia sending S-400s to Turkey last month and Turkish-allied militants shelling a Russian
observation post in Syria yesterday. Also, maybe Qatar's importance to the US is its regional
support for Iran.
China's largest oil company backed out of a large Venezuelan crude purchase last week and
it will be interesting to see if they continue to violate US sanctions on Iran.
Shale is already deeply unprofitable and always has been. Big-dollar investors like
pension funds have continued funding it due to (a) hype and (b) lack of alternative putative
sources of return, but it's finally starting to sink in that shale has no future.
If the bubble doesn't pop by itself, a Chinese end-run would likely do so, thereby
ratcheting the stakes up in the Middle East that much higher. Then we're back to Soleimani's
"latter option".
Different take from MOA, particularly re Russians stationed in Iran which none may call
bases.
None of this in msm but of course, because this is news the contradiscts official narrative.
Msm is reporting Iran oil trans shipped between tankers to bust sanctions but if China takes
large, say 2 million b/d, can't be hid what will us do?
Probably not much if in China ships.
More tariffs?
"... The field's distance from rebel-held territory in Yemen demonstrates the range of the Houthis' drones. U.N. investigators say the Houthis' new UAV-X drone, found in recent months during the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, likely has a range of up to 1,500 kilometers (930 miles). That puts Saudi oil fields, an under-construction Emirati nuclear power plant and Dubai's busy international airport within their range. ..."
"... The outcome was a forgone conclusion. The smash, destroy, and destabilize campaign in the region could have only come from the most powerful lobby in the US. We all know who that is. ..."
Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons
the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines.
This today
was the decisive attack:
Drones launched by Yemen's Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside
Saudi Arabia's sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a
"limited fire" in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry. ... The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman
for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones
targeting the field in their "biggest-ever" operation. He threatened more attacks would be
coming.
New drones and missiles
displayed in July 2019 by Yemen's Houthi-allied armed forces bigger
Today's attack is a check mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers
(750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets
within that range:
The field's distance from rebel-held territory in Yemen demonstrates the range of the
Houthis' drones. U.N. investigators say the Houthis' new UAV-X drone, found in recent
months during the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, likely has a range of up to 1,500
kilometers (930 miles). That puts Saudi oil fields, an under-construction Emirati nuclear
power plant and Dubai's busy international airport within their range.
Unlike sophisticated drones that use satellites to allow pilots to remotely fly them,
analysts believe Houthi drones are likely programmed to strike a specific latitude and
longitude and cannot be controlled once out of radio range. The Houthis have used drones,
which can be difficult to track by radar, to attack Saudi Patriot missile batteries, as
well as enemy troops.
The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now
under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit
the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have
very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state.
The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will. There is a lesson to learn from that. But it is doubtful that the borg in Washington DC
has the ability to understand it.
The outcome was a forgone conclusion. The smash, destroy, and destabilize campaign in the
region could have only come from the most powerful lobby in the US. We all know who that
is.
I'm afraid the only lesson the Borg in Washington will learn is to continue squandering US
resources and manpower on pursuing and inflicting chaos and violence in the Middle East.
Clown prince Mohammed bin Salman will not learn anything either other than to bankrupt his
own nation in pursuing this war.
Israel has driven itself into its own existential hell by persecuting Palestinians over
70+ years and doing a good job of annihilating itself while denying its own destruction. If
Israel can do it, the Christian crusaders dominating the govts of the Five Eyes nations
supporting Israel will follow suit in propping up an unsustainable fantasy. Samson option
indeed.
I am sure that the Suads will be looking to their zionist allies to supply them with the Iron
Dome system that the US military just wasted millions of tax payer dollars and purchased
several days ago. The irony of that system is that is was overwhelmed several times when the
Palestinian freedom fighters launched a wave of home made rockets at Occupied Palestine. I
hope the Sauds learn a lesson..doubt it though.
let me throw something out there. Israel has entrenched itself in the US political and media
systems. There is no logical path to eliminate or reduce that influence, and thus perhaps the
plan that has been hatched is to strengthen Iran to the point that it can confront Israel.
I anticipated just this sort of event 2+ months ago to go along with the tanker sabotaging to
expand on b's thesis about Iran having the upper hand in the current hybrid Gulf War. The
timing of this new ability dovetails nicely with the recent Russian collective security
proposal, with the Saudis being the footdraggers in agreeing about its viability due to its
pragmatic logic. So, as I wrote 2 days ago, we now have an excellent possibility of seeing an
end to this and future Persian Gulf Crises along with an idea that can potentially become the
template for an entire Southwest Asian security treaty, whose only holdout would be Occupied
Palestine. The Outlaw US Empire is effectively shutout of the entire process. And as I also
wrote, it's now time for the Saudis to determine where their future lies--with Eurasia or
with a dying Empire.
So the U.S. bought the Iron Dome stuff from Israel? I guess that means we paid for it
twice, eh? Glad to know my tax dollars are hard at work "keeping us safe."
Wonder what they might be planning for with that one?
The Yemenese military had lots of technological capabilities remaining from the Cold War
along with factories, technicians and raw materials. For example, Yemen's aerospace forces
allied with the Houthi and are the ones producing and shooting the missiles and drones. One
doesn't need to import a complete drone; technical blueprints on a floppy, CD-ROM, DVD,
thumb-drive, are all that's required. The humanitarian crisis due to food and medicine
shortages played on the minds of people such that an image of a poor, backward,
non-industrial capable society was generated that wasn't 100% correct.
And of course, this makes the threat by Iran to hit back against military and industrial
installations on the other side of the Persian Gulf that much stronger.
It would be rich indeed if Iran were to be the entity that ultimately manages to loosen
the stranglehold that the Zionists have on the USA Congress, media, president, donors to
political parties, etc.
I can imagine the shale oil producers smiling right now...100 a barrel oil will be just
what they need! Cost-push inflation leading to a return of bell bottoms and leisure suits. No
wonder all these 70's band retreads are touring again :)
So, poor Yemen wasted via siege warfare waged by NATO since 2015 though its Saudi, UAE and
terrorist proxies that came very close to success, finds the initiative to counterattack with
what little it has at its disposal--All accusations of Iranian help have never been
proven --and thanks to the Outlaw US Empire's threats against Iran force UAE to
withdrawal and seek peace with Iran with Saudi soon to follow. And the situation is all
Iran's fault?! Note the date above--it precedes Trump's election, his illegal withdrawal from
the JCPOA and institution of the illegal sanctions regime against Iran.
Europe is on board with Russia's collective security proposal. Europe had representatives
at the meet between Khamenei and the Houthi negotiator. Europe--even the UK--still working to
salvage the JCPOA via the non-dollar trade conduit. And you conclude that the Outlaw US
Empire "might actually get European support to attack Iran."
First Afghanistan, then Yemen. Maybe the western media's imaging of these people as towel
headed, sandal wearing primatives is just a tad misguided......
KIEV: Ukraine 's gas transport company
Ukrtransgaz has upgraded several gas pumping stations so it can provide gas to eastern and
southern regions of the country if there is a disruption in supply from Russia, the company
said on Wednesday.
More than a third of Russia's gas exports to the European Union cross
Ukraine, providing Kiev with valuable transit income.
Ukraine traditionally uses some of the gas pumped by Russia to European consumers for its
own needs in eastern and central regions and then compensates for this by deliveries from gas
storage located in the west of the country.
But the Russia-Ukraine gas transit agreement is due to expire in January and Ukrainian
energy authorities are worried that Moscow could stop gas supplies
through Ukraine, leaving some Ukrainian regions without gas in winter.
"As of today, Ukrtransgaz has implemented all the necessary technical and regulatory
solutions to create a reliable reverse scheme and it is ready for regular operation and can be
activated immediately if necessary," Uktransgaz said in a statement.
It said Ukraine had already reversed gas flows in 2009 when Russian gas giant Gazprom halted gas
supplies to Ukrainian consumers because of a price dispute.
Last month, Russian energy minister and several sources said Russia wanted to strike a
short-term deal with Kiev on gas transit to Europe when the current 10-year agreement expires
to buy time to complete pipelines that will bypass Ukraine.
But Kiev and its European allies want guarantees that Ukraine will remain a transit route
for Russian gas to Europe.
In January, European Commission Vice President Maros Sefcovic floated a proposal for the two
countries to agree a new 10-year transit contract, with a guaranteed minimum yearly transit
volume of 60 bcm and 30 bcm of additional flexibility.
Ukraine's energy firm Naftogaz said last month Kiev was still counting on Sefcovic's
proposal.
The potential for problems with the transit agreement, which brings Kiev around $3 billion
revenue per year, prompted Ukraine to increase its winter gas reserves by 18% compared with
last year to 20 billion cubic meters (bcm).
Naftogaz said this week Ukraine had stored 16.6 bcm of gas by Aug. 10, up from 13.38 bcm at
the same time last year.
Ukraine consumed 32.3 bcm of gas in 2018, 10.6 bcm of which was imported from European
markets outside Russia.
Relations between Kiev and Moscow plummeted after Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea
peninsula in 2014.
Ukraine halted its own purchases of Russian gas in 2015.
It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It
is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is
facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to
its rescue.
Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful,
creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.
This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for
absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.
Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United
Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by
Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela,
when they were in awful need.
I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual
exercises.
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently
occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This
information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is
about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran
itself.
Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be
tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on
earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?
I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people
with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen
to them.
You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist
country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian
characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is
perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.
Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation
from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by
UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.
It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that
are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.
I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do
not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters
have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and
they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so
similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We
respect others.
Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping
hand. Like to Syria.
In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in
1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its
people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later,
again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the
West.
I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this
is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.
As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they
have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores,
and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.
Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will
die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.
But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?
Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question
to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"
Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat
Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces
of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin
millions of lives.
There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West
perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.
But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on
the part of the West.
Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been
giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.
It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is
currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the
nuclear deal.
Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very
serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources
including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military
industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a
misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of
the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit
to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much
deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.
@Andre
Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for
expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other
things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.”
But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal
psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is
not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope
keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a
tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the
mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump
or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of
the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight
literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the
article.
It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You
don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as
it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is
ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.
What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including
sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?
This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the
region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have
Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).
[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude
ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer
is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are
constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s
violence against them.
Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that]
nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against
them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then
the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good
if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599
USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon
USA will “descend on them.”
It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago,
if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was
to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a
couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows
this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to
starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal
death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I
agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’
If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime
change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if
it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@anonymous
Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of
seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of
making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont
go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.
Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign
affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.
People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire
since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the
other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.
The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes,
there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t
much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in
American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why
oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere
in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq –
Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several
Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped
about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran
territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes
to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the
Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html
One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the
border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.
Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing
vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing,
which would cut into the lucrative US market.
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –
Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all
countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a
month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public
squares.
It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims
with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15
minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women
typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous
choking.
And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to
their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the
floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before
being hanged from a crane etc
But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …
Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the
‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially
legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can
be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be
officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by
saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as
‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital
‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often
‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even
more than in much of Europe.
A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May
the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is
essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do,
one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the
imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning,
e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise
themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for
a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.
Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency
there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things,
Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the
way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy
driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.
I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so
it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump
and the Iran war push.
@Brabantian
You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that
is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their
MSM partners…
That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a
theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the
ages…religion in general really…
Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about
Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially
‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…
But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…
Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are
drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with
help from their ISIS private army…
This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug
racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against
perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the
British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia
and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic
population by turning them into drug zombies…
Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim
world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs
like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not
applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really
it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with
that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant
than Iran…]
There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians
aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia
colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their
agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which
nobody appreciates…
They are also spurning Russian offers of help…
In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million
barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if
needed.
[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in
Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]
All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything
good…it never has…
But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…
Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared
to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal
Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…
The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are
INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…
So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since
only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…
The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with
Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied
territories…is simply unacceptable…
So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s
domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…
@SteveK9
Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy
Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting
war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting
America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the
way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as
simple as that.
@Brabantian
Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was
cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists.
In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement
against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.
And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons
disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.
@Commentator
Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The
Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious
hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this
discrepancy go unanswered.
AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense
initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising
the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into
the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy
bombings.
@Commentator
Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.
Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.
Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get
smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the
much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the
world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to
flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine.
Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.
Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any
and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking
their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy
plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I
pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move
onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for
the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place
in the world.
As for this:
And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
"... Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel, France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. ..."
"... As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton called for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to " pay a little price ".) ..."
"... Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker. ..."
"... With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals. ..."
"... These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated by decades of conflict. ..."
"... The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained extensively why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was unthinkable , bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO somewhat refused to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias. ..."
"... In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies. ..."
"... Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to withdraw from the coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces. ..."
"... An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't want to cross, having so much at stake. ..."
"... With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises. The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its own profits and controls global finance. ..."
"... Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran. ..."
In 2014 we were almost at the point of no return in Ukraine following the coup d'etat supported and funded by NATO and involving
extremist right-wing Ukrainian nationalists. The conflict in the Donbass risked escalating into a conflict between NATO and the Russian
Federation, every day in the summer and autumn of 2014 threatening to be doomsday. Rather than respond to the understandable impulse
to send Russian troops into Ukraine to defend the population of Donbass, Putin had the presense of mind to pursue the less direct
and more sensible strategy of supporting the material capacity of the residents of Donbass to resist the depredations of the Ukrainian
army and their neo-Nazi Banderite thugs. Meanwhile, Europe's inept leaders initially egged on Ukraine's destabilization, only to
get cold feet after reflecting on the possibility of having a conflict between Moscow and Washington fought on European soil.
With the resistance in Donbass managing to successfully hold back Ukrainian assaults, the conflict began to freeze, almost to
the point of a complete ceasefire, even as Ukrainian provocations continue to this day.
Tensions were then focused on Syria , where a mercenary army of at least 200,000 men, armed and trained by the US, UK, Israel,
France, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, almost managed to completely topple the country. Russian
intervention in 2015 managed to save the country with no time to spare, destroying large numbers of terrorists and reorganizing the
Syrian armed forces and training and equipping them with the necessary means to beat back the jihadi waves. The Russians also ensured
control of the skies through their network of Pantsir-S1, Pantsir-S2, S-300 and S-400 air-defence systems, together with their
impressive jamming (Krasukha-4), command and control
information management system (Strelets C4ISR System) and electronic-warfare technologies (1RL257 Krasukha-4).
As the Americans, British, French and Israelis conducted their bombing missions in Syria, the danger of a deliberate attack
on Russian positions always remained, something that would have had devastating consequences for the region and beyond. It is no
secret that US military planners have repeatedly argued for a direct conflict with Moscow in a contained regional theater. (Clinton
called
for the downing of Russian jets over Syria, and former US officials claimed that some Russians had to "
pay a little price ".)
Since Trump became president, the rhetoric of war has soared considerably, even as the awareness remains that any new conflict
would sink Trump's chances of re-election. Despite this, Trump's bombings in Syria were real and potentially very harmful to the
Syrian state. Nevertheless, they were
foiled by Russia's electronic-warfare capability, which was able to send veering away from their intended target more than 70%
of the latest-generation missiles launched by the British, French, Americans and Israelis.
One of the most terrifying moments for the future of humanity came a few months later when Trump started hurling threats and abuses
at Kim Jong-un , threatening to reduce Pyongyang to ashes. Trump, moreover, delivered his fiery threats in a speech at the United
Nations General Assembly.
Trump's dramatic U-turn following his historic meeting with Kim Jong-un (a public relations/photo opportunity) began to paint
a fairly comical and unreliable picture of US power, revealing to the world the new US president's strategy. The president threatens
to nuke a country, but only as a negotiating tactic to bring his opponent to the negotiating table and thereby clinch a deal. He
then presents himself to his domestic audience as the "great" deal-maker.
With Iran, the recent target of the US administration, the bargaining method is the same, though with decidedly different
results. In the cases of Ukraine and North Korea, the two most powerful lobbies in Washington, the Israeli and Saudi lobbies, have
had little to say. Of course the neocons and the arms lobbyists are always gunning for war, but these two powerful state-backed lobbies
were notably silent with regard to these countries, less towards Syria obviously. As distinguished political scientist John J. Mearsheimer
has repeatedly explained , the Israel and Saudi lobbies
have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy goals.
The difference between the case of Iran and the aforementioned cases of Ukraine, Syria and North Korea is precisely the direct
involvement of these two lobbies in the decision-making process underway in the US.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at the
cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been devastated
by decades of conflict.
What readers can be assured of is that in the cases of Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and Iran, the US is unable to militarily impose
its geopolitical or economic will.
The reasons vary with each case, and I have previously explained
extensively
why the possibilities for conflict are unthinkable. With Ukraine, a conflict on European soil between Russia and NATO was
unthinkable
, bringing to mind the type of devastation that was seen during the Second World War. Good sense prevailed, and even NATO
somewhat refused
to fully arm the Ukrainian army with weapons that would have given them an overwhelming advantage over the Donbass militias.
In Syria, any involvement with ground troops would have been collective suicide, given the overwhelming air power deployed
in the country by Russia. Recall that since the Second World War, the US has never fought a war in an airspace that was seriously
contested (in Vietnam, US air losses were only elevated because of Sino-Soviet help), allowing for ground troops to receive air cover
and protection . A ground assault in Syria would have therefore been catastrophic without the requisite control of Syria's skies.
In North Korea, the country's tactical and strategic nuclear and conventional deterrence discourages any missile attack. Any overland
attack is out of the question, given the high number of active as well as reserve personnel in the DPRK army. If the US struggled
to control a completely defeated Iraq in 2003, how much more difficult would be to deal with a country with a resilient population
that is indisposed to bowing to the US? The 2003 Iraq campaign would really be a "cakewalk" in comparison. Another reason why a missile
attack on North Korea is impossible is because of the conventional power that Pyongyang possesses in the form of tens of thousands
of missiles and artillery pieces that could easily reduce Seoul to rubble in a matter of minutes. This would then lead to a war between
the US and the DPRK being fought on the Korean Peninsula. Moon Jae-in, like Merkel and Sarkozy in the case of Ukraine, did everything
in his power to prevent such a devastating conflict.
Concerning tensions between the US and Iran and the resulting threats of war, these should be taken as bluster and bluff. America's
European allies are heavily involved in Iran and depend on the Middle East for their oil and gas imports. A US war against Iran would
have devastating consequences for the world economy, with the Europeans seeing their imports halved or reduced. As Professor Chossudovsky
of the strategic think tank Global Research has so ably
argued , an attack on Iran is unsustainable, as the oil sectors of the UAE and Saudi Arabia would be hit and shut down. Exports
would instantly end after the pipelines going West are bombed by the Houthis and the Strait of Hormuz closed. The economies of these
two countries would implode and their ruling class wiped out by internal revolts. The state of Israel as well as US bases in the
region would see themselves overwhelmed with missiles coming from Syria, Lebanon, the Golan Heights and Iran. The Tel Aviv government
would last a few hours before capitulating under the pressure of its own citizens, who, like the Europeans, are unused to suffering
war at home.
Because a war with Iran would be difficult to de-escalate, we can conclude that the possibility of war being waged against
the country is unlikely if not impossible. The level of damage the belligerents would inflict on each other would make any diplomatic
resolution of the conflict difficult. While the powerful Israeli and Saudi lobbies in the US may be beating the war drums, an indication
of what would happen if war followed can be seen in Yemen. Egypt and the UAE were forced to
withdraw from the
coalition fighting the Houthis after the UAE suffered considerable
damage from legitimate retaliatory missile strikes from the Yemen's Army Missile Forces.
An open war against Iran continues to be a red line that the ruling financial elites in the US, Israelis and Saudis don't
want to cross, having so much at stake.
With an election looming, Trump cannot risk triggering a new conflict and betraying one of his most important electoral promises.
The Western elite does not seem to have any intention of destroying the petrodollar-based world economy with which it generates its
own profits and controls global finance. And finally, US military planners do not intend to suffer a humiliating defeat in Iran
that would reveal the extent to which US military power is based on propaganda built over the years through Hollywood movies and
wars successfully executed against relatively defenceless countries. Even if we consider the possibility of Netanyahu and Bin
Salman being mentally unstable, someone within the royal palace in Riyadh or the government in Tel Aviv would have counseled them
on the political and personal consequences of an attack on Iran.
It is telling that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh have to resort to numerous but ultimately useless
provocations against Iran, as they
can only rely on hybrid attacks in order to economically isolate it from the rest of the world.
Paradoxically, this strategy has had devastating consequences for the role of the US dollar as a reserve currency together with
the SWIFT system. In today's multipolar environment, acting in such an imperious manner leads to the acceleration of de-dollarization
as a way of circumventing sanctions and bans imposed by the US.
A reserve currency is used to facilitate transactions. If the disadvantages come to exceed the benefits, it will progressively
be used less and less, until it is replaced by a basket of currencies that more closely reflect the multipolar geopolitical reality.
The warmongers in Washington are exasperated by their continuing inability to curb the resilience and resistance of the people
in Venezuela, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Donbass, countries and regions understood by the healthy part of the globe as representing
the axis of resistance to US Imperialism.
America must always threaten someone with war. Syria, Iran, Venezuela, China, Russia, so many to choose from.
Conflicts must never be resolved; they must always kept simmering, so a hot war can be triggered quickly. All Presidents are
turned in the first three months after sworn in.
It's what happens as empires mature. Governance becomes bloated, corrupt and inept (often leading to wars). Maturity time has
become significantly reduced due to the rate of information technology advance. America is five years away from going insolvent
according to most models and forecasts. All new debt after 2024 will be used to pay the interest on existing debts and liabilities.
There is simply no stopping it. The US already pays close to 500 billion in annual interest on debts and liabilities. Factor in
a 600 billion or 700 billion dollar annual military budget, and unrestrained deficit spending clocking in at over a trillion,
and, well, it isn't going to work for long. Considering most new well paying jobs are government jobs... The end is either full
socialism / fascism (folks still don't get how similar these are), a currency crisis and panic, depression and institutional deterioration.
The only good news to libertarians I guess - if you can call it good - is that the blotted government along with the crony corporations
will mostly and eventually collapse. Libertarian governance might not be a choice by an electorate, it might simply become fact
in the aftermath.
I guess Trump eventually will understand this lesson in politics that friendship, mutual respect and helping each other accomplishes
way way more then threatening countries to be bombed back into the stoneage.
Noone likes to do a cutthroat deal enforced upon them by thuggery. Trump's got to learn that you can't run politics like you do
your bussinesses, it's not working unles that was his plan all this time, to destroy America.
"The Israel and Saudi lobbies have unlimited funds for corrupting Democrats and Republicans in order to push their foreign-policy
goals.
These two lobbies (together with their neocon allies) have for years been pushing to have a few hundred thousand young Americans
sent to Iran to sacrifice themselves for the purposes of destroying Iran and her people. Such geopolitical games are played at
the cost of US taxpayers, the lives of their children sent to war, and the lives of the people of the Middle East, who have been
devastated by decades of conflict."
America is increasingly looking like Ancient Rome towards the end. It is overstretched, nearly insolvent, fewer allies want
to be allies, it's population is sick, physically and mentally. Obesity, diabetes, drug use/addiction make it impossible for the
Pentagon to meet recruitment goal. Mental illness causes daily mass killing. The education system is so broken/broke that there
is little real education being done. Americans are among the most ignorant, least educated and least educate-able people in the
developed world.
Militarily, the USA can bomb but that's about it... defeats upon defeats over the past two decades demonstrate the US military
is a paper tiger of astonishing incompetence.
Boeing can't make planes anymore. Lockheed is not much better. Parts of the F-35 are made by Chinese subsidiaries. The most
recently built aircraft carrier cannot launch fighter jets.
Recent estimates indicate that more than 550,000 people experience homelessness in the US on any given night, with about two-thirds
ending up in emergency shelters or transitional housing programs, and one-third finding their way to unsheltered locations like
parks, vehicles, and metro stations. According to the Urban Institute, about 25% of homeless people have jobs.
I find that it is difficult for me to wrap my head around pain and suffering on such an immense scale. Americans often think
of the homeless as drug-addicted men that don't want to work, but the truth is that about a quarter of the homeless population
is made up of children.
Seriously, why would Iran want to hijack a German ship? Iran took the UK one in retaliation for the Brits seizing the one at
Gibraltar. Had that not happened, no Brit ships in the Persian Gulf would have been touched. This is all a carefully engineered
USA provocation designed to, inter alia, increase tension in the Persian Gulf, put more nails in coffin of JCPOA...and most importantly
give UK an excuse, as remaining signatory, to call for the original UN sanctions on Iran to be snapped-back.
Federico, let me explain it simply: the U.S. is allied with Israel, and Iran hates Israel. Why, I don't know (nor do I care),
but that's why the U.S. needs to keep Iran in check.
Yet CONGRESS just passed the largest defense bill in history. The WAR industry is bankrupting us financially spiritually and
morally.
A war is coming. But upon whom this time (or STILL?), because with President Bolton and Vice President Adelson in power, China
Iran or Russia or maybe all three, are open options.
Interview with a Russian I saw 2 years ago "USA wants to create local conflicts on foreign shores, ...on our borders, we will
not allow that to happen and make the war international" I will translate: Russia will not be pulled in to some stupid small war
draining their resources while the US sits comfortable, they will throw their missiles around - no escape from nuclear winter.
If spending has reached the limit now, during peacetime....what will happen during a protracted war? Even if it stays conventional,
it would appear that a huge war effort, comparable to WWII, just won't be possible. The US seems to be in a pre-war Britain position,
but there isn't a friendly giant across the water to bail them out with both cash and resources.
Either things become insane in fairly short order, or wiser heads will prevail and the US will step back from the brink. Do
we have any wiser heads at the moment?
I keep seeing John Bolton's moustache, Andi am not filled with confidence.
A Saudi royal, Ahmed Bin Abdul Aziz, yesterday warned against "the kingdom's involvement in a
war with Iran."
"I'd oppose the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman if he decided to join a US-British
military alliance to confront Iran," The New Khalij quoted Abdul Aziz as saying.
The brother of the Saudi King added that it was important for Riyadh to take measures to
unify the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) instead of responding to US President Donald Trump's
plans, which he described as "pushing the region to the brink of war."
Federico Pieraccini's provides a useful review of the global Big Picture where he implies
in conclusion that Washington, London, Tel Aviv and Riyadh are understood to be the unhealthy
part of the globe by the vast majority of nations, which is the context of how we should view
Russia's Persian Gulf Collective Security proposal and the SCO & ASEAN's increasingly
collaborative security efforts reported by Escobar as linked above.
Trump continues his tree sitting on the thin unstable branches he forced himself to
occupy. One wonders what he'll do next to force himself even higher. Given NordStreaam 2's
almost finished completion, I'd expect a last-ditch sanctioning of EU nations if they use the
product it conveys.
Meanwhile, TurkStream is on schedule to begin
shipping gas in the last Q of 2019, the exact time not yet announced. Both strings, one for
Turkey another for Southeast Europe, will have a "throughput capacity of 15.75 billion cubic
meters each."
As we've seen, the desire to control energy sources has driven much conflict and underlies
Geopolitics to a large degree. The big problem already existing is the Saudis and the
animosity they have for Iran and Qatar. For those two heavily NatGas endowed nations, the
most logical destination for their product is Africa via pipeline across Saudi, under Red Sea
and emerging in Eritrea and/or Egypt. Such a project won't be undertaken until there's a
drastic change in Saudi attitude/leadership. And since Iran and Qatar face the same
distribution challenges for their product, I expect to see more joint efforts by them now
that Qatar's leadership has come to its senses.
BTW, it has become very clear to me that the US withdrawal from the JCPOA with Iran was
co-ordinated with the western European signatories (France, United Kingdom, Germany and EU)
so that "maximum pressure" can be maintained on Iran while F/UK/DE/EU do nothing to honour
their commitments at the same time making it appear that it's Iran in breach rather than the
US/F/UK/DE/EU.
Iran is aware of this and taking action to ensure its preservation . War is coming and
F/UY/DE/EU will be involved on the side of the Great Satan.
Scott interviews Gareth Porter about John Bolton's most recent efforts to raise tensions
with Iran. He and Scott speculate about Iran's ability to disrupt international trade in the
region by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that they would do so given
the risks of inciting more serious conflict as a result.
'Dr Doom' economist Nouriel Roubini in Bitcoin battle
3 July 2019
Outspoken economist Nouriel Roubini, nicknamed Dr Doom for his gloomy warnings, has caused a
stir with his latest attack on Bitcoin and its fellow cryptocurrencies.
Prof Roubini, who foresaw the financial crisis, says Bitcoin is "overhyped".
At a summit in Taiwan on Tuesday, he likened it to a "cesspool".
But his sparring partner at the event, who runs a cryptocurrency exchange, has angered the
professor by blocking the release of video of the event.
Arthur Hayes, the chief executive of the BitMex exchange, controls the rights to footage
of their debate, which took place during the Asia Blockchain Summit.
In a post on Twitter, Prof Roubini said he "destroyed" Mr Hayes in the debate and called him
a "coward" for not making it available...
Cryptocurrencies have given rise to an entire new criminal industry, comprising unregulated
offshore exchanges, paid propagandists, and an army of scammers looking to fleece retail
investors. Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of rampant fraud and abuse, financial
regulators and law-enforcement agencies remain asleep at the wheel.
NEW YORK – There is a good reason why every civilized country in the world tightly
regulates its financial system. The 2008 global financial crisis, after all, was largely the
result of rolling back financial regulation. Crooks, criminals, and grifters are a fact of
life, and no financial system can serve its proper purpose unless investors are protected
from them...
*
[Go get 'em Doctor Doom. Does he know that this is a feature and not a bug?]
Wild traders are always here, as Doctor Doom points out. They are there when we use rocks,
when we used sea shells, when we used paper and now crypto, the wild traders remain.
Regulate as much as Dr. Doom thinks regulators should regulate. But do not deploy
government bean counters looking for stone age rocks under our matress, we are using digital
crypto instead.
Just yesterday Daimler announce a completely independent hard wallet for crypto use, in a
car. They are giving a car all the freedom to hold bearer assets in crypto form. The car
needs this to automate much of the car industry functions from gas taxes to used car sales.
So tell Dr. Doom to complain about car industry violating financial regulations.
The crypto casino was created so that speculators could profit from the money laundering
industry that provides investor liquidity to the back end of the human and illegal narcotics
trafficking industry. It was built on the anti-bank angst that emerged after the financial
crisis. It gives organized crime the legitimacy that they need to spend their enormous wealth
that is generated by so many ruined lives. Fools have always run with dicks. They just do not
know any better.
The crypto casinos were created to automate trading. Crypto insures that a bot trading obeys
the prior contract, and thus great simplifies transactions everywhere, from the Fed down to
you and me with significant savings, at least 1% increase in productivity.
We have a technology change happening. You get the wildcatters, they don't scare me, so
Dr. Doom is likely missing something here. More than likely he is short sided, looking at
this one thing and ignoring the fact that this is our 7th or 8th time we have changed money
tech. How did we do it last time? Wildcatters, hysterics, and failure to read history. Worked
fine then.
Crypto currencies are not money. They are just private scrip. Only demand give them exchange
value and only crooks and speculators have any demand for scrip born of the daughters of
ENIAC. To believe otherwise is to be a sovereign fool.
The Empire, in all its wisdom, has declared some countries as illegal, unworthy of using the
banking system. And then, sanctioned anyone who does business with those illegals. So, it is
illegals all the way down, in our ever-expanding WOE (War On Everyone).
This has generated interest in cryptocurrencies from some of those crooks and criminals
(aka "other countries").
You are too focused on the technology. Banks are not there just to conduct transactions, they
are there to track them and report to the government. They are required to know something
about the people behind the transactions.
Joe appears to miss the significance of underlying technology as much as anything else. Joe's
focus is directed somewhere inside his own mind that is separated from any reality that I am
aware of.
No, we are using cryptography everywhere, from cars to toys to wallets. Dr. Doom fails to see
this happening, happening as sure as we switched from metal to paper. Dr. Doom wants more
regulation of shadow banking, fine, why not say that out loud?
His ability to regulated shadow bankers has nothing to do with technology. Crypto is no
different than the embedded water mark on paper, same technology. Both regulators and
regulated have to adapt.
He has created a red Herring, a useless talking point to fool the delusionals, give them
some worthless talking point.
"Crypto insures that a bot trading obeys the prior contract, and thus great simplifies
transactions everywhere, from the Fed down to you and me with significant savings, at least
1% increase in productivity."
Huh?
How does crypto ensure that my wages producing a thousand meals as a food worker will
allow me to buy a thousand meals in the future? What I've seen is crypto turning a thousand
meals produced into a contracct that will buy two thousand one day, but only 500 the next
day.
Crypto really just wastes a bunch of computing power to solve a problem that only exists if
you are trying to hide illegal transactions from governments. Crypto currency is a solution
in search of problem unless you are engaged in laundering money, selling large quantities of
drugs/guns/people/animals/other illegal products, or buying same. Governments should make it
prosecutable wire fraud to use them.
I wonder how Eisenhower was persuaded to permit the 1953 coup in Iran.
The British wanted to preserve BP's oil concessions in Iran, but MI6 was not powerful
enough to stage a coup without help from the CIA. So the Brits pretended that Mosaddegh
leaned towards the Soviets, and the Americans pretended to believe them.
After the coup, the Shah's government transferred the majority of BP's rights to American
oil companies. It would have been much better for the Brits if they had done a deal with
Mosaddegh.
@James N. Kennett 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup
Time Magazine's Man of the Year cover for 1951. Mohammad Mosaddeq
]
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in
order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had
already earned him being named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he
nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he
closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence
operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the
American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when
Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't
overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we're not going to
start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive
audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence
operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his
memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil
company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans
that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower
administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953).
[Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953)
"... He says everything USA lower 48 other than shale is completely dead, and has been for sometime. He said look at Kansas since 2014. That is pretty much the rest of conventional lower 48. ..."
"... They are also concerned about 2020 big time. A lot of wasted money on new pipes if there is a fracking ban, which they are taking seriously. ..."
"... I would say that as far as the shale industry is concerned, the shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Yes, all liquids includes ethanol from corn or sugar cane. ..."
I talked to a guy with a pretty key position in a pipeline company recently.
He says everything USA lower 48 other than shale is completely dead, and has been for
sometime. He said look at Kansas since 2014. That is pretty much the rest of conventional
lower 48.
He also said they are getting nervous about shale because the financial people in New York
are turning against it. He says it is not profitable sub $75 WTI and if the money is cut off,
it's going to fall like a rock.
They are also concerned about 2020 big time. A lot of wasted money on new pipes if there
is a fracking ban, which they are taking seriously.
Thanks. I referred to Judy Shelton's book for the reasons to support the gold standard. But,
I can list some of them here:
1) The gold standard was the core mechanism of Bretton-Woods that worked so well at keeping
world prices stable, promoting growth, and tying the money supply to the real economy.
2) Free market currencies have led to speculation taking over from market exchange rates to
support trade. Currency trading is ~100x the underlying trade in goods and services.
3) The exchange rates of currencies fluctuate far greater under a free market fiat currency
system than under the gold standard
4) Fiat currencies are always subject to political intervention.
5) gold can't be faked or conjured into existence.
6) The gold supply grows about 2%/year, which has been stable for many decades.
7) gold, as a real commodity, ties money to the real economy rather than the financial
markets.
2. This has what to do with the gold standard? There was lots of currency trading under
the gold standard. This is primarily a result of algorithmic trading.
3. True - but this is good. Why would this be bad?
4. This is why you have an independent central bank.
5. No but gold can also be hoarded. Please see Krugman's Baby Sitter Klatch article.
6. This is utterly absurd. Gold production stops when the price is too low, ramps up when
it is high.
7. How is gold a commodity? 99% of the gold in the world sits in a basement being guarded
by governments. It's only value is in making shiny things and the current supply is wildly
more than there is demand for said shiny things. Ohhhh, Shiny! does not make something a
commodity. If there were any large industrial applications for the metal maybe - but there
really isn't.
Thanks for the good points. Some clarification:
1) By world prices this means the exchange rate. Under Bretton-Woods the price of gold was
set at $35/oz and other currencies were pegged to the dollar.
2) If the purpose of currency exchange is to facilitate trade, then this is the tail wagging
the dog, and indicates a currency trading system that has become disconnected from its core
purpose.
3) Price stability is a core goal of money. So that tomorrow I will be confident of what that
money will be worth.
4) Independence is not disinterest. Central banking has shown itself to sway with political
winds such as the German central bank in the 1990s, and the US central bank under Nixon.
5) Hoarding of gold, in the sense of cornering the market, is essentially impossible because
of the wide distribution of gold in the world and because moving to gold in general would
indicate a loss of confidence in a currency, which is good. (as long as we're saying good v.
bad).
6) True. production is not that stable, but on average it is fairly constant. See Fig 1. :
https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/of02-303/OFR_02-303.pdf
7) Not true. Again see the USGS publication. Most gold goes into jewelry, and so is held by
the public. Much of the other gold goes into industry, dental
The reason to prefer gold, besides the above, is that most money created since 1971 has
gone into the financial sector rather than the real economy. Thus, workers don't get a real
raise, but financial instruments just keep going up with no limit.
David,
tell me now, how did George Soros get so rich, and why was the Bretton Woods system
abandoned?
5. Shows that you don't understand the issue. Hoarding doesn't have to corner the market
to be an issue, it's just that rewards people who are creating a problem and so can create a
vicious circle.
P.S. 2% is way too low. Money needs to expand at least enough to match nominal GDP - and that
assumes that the rate of savings and circulation velocity are constant. And if prices are
absolutely constant how will people ever pay off debts. People have to pay back the nominal
capital of a loan. If income/head in nominal terms is relatively constant (in some countries
at some times there will be actual deflation) then compared to the current situation in
situations of absolute price stability delinquency rates will rise. You quote the 50/60s as a
golden - what were inflation rates like then (answer >2% with real growth of >5% so
>7% nominal GDP growth)?
Gold is not a great system for a money supply, but its the best one we have so far. Other
commodities could be used as the means of value and settlement, but they are far less
convenient and have other properties that are not as good as gold.
Perhaps a global crypto currency will take the place of gold in the future? It would need
to be of a fixed amount that does not change over time, and secure against hacking. So, maybe
not.
[Great answer inasmuch as changing the question is always the best answer when one has no
answer to some obvious questions.
OTOH, the US dollar based global reserve currency is a problem, although mostly for the US
in just general economic terms, but a problem for the entire world in terms of limiting the
use of carbon based fuels. Cheap oil is good for the dollar hegemon, but bad for supporting
continued human existence on Earth.
Internationally managed reserve currency and FOREX institutional arrangements along the
lines of Keynes's Bancor might be a better idea. Crypto currency is an invitation to black
market traffickers and hackers. Primary support is from drug and sex trafficking. So, what is
not to love?
The hard money crew in the US defeated Keynes's Bancor proposal at the Bretton Woods
conference and basically all of the problems that the gold bugs complain about today have
been the results of following their preferred policy path after WWII.]
How John Maynard Keynes' most radical idea could save the world
As the Second World War was drawing to a close, the economic experts of the Allies met in
a New Hampshire resort to try to hammer out an international monetary system that would help
prevent a recurrence of the Great Depression. The ensuing debate centered around two main
proposals, one from the British delegation and one from the American. John Maynard Keynes,
the greatest economist of the 20th century, presented the British case while Harry Dexter
White, one of FDR's key economic advisers, presented the American one.
Keynes lost on many key points. The result was the Bretton Woods system, named after the
small town in which the conference was held. As part of the agreement, it also created what
would later become the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. That served as the
system of managing international trade and currencies for nearly three decades. Today the IMF
and World Bank survive, but Bretton Woods was broken in 1971 when Nixon suspended the
convertibility of the dollar into gold.
Yet most of the problems that spurred the creation of Bretton Woods have since returned in
only somewhat less dire form. It's worth returning to Keynes' original, much more ambitious
idea for an international institution to manage the flow of goods and money around the
globe.
The basic problem with international trade is that imbalances can develop: Some countries get
big export surpluses, while others necessarily develop big trade deficits (since the world
cannot be in surplus or deficit with itself). And because countries typically must borrow to
finance trade deficits, it's a quick and easy recipe for a crash in those countries when
their ability to take on more debt reaches its limit. It's not as bad for surplus countries,
since they will not have a debt crisis or a collapse in the value of their currency, but they
too will be hurt by the loss of export markets. This problem has haunted nations since well
before the Industrial Revolution.
Nations like Germany with a large export surplus often portray it as resulting from their
superior virtue and technical skill. But the fundamental reality of such a surplus is that it
requires someone to buy the exports. As Yanis Varoufakis points out in his new book, without
some sort of permanent mechanism to recycle that surplus back into deficit countries, the
result will be eventual disaster. It's precisely what caused the initial economic crisis in
Greece that is still ongoing.
Bretton Woods addressed this problem with a set of rather ad hoc measures. The dollar
would be pegged to a particular amount of gold, and semi-fixed exchange rates for other
currencies were to be fixed around that. In keeping with White's more orthodox economic
views, all trade imbalances were to be solved on the deficit side. There was no limit to the
surplus nations could build up (importantly, at the time the U.S. was a huge exporter), and
the IMF was tasked with shoring up countries having serious trade deficit problems by
enforcing austerity and tight money. (This would lead to repeated disaster for developing
countries.)
Keynes' idea, by contrast, was substantially more ambitious. He proposed an overarching
"International Clearing Union" that potentially every country in the world could join. It
would create a new reserve currency, the "bancor," that could only be used for settling
international accounts, and member nations would pay a membership quota in proportion to
their total trade. Countries in surplus would receive bancor credit, while those in deficit
would have a negative account.
The union was also explicitly aimed at facilitating increased trade overall (also unlike
Bretton Woods). And critically, it would incentivize nations to keep their trade balanced on
both sides -- surplus and deficit. Run too far into deficit, and a country would be required
to devalue to reduce imports. But run too far into surplus, and a country's currency would be
required to appreciate so as to increase imports. A bancor tax would also be levied at an
increasing rate on anyone with a large trade imbalance.
There's much more to the story, but the fundamental idea is fairly simple. As Keynes wrote in
his original proposal, the basic "principle is the necessary equality of credits and debits,
of assets and liabilities. If no credits can be removed outside the clearing system but only
transferred within it, the Union itself can never be in difficulties."
For the postwar generation, Bretton Woods worked tolerably well -- and it certainly was a
vast improvement on the prewar gold standard. But its mechanisms were far less legible, and
required constant good-faith efforts from various nations, particularly Germany and the U.S.,
to work properly. More importantly, it relied on large American surpluses to soak up the huge
aid that was being sent to Europe under the Marshall Plan, a goodly portion of which was used
to buy American-made exports. When the U.S. moved to deficit, the system broke down within
only a few years.
Keynes' plan, by contrast, would likely have had the flexibility to adapt to a massive 180
degree shift in the balance of trade. It is also far more transparent and comprehensible to
average people, perhaps disrupting the excessive pride of surplus countries to some extent.
And if it were to be created in the future, it would be under effective supervision from the
member states. The vast carnage inflicted by the unaccountable, supranational European
Central Bank is too stark to ignore.
It would undoubtedly take years and years to build and update Keynes proposal to where it
might be implemented. But the problems it is designed to address will always keep cropping
up. Perhaps after the eurozone implodes, the world will get another chance to do it
right.
*
[The rallying cry of the gold bugs is "Idiots of the world unite," which is very effective
given the considerable majority held by idiots in the electorates of republics and among
their controlling elites both public and private.]
Under Bretton-Woods no trade imbalances were possible because of the settlement mechanism in
gold. The deficit nations (that imported more than exported) would have to settle by
transferring gold out in the amount of the deficit. Thus, in effect selling the commodity of
gold for the excess imports. This all works well if the imbalances are periodically settled
by the gold transfers, which didn't happen as many countries simply held onto the currencies,
and if trade is balanced.
Balance of trade is the key to stable trade. All imbalances eventually come back into
balance. The question is: will this happen in a smooth orderly manner, like under
Bretton-Woods, or in a calamity where for example the dollar crashes?
"...This all works well if the imbalances are periodically settled by the gold transfers,
which didn't happen as many countries simply held onto the currencies, and if trade is
balanced..."
*
[You are getting warmer, but still no cigar and a whole lot of cart before the horse. What
happened under the original Bretton Woods agreement was that surplus traders held onto their
US dollar reserves while convertibility (more to silver than gold - which we hold) kept the
US dollar from becoming overvalued under the simultaneous pressures of what remained small US
trade deficits and growing foreign reserves of US dollars. This was not a gold standard per
se, but rather the establishment of the US dollar, the currency of the dominant global
economic power, as the global reserve currency for foreign held reserves and also the
dominant currency of international trade exchange. Trade remained relatively well balanced
because convertibility limited how overvalued the dollar could maintain itself under trade
deficits despite its broadly held status as the dominate global reserve currency.
The end of Bretton Woods US dollar convertibility saw growing US trade deficits with
simultaneous growth in US dollar denominated foreign reserves and an over-valued dollar which
just accelerated US trade deficits even further. Bigger US trade deficits just fed into even
larger USD foreign reserves. It was a vicious cycle of dollar over-valuation despite growing
US trade deficits because surplus partners had relatively secure means of holding large USD
reserves. The world's high demand for dollars was great for rentiers, arbitrage seekers, and
global corporations. Trading partners could hold USD reserves to keep their currencies
undervalued relative to the USD more successfully than with convertibility. OTOH, the US
gained cheap access to global oil reserves and also US multinational corporations gained
global price arbitrage advantages if they were willing to offshore much labor to countries
with currencies undervalued relative to the dollar or merely countries with lower standards
of living (i.e., real wages) and environmental protection standards for industrial
production. Winning all three together on the same US dollar capital flow was the global
price arbitrage trifecta. ]
The US could have had it both ways in the sense that it could have run budget deficits by
monetizing the dollar and causing inflation as it was starting to do in the late 1960s and
maintain the international exchange rate. The mechanism to do this is US tariffs. This would
have made imports to the US expensive and kept all those excess dollars from flowing
overseas. The rational is balance of trade. As long as the current account is balanced the
Bretton-Woods system would continue to function.
The US went all in on free trade and eliminating tariffs when it implemented the income tax
system to finance government operations spending in 1913. At the time the US dollar was
underpriced against most European currencies in FOREX, particularly the pound sterling, and
the US had a growing trade surplus which eventually contributed significantly to the
settlements crisis under the gold standard that was a major cause for precipitating the Great
Depression. Once that path was taken it became difficult to turn back since the wealthy build
their rentier and arbitrage systems upon the world that is rather than some world that might
be. Policy makers rely upon the stock of wealth both for campaign contributions and to raise
their miserable lives into something of elite significance because of who they hang out with
and in turn whose interests that they serve.
I understand it that if a frog had wings then it would not bump its ass every time that it
leaped.
The US consistently ran a trade surplus during the Bretton Woods period, but Bretton Woods
was based on US dollars. So the world was being drained of US dollars (or the rest of the
world of Gold). That is clearly not sustainable. There is a problem with unbalanced trade if
it is either direction. Under Bretton Woods there was no penalty for mercantilism. You just
need to know history to no that financial crises are nothing new and that a gold standard
didn't prevent them, but in fact exacerbated them. I don't where you get your ideas from, but
you should go back and read some history.
The real questions are:
1) During Bretton-Woods worker compensation grew with growth in productivity, but since the
withdrawal in 1971, worker compensation has been flat. Why? And how to re-mediate this?
2) Why has so much of GDP shifted to financial speculation and away from the productive
economy? And how to shift economic activity back to the productive sector?
3) Given our use of fiat currency, what limits the growth of the money supply in the
financial sector? That is, what prevents financial instruments that are disconnected from the
productive economy from creating an endless cycle of: new instruments drives new money to buy
them, rinse and repeat...
The second one in particular lays out the issue quite clearly. It literally forms an arrow
with the tip pointing to the divergent point where something major happened to create such a
stark and durable systematic change.
This is classical cargo cult thinking, these two things are correlated so one must have
caused the other. There were lots of things changed at that time, I was there, I followed the
debates (in which the world basically decided to follow some of what Milton Friedman said -
and ignored some other things that he said - like negative interest rates and that money
supply expansion should come mostly from expanding the central bank balance sheet - see also
Robert Waldmann's explanation that Lucas and Friedman are methodical opposites and yet both
belong to the "Chicago School"). You have to not only note a correlation, but also show the
mechanism and control for other factors. Get to it.
1. Other things happened at the same time (see tariffs, changes in laws related to unions,
containerization and also relaxation of capital controls and banking regulation). You went
from a world of relatively isolated economies (especially the US) to a world of tightly
integrated economies. Bretton Woods fall had almost nothing to do with it.
2. Washington consensus that budget deficits are bad and monetary policy (i.e. encouraging
private debt) are good. We need to expand the central bank balance sheet in line with nominal
GDP and reduce private indebtedness again.
True, but whatever the cause, to have such a sharp and clear divergence, one or more
significant changes had to happen in a short span of time. Do those things mentioned above
add up to enough of a cumulative durable change?
But it wasn't a SHARP divergence at all. I actually wish that Anne had done the chart in
terms of rates of change. Having it in terms of levels hides more than it shows. But think
about this - there was a reason that Bretton Woods was abandoned - it didn't happen in a
vacuum. Maybe you should ask why that happened.
And as commodities go gold has a number of advantages
Over say concrete blocks or diamonds
Lots of clever souls would like to use an exchange medium that
Wasn't subject to modern state financial casuistry
And usually they aren't overly focused on the existing
Unregulated market systems hitches and loops
and
Perversities
Cold mining costs have always tracked the monetary price of gold. Aka, the marginal price of
a new ounce is the monetary price.
To get the cost of mining goold down to $20 in the late 20s, food, housing prices had tlo
fall by slashing wages which cut demand for food forcing prices of food down by forcing wages
down, thus gold miners could eat enough food to mine an ounce of gold.
When FDR set the price government paid for gold to $35 dollars, the number of gold miners,
and gold ounces mined doubled in less than a year, and stayed up until government prohibited
gold mining to reallocate labor to the war industrial production.
What we don't see is the actual marginal costs of gold mining in either the short or long
run. The global gold mining cartel keeps all the data secret, eg, South Africa, Russia, which
produce about half the gold aannually. They can easily bankrupt a big corporation investing
in a new big mineing and refining operation by releasing some of their massive gold hoard at
prices just below the corporation marginal cost plus debt service. The big driver of gold
demand is Asia and Muslim consumption for gold hoops and rings so people, especially women
have their wealth with them at all times.
MULP made an assertion a couple of days ago that there were far more empty beds in the
country now that several decades ago. I questioned the assertion, since there was no
supporting data, but now I am finding the data in Census tracts and know MULP was correct.
Family and household sizes have been declining for decades.
We still do not know how, when and where the Iranian tanker was captured. There are two
mutually exclusive narratives.
1) Grace 1 "freely navigated into UK territorial waters" as Jeremy Hunt claims.
2) The capture of Grace 1 was ordered by the US long before Grace 1 entered
the Strait. Panama revoked the ship's registration and Gibraltar changed its sanction
laws.
Would the US know weeks in advance that Grace 1 is about to stop in Gibraltar? On
the other hand, If Grace 1 had known that its registration had been revoked, would it
not have avoided British waters.
I suspect Grace 1 was captured out on the Atlantic, days before the news was made
public. The Royal Marines would then reprogram the automatic identification system (AIS) to
show Gibraltar as the destination. We still have not heard from the crew. What is their
story?
Thanks for the link to Craig Murray 's article. I have been collecting sources and
analysis on the tanker seizures here
.
If you know which shipping company owns a certain cargo ship or tanker, you can usually
look up that company's database and find the ship's scheduled voyage. This is crucial
knowledge because usually cargo ships will be carrying several lots of cargo to be offloaded
at ports along the way, and new cargo taken on at the same time, so importers and exporters
need to know exactly when the ship docks at X place and when it leaves. It would be very easy
for the UK or the US to know in advance when the Grace 1 docks at Gibraltar; they only
need to know who owns the tanker, find the owner's website and look up the schedules of all
the owner's ships.
In fact the Grace 1 tanker might not have been the specific target; as long as
there was a ship purportedly carrying Iranian oil passing through the Straits of Gibraltar,
it would have been fair game. So all the British would have needed to know is which tanker or
tankers from the Middle East would have been scheduled to dock in at Gibraltar and they get
that information from the relevant port authorities.
Regional experts had immediately suspected the possibility of an Israeli air raid after a
pro-Iranian militia arms depot in Iraq was obliterated during
a mysterious attack
on July 19
, and another reported follow-up attack this past Sunday.
The attack happened around 80 km from the Iranian border and 40 km north-east of Baghdad at Camp
Ashraf, former home to the Iranian exile group Mojahedin-e Khalq, but now reportedly in the hands
of Iranian intelligence and paramilitaries.
Speculation was rampant in the days that followed as to the source of the 'mysterious' air
strikes - or what was also initially reported as a drone strike - however, some pointed the finger
at an American operation targeting Iranian militants inside Iraq.
But now Israeli and regional media, citing western diplomats, have confirmed it was
a
nearly unprecedented Israeli operation on Iraqi soil
--
representing a major
escalation and expansion of Israel's anti-Iran operations.
Israel reportedly launched a total of two separate air strike operations on the camp using its
US-supplied F-35 stealth fighter jets.
Israel has expanded the scope of its anti-Iranian attacks and struck targets in Iraq
,
the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat reported Tuesday.
According to the report, which cites anonymous Western diplomats,
Israel
struck Iranian warehouses storing arms and missiles at Camp Ashraf
, north-east of
Baghdad, twice in the past month.
On July 19, the base was struck by an Israeli F-35 fighter jet, the sources added. The base
was allegedly attacked again on Sunday.
The report alleges the primary target included
a shipment of Iranian ballistic missiles
which recently entered Iraq via the nearby Iranian border.
And though not confirmed, the report further claimed that "Iranian advisers" had been injured in
the series of airstrikes.
Israel has over the past couple of years conducted "hundreds" of attacks inside Syria, which
defense officials have claimed were primarily against Iranian and Hezbollah bases, but if this
month's air strikes on Camp Ashraf are confirmed Israeli assaults, it would constitute a major
widening in terms of the scope of Tel Aviv's "anti-Iran" targeting operations.
The news is also sure to enrage officials in Baghdad, who will mount protests defending Iraqi
sovereignty. Israel hasn't mounted a known significant attack on Iraqi soil since the days of
former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Economics is the only profession where the more an idea fails, the more it is believed.
Consider the following theory:
Low interest rates lead to higher growth and higher inflation.
If it were true, then a decade of the lowest rates in recorded history would have seen the
global economy go gangbusters. Instead it's been mostly the opposite, leading any reasonable
person to at least question this theory.
But wait a second! A wunderkind econ whippersnapper fresh from Davos interrupts.
If not for low interest rates, things would have been even worse!
This kind of defensive argument is popular among failed forecasters. And to be fair, I can't
prove that it isn't true and low rates didn't prevent some unforeseen calamity. That's the
beauty of the Hyperbolic Avoided Hypothetical (HAH! for short) and why it has become a favorite
of the Central Banking elite. But it's junk science, because you can't disprove it either. For
example: I just used my superpowers to prevent a zombie apocalypse. Go ahead and prove that I
didn't. ( Do you see any zombies? No? You're welcome. )
These twin tendencies of believing an idea that keeps disappointing and justifying it with
all the worse outcomes that didn't happen are the pillars of the global liquidity trap that is
slowly pulling us all under. Ten years ago, there was a plausible theory that lower rates were
a good idea. When they failed, rates were taken to zero (zero interest rate policy, or ZIRP).
When that failed, they were taken negative (negative interest rate policy, or NIRP). At no
point was it ever even considered that maybe, just maybe, it's the theory that's wrong.
My belief is that in the short term, artificially low rates are deflationary, as they result
in investing booms that create excess capacity and misallocation of resources that hurts
growth. Uber, Lyft, WeWork and AirBnb have caused plenty of deflation by constantly raising
money to operate at a loss. Cheap debt enabled a fracking boom that's flooded the oil market.
Public companies that can borrow for nothing are more likely to spend that money on buybacks
than wages.
"... China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205 barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General Administration of Customs, cited in a recent Reuters report . ..."
"... Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the region and that multilateralism must be upheld. ..."
Following China's crude imports from Iran plunging this summer, sinking almost 60% in June
compared to
a year earlier - which corresponded to Washington shutting down the waiver program in May -
leaders in Tehran are urging China to buy more Iranian oil .
China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205
barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General
Administration of Customs, cited in a recent
Reuters report .
Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up
their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly
countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in
buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri
reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on
Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the
region and that multilateralism must be upheld.
"The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to protect multilateralism and
confront American hegemony,"
Jahangiri said , according to the IRIB news agency.
He added that Iran's recent move to breach uranium enrichment caps could be reversed should
other parties return to upholding their side of the nuclear agreement.
Simultaneously, China's oil purchases from Iran's rival Saudi Arabia have soared to record
volume , totaling 1.89 million barrels a day last month, according to numbers cited in
Bloomberg . "Shipments from the OPEC producer made up almost a fifth of its total oil
purchases in June and was 64% higher than the previous month," while at the same time "Imports
from Iran fell to the lowest since May 2010," according to
Bloomberg .
Meanwhile, in a crucial development related to Iran's trying to weather the severe US-led
sanctions storm, a long anticipated plan for gasoline export has begun with an inaugural
shipment to neighboring Afghanistan.
The Fars news agency said on Monday that a first consignment of export gasoline will start
trading in Iran's Energy Exchange (IRENEX) later this week .
It said some 10,000 tons of gasoline with octane number of 91 will be available for sale
to Afghanistan through IRENEX on Wednesday, adding that the trade will take place both in the
Iranian rial and in major international currencies.
Iran's refining capacity has grown significantly over the past years as the country slashed
fuel imports while also coping with increased domestic demand.
Officials have expressed hope that Iraq along with Afghanistan, as well as Caspian Sea
countries would become main destinations for gasoline export.
A country knocking on the doors of other countries to be able to sell it's product to
sustain it's economy and support it's population all the while "civilized, humane, peaceful,
and law abiding" people in the west enjoying their lives at the expense of the very same
people who they insult for not being able to stole the way they did, arguing and trying to
convince everyone else how Mullah's are oppressing their people while they're trying to
help.
China will buy more Iranian oil and so will Russia. They will have the last word whilst
the US empire will be the laughing stock of the world (well it already is).
Cruelty and Stupidity are the hallmarks of moves this century.
"What's Iran to do? It seems straightforward. Respond in kind but no more than in kind to
aggression on Iran's interests, make sure the craven Trumpists and allies realize Iran isn't
kidding about shutting down resource shipments through the Persian Gulf and the destruction
of the vast petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf if Iran is attacked militarily, and
above all remain cool headed and patient. The US empire is beginning to implode."
OK so last week there was millions of barrels of Iranian oil sitting in storage tanks in
China but has not officially changed hands because of sanctions. Today imports from Iran to
China have plunged. Do you not see the correlation? It was in your own ******* article. Do
you even read some of the **** you publish?
I miss Marla...**** was straight when she was around.
See what you mean re: Marla. Nowadays most articles get published on the merit of fitting
an agenda, beyond that content seems irrelevant. And I'm not sure 'Tyler' even knows there is
an active comment section, if you see what I mean.
The Chinese have planned for (and thus probably will achieve) a SPR holding 90 days of
oil. They are past 60, maybe already past 70 these days.
Oil consumption is flat thanks to engine improvements. The turd world (Russia included) is
nervous because their oil welfare is going to come to an end.
It would be pretty tough for the U.S. to enforce any sanctions, if China agreed to buy
more oil from Iran. And there is no way the U.S. can stop them, once the Belt and Road system
is completed through the Middle East region. And since China has already lined up 152
countries to cooperate in the BRI, it is extremely difficult for the U.S. to deny them a shot
at improving their economies, especially when it comes to the subject of Iran.
So much for the "China and Russia will save Iran" crowd's desperate assertions. Russia
does not want VZ or Iranian crude on the market as it will push oil prices even lower. As I
said, there will be no WW3 over Iran. There will be no grand assemblage of minor states over
Iran. Iran is on its own.
I'm a little bit suspicious of Rystad because they tilt bullish consistently, and I'm
specifically suspicious because only 10% of the shale companies operating int he US have
positive free cash flows.
If these wells were really spitting out mid to high double digit IRR's then these
companies would be rolling in cash.
They are not.
Despite saying "fully burdened" multiple times, it wasn't until I got to the very last
paragraph of the report where I found this:
++++++++++
"While the economics of recent vintages in the most prospective US liquid basin remain
exceptionally robust, we should note that these ATAX IRRs still do not correspond to
fully-burdened returns.
For a complete picture, we also need to take into account land cost, where the variability
between early and late entrants is expected to be significant. We aim to tackle this
assumption in a forthcoming analysis."
+++++++
Oh.
They left out land costs. You know, one of the largest line-item expenses there is.
Put those back and these wells are negative I will bet you. And that's a decidedly
"bearish tilting" discovery.
Yeah, the "singers" leave off land cost, road cost, earth moving equipment, tanks, and
pipelines, which can easily add up to a couple of million more per well.
Thanks Chris
I missed that. For some basins there might be a 10% IRR at 65 per barrel for the average new
well over its productive life for all costs including land.
Howdy from a hot S. Texas, Chris. IRR is a bad financial metric for the shale oil biz; its
easily manipulated, much like break'even prices. And generally speaking it's the same folks
always doing the manipulating. The IEA and the EIA are Rystad, DI and IHS's biggest clients.
Good news sells, bad news, not. As George says, it's not a lie if you believe it.
ROI's on CAPEX have always been an important, and overlooked key to the failed shale oil
business model. The possibility (often based on exaggerated EUR's to begin with) of earning
$13MM undiscounted cash flow on a $8.5MM dollar investment, over 15-20 years, no less, was
never conducive to staying out of debt to grow. And current 165% ROI's on the very BEST of
wells are not now conducive to paying interest, reserve replacement and ultimately, we hope,
deleveraging debt. It simply does not work. The "models" that predict growth, and debt
reduction, short of $85 oil prices, sustained for many consecutive years, are ridiculous. By
year end '19 we'll see how ridiculous.
The American shale oil phenomena (not to be confused with the American oil industry) is a
textbook example of "non-profit capitalism." From printing press to Central Banks to lenders
to shale companies, the end result is suppose to benefit the American consumer at the pump
and burner tip and is a great redistribution of wealth in our nation. But it's the people in
the middle that are making the killing, the lawyers that put the deals together, the banks
that get the yields, the CEO's that make the +$20MM annual compensation packages while their
EPS suck the royalty owners getting the free money, they are the big winners. And none of
those folks want to see it end. EVER. They could care less about 2 BCFPD of associated gas
being flared, or all the LTO getting exported at $20 discounts to Brent, or ground water
levels in Reeves County they love the shale thing because it makes them money. And they all
do whatever they can to make sure people believe it's a miracle, a revolution; a game
changer.
Phftttttt.
The real oil business, the real America, works on profit. Debt is for pussies, for
weenie-necks, for dads who do not care what sort of life they leave for their kids.
Yeah, $85 and above would work for some, not all. $65 would work for a lot less of them, and
$55 is pretty much a sucking action for cash on almost all. And as a royalty owner, I would
much prefer them not to drill until $85. But, royalty owners do not run the damn companies.
Faulting them is like laughing at the homeless. I have about 30, or more, wells that can be
drilled on my lease, and I have a tiny ownership. Do you think I am happy with $55 to $60
drilling on it, you are wrong. It's about the last hope in life I have, and I am happy with
wasting it??? GD, I am 70, but not that senile, yet. Ok, I may be an exception, but, at
least, you could say some, or maybe even a lot. Otherwise, it's discrimination, which for
you, I would not guess. But, all royalty owners, is like downgrading the homeless. Most, do
not have a clue they could have had steaks, instead of mush.
I am "discriminating" against greed and in any way I can trying to draw attention to the need
to conserve America's remaining resources. Continuous 120 day drilling commitments in MOST
oil and gas leases, term assignments and/or farmouts has led to over drilling, increased GOR
and potential loss of BHP and recovery rates. It's also led to excessive flaring and the
waste of associated gas, overproduction, much lower product prices and more debt. If
operators (Lessees/Assignees) do not comply with these continuous drilling provisions they
typically lose acreage they've paid thousands of dollars per acre to lease.
I am a royalty owner and consider it one of America's great privileges. By proper
management of my minerals I have ensured my family will benefit from them for many, many
decades. Onerous drilling to earn provisions, however, are part of why the shale oil and
shale phenomena in America is, essentially, out of control and on a mission to drain the last
of our country's hydrocarbon resources as fast as borrowed capital will allow. If your leases
do not contain Pugh clauses and drilling commitments then ignore my observations and
goodonya.
I guess I see a different picture of most royalty owners than you, and I will just
concentrate on the EF, as that's where I am. Most of the EF was leased up by around 2009, far
before public knowledge of the field. Ours was originally with Cheatapeak for about $800 a
net acre. The common way to lease it, was through third party land men, who would lie with
impunity. The standard story was, if you don't lease it, with our lease, you may not get
anything if they find oil. In return for signing their lease, as is, was a generous quarter,
rather than the usual eighth. I knew the rest was BS, but a quarter sounded pretty good. The
continuous drilling clause in that, was so weak to be non-existent. No Pugh clause. That was
standard. I actually did not sign with Cheatapeake, nor EOG, but the lease wording was
basically the same. My guess, is the vast majority of mineral right owners were given the
same deal. Maybe not the majority of land, but certainly the number of signers. Most of the
Permian was leased many years ago, with an eighth, or less. Chevron actually owns 100% on a
lot, and so does Oxy, no doubt. Exxon's acquisition of the Bass families' holdings in the
Delaware span 4 decades. EOG's entry into the Delaware was through purchase of Yates. I
believe the picture you are painting of royalty owners is distorted, for most. With, at
least, the big holders, the number of wells is determined by the company. Not the lease. And
most of the rest have very little capex to complete with.
There are so many mineral owners in so many different situations that it is difficult to
paint all with a broad brush.
However, management of shale weren't playing with their own money, and so what happened
happened.
If we could just not keep having these quick drops like Q4 2018 and Q2 2019.
I think that it will be interesting to see what happens to all of the sub 10 BOPD shale
wells. Better hope no down hole failures. Pretty hard to pay 8 figure pay packages to
management on the backs of those. Lol.
I think all investors need to think about what happens when these companies start to run
out of shale locations and have falling production.
Just go to shaleprofile.com and run some calculations on 2014-2016 wells in the various shale
basins.
By the time you subtract 25% royalty, then severance, LOE, G & A, it's apparent that
the majority of the wells cannot payout in a reasonable time. 3-5 years.
I guess in early 2015 those of us in the conventional upstream arena were saying this.
Vertical wells fell off a cliff. But shale wells (with OPM) kept on trucking.
And the stories told about break evens, which we knew were fraudulent, have proven
such.
It is not necessary I "distort" the truth or generalize the role greedy mineral owners have
in the overdrilling and premature depletion of America's shale oil resources; the evidence is
in every courthouse in every county in every shale oil basin in America. Google it, or better
yet, go research public records yourself, as I often have to do. It is abysmal, the
requirements made of Lessees, Assignees and Farmoutees to develop those shale oil resources,
regardless of price, or pressure preservation or common sense. It is very much part of the
problem the shale industry faces. They, and the regulatory agencies that protect them, may
have brought it on themselves when they changed applicable field rules nevertheless the big
winner in all of this shale gig is the American royalty owner, RI and ORRI combined. I
estimate to the tune of about $800 billion in free money the past decade. Those are just the
facts, as painful as they may be.
As a side note, the Texas DPS reports 30 people have been killed on Texas oilfield roads
in July so far all in a hurry to deplete America's last remaining hydrocarbon resources,
flare its associated gas, and export the shit to Korea.
I'm not familiar with Texas shale leases nor who the mineral owners tend to be, so I am
not qualified to comment as I did.
Where I am, several royalty companies have bought fractional interests in active leases
and also where production is inactive.
During the high prices we tried to lease a tract offsetting us, which had been abandoned.
The wells are in the state plugging fund. The mineral owners are from a shale state, and they
wanted a large royalty, much larger than had been granted here. Plus cash upfront. Plus
wanted us to drill the two remaining locations within a certain time or forfeit them (which
made no sense given the lease boundaries, etc. So we passed. It has sat abandoned for several
more years, Wells haven't been plugged either.
However, we have reactivated several leases from 1990s to present, and we are working on
two more small ones that offset us right now. In each case the mineral owners have been
relatively easy to work with.
I ballpark that we have produced over 50K BO from those reclamation projects. With
royalties from 1/6 to 1/8, I'd say those that worked with us have fared pretty well.
I guess maybe when you aren't operating near shale things are a lot easier.
This is a whole different topic: Kayross (I haven't heard of them) are quoted on Rigzone
today as saying that Permian CAPEX data for 2018 have been underreported by some $4.1
billion. They quote Andrew Gould: Average production costs have been underestimated and
production per well overestimated. He says that current shale-oil production is substantially
more water- and sand- intensive than commonly believed.
Kayross: Sand and water intensity in Permian tight-oil production in 2018 is 23% higher
than previously recorded, with sand demand underestimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water by
12.5 billion gallons.
Chart below from that Bloomberg piece suggests that without all the external capital, US
tight oil output would be only about 2 Mb/d instead of 7.5 Mb/d in May 2019. We might see
relatively flat growth going forward, much will depend on future oil prices (low prices might
result in decline, medium prices, flat output and high prices a small increase, perhaps to 9
Mb/d or so.
Even EOG. Flat, at best. One could expect more rig count drops soon. Because, this does
not reflect the multitude of smaller companies that make up a good portion of production.
This can be used for reference to the article for perspective. https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/50413/top32producers2018.pdf
Oxy is actually three of those companies, now. Both the Oxies and Anadarko.
" Chinese consumption is enroute to a 6-7% growth year .It's relentless'
I'll leave other to respond to the call for war, if they so choose.
But I will say that the USA would be wise to have no plan to import oil from beyond this
hemisphere, because others, including China, will be consuming all that is available from
Africa and Asia.
There will come a time when EV's look brilliant. To some they already do.
The early season hurricane in the GOM is going to put a major dent in US July crude output.
Around 60% of production is shut-in and will be that way for around a week. This storm is
weak but so sprawling there is a huge area of the Gulf flying helicopters is dangerous
Not the Big One for the industry, New Orleans or Houston by any means. Still, Gulf is hot
and favorable for storms this year.
As long as this BS continues, oil prices will stay low. More BKs and mergers, and flat
shale output. Because, it's now official, big oil determines Permian output. Which will not
be recognized much until 2020. Because, the elevator do not go to upper floors. I wasn't
going to call it until an Oxy takeover by a major, but I can finish the sentence with the
words we have. Final conclusion will have to wait for the official autopsy, but the doc needs
to be smart enough to know that the patient died. May be quite smelly by then.
Lots of Ag professors at major universities study grain trade. I listen to some of their
podcasts. This is what they say in unison.
Right now the US corn and soybean crop is not looking good. But the funds do not so crop
tours, talk to farmers, fly drones over fields, etc. So as long as USDA says all is well,
grain prices stay low.
USDA estimated 91.7 million acres of corn planted most recently. None of the Ag professors
believe the number, nor do the various independent traders I listen to. But the funds went
with it and corn sold off limit down.
Crude -1.401M Cushing: -1.115 M Gasoline -476K Distillate +6.226M
U.S. crude stocks fell less than expected last week, while gasoline inventories decreased
and distillate stocks built, industry group the American Petroleum Institute said on Tuesday.
Crude inventories fell by 1.4 million barrels in the week to July 12 to 460 million, compared
with analysts' expectations for a decrease of 2.7 million barrels. Crude stocks at the
Cushing, Oklahoma, delivery hub fell by 1.1 million barrels, API said. Refinery crude runs
rose by 17,000 barrels per day, API data showed. Gasoline stocks fell by 476,000 barrels,
compared with analysts' expectations in a Reuters poll for a 925,000-barrel decline.
Distillate fuels stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 6.2 million
barrels, compared with expectations for a 613,000-barrel gain, the API data showed. U.S.
crude imports fell last week by 41,000 barrels per day to 7 million bpd.
Just as I predicted, plant condensate which is not crude has entered the refinery as crude.
Mason Hamilton of EIA confirmed it in his tweets yesterday.
The adjustment factor will likely remain above 500 KBD as a portion of plant condensate has
entered the refinery as input on a consistent basis. The plant condensate can be directly
used as gasoline blend material just as butane in winter months. Expect gasoline production
to remain high as a result.
These NG shale management folks have even less of a brain that shale oil folks. The NG
stocks have pummeled and many stocks such as RRC and AR hit 52 week lows.
Enno posted yesterday that the shale decline rate is running at the rate of 350KBD/month (or
4.2 MBD/year). I expect the treadmill effect to slow down the shale growth to a virtual crawl
sooner rather than later.
An answer to my own Q from The (IEEFA) – Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis.
"EQT's former CEO Steve Schlotterbeck recently made headlines when he called fracking an
"unmitigated disaster" because it helped crash prices and produce mountains of red ink."
"In fact, I'm not aware of another case of a disruptive technological change that has done so
much harm to the industry that created the change," Schlotterbeck said at an industry
conference in June.
Amazingly Appears EQT displaced CHK as the GASSEST one to rule them all with an Unresolved
Strategy to bury their stakeholders even deeper in doom. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-22/why-us-shale-doomed-no-matter-what-they-do
https://www.rigzone.com/news/permian_fracking_activity_underreported_in_2018-23-jul-2019-159378-article/
Latest news from Rig zone , fracking underreported in permian in 2018. Seems there are not
maby DUCs left to compleate and the oroduction each well is lower than reported that increase
the break even price each barrel.significant. If this is true EIA need to revice their shale
play forcast, also the majours their plans if they used the data reported that was wrong
U.S. crude stocks fell more than expected last week, while gasoline and distillate
inventories built, industry group the American Petroleum Institute said on Tuesday.
Crude inventories fell by 11 million barrels in the week to July 19 to 449 million,
compared with analysts' expectations for a decrease of 4 million barrels.
Crude stocks at the Cushing, Oklahoma, delivery hub fell by 448,000 barrels, API said.
Refinery crude runs fell by 396,000 barrels per day, API data showed.
Gasoline stocks rose by 4.4 million barrels, compared with analysts' expectations in a
Reuters poll for a 730,000-barrel decline.
Distillate fuels stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 1.4 million
barrels, compared with expectations for a 499,000-barrel gain, the API data showed.
U.S. crude imports fell last week by 467,000 barrels per day to 6.6 million bpd.
Hi guys, please read this article in the Oil&Gas journal:
"Oil and gas companies under-reported hydraulic fracturing activity for producing light,
tight oil by more than 20% in the Permian basin during 2018, estimates Kayrros, a data
analytics company serving energy markets.
Using optical and synthetic aperture radar imagery tracking coupled with proprietary
algorithms to identify rigs and fracturing crews, Kayrros found that more than 1,100 Permian
wells were completed but not reported through state commissions or FracFocus, a public
repository for information on fracturing chemicals.
Kayrros counted 6,394 completed wells for 2018, representing a 21% increase on the FracFocus
estimate of 5,272 wells as of June 20.
The backlog of drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells is considerably smaller than believed,
Kayrros said. In any given month, Kayrros evaluates the Permian DUC inventory at just about
1,000 wells."
If this were true, it would be a massive fraudulent behavior, more typical of an emerging
market with a large black economy. I am somewhat speechless and waiting for more
information.
That part may not be illegal but it certainly sounds like the average return per well is 20%
less than we thought. So, the already poor productivity of shale wells is now 20% less than
previous estimates.
Commenting on the discovery, Andrew Gould, former Chairman of BG and Chairman CEO of
Schlumberger and Kayrros advisory board chairman, said: "Misperceptions about shale oil in
general and the Permian in particular have consequences, hence the importance of these
measurements that show Permian production per well has been substantially overestimated. By
the same token, average production costs per well are understated. With far more wells
contributing to Permian and US oil production than accounted for, current shale oil
production is substantially more water- and sand-intensive than is commonly believed."
The findings have significant implications for the assumed efficiency of the Permian
Basin. The analysis revealed that while oil production is accurately measured in monthly US
statistics, it took many more wells to account for that production in 2018 than were
reported. Assuming a cost of $5 million per horizontal completion, 2018 operator capex is
also underestimated by as much as USD 4.1 billion. Further, the sand and water intensity of
Permian tight oil production in 2018 was 23% greater than previously recorded with sand
demand being underestimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water by 12.5 billion gallons.
Seems this finding by Kayrros could be a really big deal. I am unclear on how exactly a well
gets completed and put into production without triggering the state reporting mechanisms
seems nigh impossible to me.
But it's a heavy-hitting firm with Andrew Gould on its board. From the Kayrros media page
of their website:
+++++++++++++++
New Satellite Data Highlight Large Underreporting of Hydraulic Fracturing Activity
Houston, 23 July 2019
Kayrros, the leading data-driven analysis company serving the energy markets, disclosed
today that hydraulic fracturing activity (fracking), the process for producing light tight
oil, was underreported by more than 20% in the Permian, the most prolific US basin, in
2018.
Using optical and synthetic aperture radar imagery tracking together with proprietary
algorithms to identify rigs and frac crews, Kayrros found that in 2018 alone, more than 1,100
wells were completed in the Permian basin but not reported through state commissions or
FracFocus, a public repository for information on the chemicals used during fracking. The
total figure of 6,394 completed wells counted by Kayrros for 2018 represents a 21% increase
on the FracFocus estimate of 5,272 wells as of June 20, 2019.
US light tight oil (commonly referred to as "shale oil") has been the world's fastest
growing source of oil supply in the last 10 years, turning the United States into the largest
liquids producer and a major exporter of crude oil and refined products. Experts rely their
analysis of the sector on data submitted by operators to state commissions and FracFocus.
Kayrros measurements reveal that public data fail to capture the full scale of fracking.
The macroeconomic implications of this underreporting are far-reaching. For one thing, the
backlog of drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells is considerably smaller than thought. In any
given month, Kayrros evaluates the Permian DUC inventory at just around 1,000 wells. Most of
this rolling inventory results from regular drilling and completions operations. Over time,
the number of wells drilled generally matches that of wells completed, leaving DUC
inventories relatively unchanged.
The prevalent view that shale operators sit on a large backlog of DUCs that could be
quickly brought to production in the event of an oil crisis even without further drilling is
thus deeply misleading. There is just no such inventory.
The findings also transform the perception of light tight oil economics. In light of these
measurements, the average well is both less productive and higher-cost than reflected in
public data.
Commenting on the discovery, Andrew Gould, former Chairman of BG and Chairman CEO of
Schlumberger and Kayrros advisory board chairman, said: "Misperceptions about shale oil in
general and the Permian in particular have consequences, hence the importance of these
measurements that show Permian production per well has been substantially overestimated. By
the same token, average production costs per well are understated. With far more wells
contributing to Permian and US oil production than accounted for, current shale oil
production is substantially more water- and sand-intensive than is commonly believed."
Kayrros Chief Analyst and Co-Founder Antoine Halff added: "For all its revolutionary
impact on the oil industry, shale remains poorly understood. Publicly available data based on
old-fashioned company reporting have their limits. Hard measurements unlocked by new data
technologies show that contrary to public belief, there is no great buildup of DUCs just
waiting to be brought online. The whole idea that the market can rely on this sort of de
facto spare production capacity is an illusion. The industry is actually running on a much
tighter leash than that."
The findings have significant implications for the assumed efficiency of the Permian
Basin. The analysis revealed that while oil production is accurately measured in monthly US
statistics, it took many more wells to account for that production in 2018 than were
reported. Assuming a cost of $5 million per horizontal completion, 2018 operator capex is
also underestimated by as much as USD 4.1 billion. Further, the sand and water intensity of
Permian tight oil production in 2018 was 23% greater than previously recorded with sand
demand being underestimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water by 12.5 billion gallons.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Enno Peters reports 4832 horizontal wells completed in the Permian basin in 2018, his data
tends to be quite good, though over time more data shows up at the state agencies so this
number will likely get revised higher. The most recent Permian basin report has 3583 Permian
wells completed in 2017, in July 2018 the estimate was 3251 Permian wells completed in 2017,
so about 91% of wells were reported after 7 months, if this rate is consistent (and it may
not be) this suggests perhaps 5310 total wells will be reported for 2018 by July 2020. Pretty
convinced that Enno Peters gets this right.
There is a bit of discussion of this at shaleprofile.com
"... Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The EU Council regulation in question specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state." ..."
"... The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized. ..."
"... There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of the middle of the Strait. ..."
"... But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace 1 was in the shipping lane heading east toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this live view of typical ship traffic through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters at any time before it was boarded. ..."
"... Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union, establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions. ..."
"... The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods. ..."
"... On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel." ..."
"... Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1. ..."
"... The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy. ..."
"... Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did. Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing into the cargo hold. ..."
"... The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention the ones who broke international law. ..."
"... Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.) ..."
"... Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg): ..."
"... Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong. ..."
"... And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy. ..."
"... John Bolton, war criminal. ..."
"... John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a hat. ..."
"... Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace. ..."
"... While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him. So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump. ..."
"... The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war. ..."
"... The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is coming faster than you think. ..."
Did John Bolton Light the Fuse of the UK-Iranian Tanker Crisis? Evidence suggests he pressured the Brits to seize an
Iranian ship. Why? More war. By Gareth
Porter •
July 23, 2019
While Iran's seizure of a British tanker near the Strait of Hormuz on Friday was a clear response to the British capture of an
Iranian tanker in the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4, both the UK and U.S. governments are insisting that Iran's operation was illegal
while the British acted legally.
The facts surrounding the British detention of the Iranian ship, however, suggest that, like the Iranian detention of the British
ship, it was an illegal interference with freedom of navigation through an international strait. And even more importantly, evidence
indicates that the British move was part of a bigger scheme coordinated by National Security Advisor John Bolton.
British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt called the Iran seizure of the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero "unacceptable" and insisted
that it is "essential that freedom of navigation is maintained and that all ships can move safely and freely in the region."
But the British denied Iran that same freedom of navigation through the Strait of Gibraltar on July 4.
The rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew was that it was delivering oil to Syria in violation of EU sanctions.
This was never questioned by Western news media. But a closer look reveals that the UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions
against that ship, and that it was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships
through international straits.
The evidence also reveals that Bolton was actively involved in targeting the Grace 1 from the time it began its journey in May
as part of the broader Trump administration campaign of "maximum pressure" on Iran.
Contrary to the official rationale, the detention of the Iranian tanker was not consistent with the 2012 EU regulation on
sanctions against the Assad government in Syria. The
EU Council regulation in question
specifies in Article 35 that the sanctions were to apply only within the territory of EU member states, to a national or business
entity or onboard an aircraft or vessel "under the jurisdiction of a member state."
The UK government planned to claim that the Iranian ship was under British "jurisdiction" when it was passing through the Strait
of Gibraltar to justify its seizure as legally consistent with the EU regulation. A
maritime news outlet has reported that on July 3, the day before the seizure of the ship, the Gibraltar government, which has
no control over its internal security or foreign affairs, issued
a regulation to provide what it would claim
as a legal pretext for the operation. The regulation gave the "chief minister" of the British the power to detain any ship if there
were "reasonable grounds" to "suspect" that it had been or even that it was even "likely" to be in breach of EU regulations.
The notice required the Gibraltar government to detain any such ship for at least 72 hours if it entered "British Gibraltar
Territorial Waters." Significantly, however, the video statement
by Gibraltar's chief minister Fabian Picardo on July 4 explaining the seizure of the Grace 1 made no such claim and avoided any
mention of the precise location of the ship when it was seized.
There is a good reason why the chief minister chose not to draw attention to the issue of the ship's location: it is virtually
impossible that the ship was in British Gibraltar territorial waters at any time before being boarded. The UK claims
territorial waters of three nautical miles from its coast, whereas
the Strait of Gibraltar is 7.5 nautical miles wide at its narrowest point. That would make the limit of UK territory just north of
the middle of the Strait.
But international straits must have clearly defined and separated shipping lanes going in different directions. The Grace
1 was in the shipping lane heading east
toward the Mediterranean, which is south of the lane for ships heading west toward the Atlantic and thus clearly closer to the
coast of Morocco than to the coast of Gibraltar, as can be seen from this
live view of typical ship traffic
through the strait . So it is quite implausible that the Grace 1 strayed out of its shipping lane into British territorial waters
at any time before it was boarded.
But even if the ship had done so, that would not have given the UK "jurisdiction" over the Grace 1 and allowed it to legally
seize the ship. Such a move clearly violates the global treaty governing the issue -- the
United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea . Articles 37 through 44 of that agreement, ratified by 167 states, including the UK and the European Union,
establish a "regime of transit passage" for international straits like the Strait of Gibraltar that guarantees freedom of navigation
for merchant ships. The rules of that regime explicitly forbid states bordering the strait from interfering with the transit passage
of a merchant ship, with very narrowly defined exceptions.
These articles allow coastal states to adopt regulations relating to safety of navigation, pollution control, prevention of fishing,
and "loading or unloading any commodity in contravention of customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations" of bordering
states -- but for no other reason. The British seizure and detention of the Grace 1 was clearly not related to any of these concerns
and thus a violation of the treaty.
The evidence indicates, moreover, that the UK's actions were part of a broader scheme coordinated with the Trump administration
to tighten pressure on Iran's economy by reducing Iran's ability to export goods.
The statement by Gibraltar's chief minister said the
decision to seize the ship was taken after the receipt of "information" that provided "reasonable grounds" for suspicion that it
was carrying oil destined for Syria's Banyas refinery. That suggested the intelligence had come from a government that neither he
nor the British wished to reveal.
BBC defense correspondent Jonathan Beale reported: "[I]t appears
the intelligence came from the United States." Acting Spanish Foreign Minister Joseph Borrell commented on July 4 that the British
seizure had followed "a demand from the United States to the UK." On July 19, Reuters London correspondent Guy Falconbridge
reported , "[S]everal diplomatic sources said the United States asked the UK to seize the vessel."
Detailed evidence of Bolton deep involvement in the British plan to seize the Iranian tanker has surfaced in reporting on
the withdrawal of Panamanian flag status for the Grace 1.
Panama was the flag state for many of the Iranian-owned vessels carrying various items exported by Iran. But when the Trump administration
reinstated economic sanctions against Iran in October 2018, it included prohibitions on industry services such as insurance and reinsurance.
This decision was accompanied by
political pressure on Panama to withdraw Panamanian flag status from 59 Iranian vessels, many of which were owned by Iranian
state-affiliated companies. Without such flag status, the Iranian-owned vessels could not get insurance for shipments by freighter.
That move was aimed at discouraging ports, canal operators, and private firms from allowing Iranian tankers to use their facilities.
The State Department's Brian Hook, who is in charge of the sanctions,
warned those
entities last November that the Trump administration believed they would be responsible for the costs of an accident involving a
self-insured Iranian tanker.
But the Grace 1 was special case, because it still had Panamanian flag status when it began its long journey around the Southern
tip of Africa on the way to the Mediterranean. That trip began in late May, according to Automatic Identification System
data cited by Riviera Maritime Media . It was no coincidence that the Panamanian Maritime Authority
delisted the Grace 1 on May 29 -- just as the ship was beginning its journey. That decision came immediately after Panama's National
Security Council issued an alert
claiming that the Iranian-owned tanker "may be participating in terrorism financing in supporting the destabilization activities
of some regimes led by terrorist groups."
The Panamanian body did not cite any evidence that the Grace 1 had ever been linked to terrorism.
The role of Panama's National Security Council signaled Bolton's hand, since he would have been the point of contact with
that body. The result of his maneuvering was to leave the Grace 1 without the protection of flag status necessary to sail or visit
a port in the middle of its journey. This in conjunction with the British seizure of the ship was yet another episode in the extraordinary
American effort to deprive Iran of the most basic sovereign right to participate in the global economy.
Now that Iran has detained a British ship in order to force the UK to release the Grace 1, the British Foreign Ministry will claim
that its seizure of the Iranian ship was entirely legitimate. The actual facts, however, put that charge under serious suspicion.
Gareth Porter is an investigative reporter and regular contributor to The American Conservative . He is also the author
of Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.
Honestly the Brits are such idiots, we lied them into a war once. They knew we were lying and went for it anyway. Now the are
falling for it again. Maybe it is May's parting gift to Boris?
Same EU legislation only forbids Syria exporting oil and not EU entities selling to Syria (albeit with some additional paperwork).
However, it doesn't forbid other non-EU states to sell oil to Syria. They are not behaving like the US. And this is also not UN
sanctioned. In fact, UK is also acting against the spirit of JPCOA towards Iran. Speak about Perfidious Albion (others would say
US lapdog).
Back in 2013 2013 there was a rumour afoot that Edward Snowden, who at the time was stuck in the Moscow airport, trapped
there by the sudden cancellation mid-flight of his US passport, was going spirited away by the President of Bolivia Evo Morales
aboard his private jet. So what the US apparently was lean on it European allies to stop him. This they duly and dutifully did.
Spain, France, and others denied overflight rights to the Bolivian jet, forcing it to turn back and land in Austria. There was
even a report that once on the ground, the Spanish ambassador to Austria showed up and asked the Bolivian president if he might
come out to the plain for a coffee--and presumably to have a poke around to see he could catch Snowden in the act of vanishing
into the cargo hold.
The rumor turned out to be completely false, but it was the Europeans who wound up with the egg on their face. Not to mention
the ones who broke international law.
Now we find that once again a European country had (apparently) gone out on a limb for the US--and wound up with egg on its
face for trying to show its loyalty to the US in an all-too-slavish fashion by doing America's dirty work.
Bolton persuaded the British to play along with the stupid US "maximum pressure" strategy, regardless of its illegality. (Maybe
the British government thought that it would placate Trump after Ambassadorgate.) And then of course Pompeo threw them under the
bus. It's getting hard to be a US ally (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel.)
The very fact that the UK tried to present its hijack of Iran Oil as an implementation of EU sanctions dovetail well with Bolton's
objective of creating another of those "international coalitions" without a UN mandate engaging in 'Crimes of Aggression".
The total lack of support from the EU for this UK hijack signals another defeat to both the UK and the neocons of America.
Too bad there isn't an international version of the ACLU to argue Iran's legal case before the EU body. What typically happens
is that Iran will refuse to send representation because that would in effect, acknowledge their authority. The EU will have a
Kangaroo court and enter a vacant decision. This has happened numerous times in the U.S.
Would anyone in the U.S. or EU recognize an Iranian court making similar claims? Speaking of which, the entire point of UN
treaties and international law is to prevent individual countries from passing special purpose legislation targeting specific
countries. Why couldn't Iran pass a law sanctioning EU vessels that tried to use their territorial waters, what is so special
about the EU, because it is an acronym?
Spain lodged a formal complaint about the action, because it considers the sea around Gibraltar to be part of its international
waters, "We are studying the circumstances and looking at how this affects our sovereignty," Josep Borell, Spain's acting foreign
minister, said. So Gibraltar or Spanish waters? Gibraltar – Territorial Waters (1 pg):
https://www.academia.edu/30...
Worse than the bad behavior of Bolton, and the poodle behavior of Britain, is the utter failure of our press to provide us
a skeptical eye and honest look at events. They've been mere stenographers and megaphones for power doing wrong.
Thanks for the investigative reporting. Trump has lied almost 11,000 times, so I think nobody expects the truth from The Trump
Administration anytime soon. Especially if it goes against the narrative.
And this just in. A UK government official has just stated, related to the Iranian tanker stopped near Gibraltar, the UK will
not be part of Trump's 'maximum pressure' gambit on Iran. We shall see if Boris Johnson is for or against that policy.
OK, so why did the Brits go along with it? Are they so stupid as to not figure out that Iran might respond in kind, or did the
Brits not also want war?
John Bolton has been desperate for a war with Iran for decades. This is just another escalation in his desperate attempt to
get one. He's the classic neocon chicken hawk who is bravely ready to risk and sacrifice other people's lives at the drop of a
hat.
Since UK is abusing its control of Gibraltar by behaving like a thug, maybe it is better for the international community to
support an independent state of Gibraltar, or at least let Spain has it. It will be better for world peace.
While I agree with the gist of the article, remember that Bolton has no authority except that which is given to him.
So stop blaming Bolton. Blame Trump.
The provocations will go on and on until Iran shoots back and then Wash. will get the war it's been trying to start for some time
now to pay back all those campaign donors who will profit from another war.
The MIC needs constant wars to use up munitions so
new ones can be manufactured. It's really just about business and politicians working together for mutual benefit to keep those
contributions coming in. With all the other issues facing America, a war with Iran will just add to the end of the USA which is
coming faster than you think.
Regarding money, and the difference between private and public money.
As with all things public and private, public money is not required to make a profit, but
in contrast, private money has no other reason to exist than to make a profit.
What we call money in the US, is privately owned. It is actually a promissory note, the
signifier of a loan made to those who hold the note. This is how US money comes into
existence.
We could trade coconut shells, or beads, but we trade promissory notes. They are legal
tender by law. And they fulfill the role of money pretty well. But we the people do not
ultimately own those obligations.
Public money is issued out of the same thin air as private money, but not as a debt,
simply as an issuance. The bills do their job for exchange and storage, and circulate until
being retired as taxes and the like. No one pays interest on that money.
Public money doesn't charge interest. Private money charges interest. This is the only
difference, and this difference is killing us and destroying the entire world.
~~
Professor Richard Werner illustrates nicely how a mortgage comes into existence through a
bank, which doesn't actually create money in this loan, but purchases a promissory note from
the home buyer. It is this promissory note that then enters the public record as new money,
which we then trade like sea shells - happy children, except that we now will pay interest of
more than 100 percent over the next 30 years. This interest is the profit on the private
money.
You'll find the mortgage part specifically around 16:15.
~~
As to all the rest, there is much more collateral, including the flagship work by Helen
Brown. Sorry I have no time to supply more links.
But I'm surprised to see so much wordy ignorance here on the subject, which is actually
very simple (although obfuscated, of course). Thanks to psychohistorian and karlof1 and
others who show that the good economists are all calling for public money which charges no
interest. And the communists and socialists do this as a matter of course.
As Hudson ended in his address cited by b and discussed here: "nations face a choice
between socialism and barbarism" .
Neoliberal economics and private finance is this very barbarism. It is accompanied by
fascism, oppression and the utter loss of freedom. As I cited in my previous comment, Dambisa
Moyo suggests very cogently that economic sufficiency undergirds democratic freedom. The
corollary is obvious: as we get more impoverished, freedom flees away.
~~
Interest charged on a loan is a claim on wealth that it doesn't create. It therefore
steals existing wealth in order to be redeemed. That's where our wealth went, and why we're
all so broke.
A loan for a productive purpose that will create new wealth can hopefully afford to slice
some of this new wealth off to pay the interest. It's still usury. But any loan at interest
that doesn't create wealth - such as a mortgage that simply buys an existing asset - is
something vastly more wicked.
"... As Mael Colium says, the US picks off individual countries by isolating them. ..."
"... there's a fundamental difference between debt in the past and debt today. In the past debt was owed to the state, today it's owed to some wealthy corporations. Good luck with debt jubilees in the absence of violent uprisings. ..."
"... The difference is they internalize profit and externalize cost. And that's fundamentally different from all other epochs in the past. Even the birth of nation state was out of their rationalization of how to maximize profit extraction and cost externalization in the 1st place. Good luck with debt jubilees. ..."
"... How would this occur aside from a repudiation of the almighty buck one wonders, and would it be based on reserves in the vault, or actual use as money? ..."
"... The Eurozone and China could run trade deficits, thereby creating an opportunity for their currencies to become reasonably viable alternative reserves. But they don't because they don't want to cede control of their manufacturing and export-driven economic bases away. ..."
"... The sine qua non of our economic empire (which I learned here) is that a global currency requires global trade deficits, which must grow as quickly as the global economy to fulfill its role. ..."
"... So American deficits are structural. Our debt-ceiling controversies are theater. And our dollar is exceptional until the instant it isn't–then the Fed electron-tranfers trillions more to the speculators whose notional dollars just evaporated, keeping the currencies in the air with their new casino chips. Is this a loan? A gift? An electron cloud? It's the fog of war by other means . . . ..."
"... Resources and the critical health of the planet bother me a lot. Money and "gold" are, in the end, both fictitious obsessions. ..."
"... You'll find few authors willing to provide their seminal work for free online– 2nd Edition PDF . I think it fair for those unfamiliar with Hudson's work to read his analysis prior to being judgmental. ..."
"On a similar note, I've wondered why Russia has not defaulted on it's considerable USD and
EUR debt (also too, why is Russia still doing debt in USD and thus strengthening U.S.?)"
It should be noted that Russia has almost zero foreign public debt and that the private foreign
debt has been much reduced and now amounts to US dollars 450 billion.
As Russia has a surplus of more than US dollars 100 billion on the current account the total
foreign debt amounts to 4 years current account surplus only.
Ad to this that Russias international currency reserves amounts to ca. US dollars 500
billion which meens that Russia is in a very strong fiscal position as it is capable of paying
off its entire foreign debt any time it chooses.
Along the same lines, the summary starts with, "The first existential objective is to avoid the current threat of war by
winding down U.S. military interference in foreign countries and removing U.S. military bases as relics of neocolonialism."
Either would be
taken as proof of evil anti-US intentions, leading to sanctions, coups, assassinations,
regime change, and eventually outright war. As Mael Colium says, the US picks off individual
countries by isolating them.
When we have MMT paying for arts, history, journalism and particularly editors, I won't be
so irritated by these kinds of criticisms.
We live in a very advanced world of Bernaysian propaganda where the communicative
industries are privately owned and directed to ensure deep criticisms of the
hyper-exploitative current reality CANNOT be published and promoted.
When someone takes the effort to produce something, like this or the book other commenters
on this thread are also slighting, at great personal expense to themselves without corporate
backing or institutional support, a decent reply would be "Thank you!", rather than tasking
them or our hosts here at this site to "go back and clean up this mess??"
If you had any decency, you might suggest clarifying edits in comments, like changing
"– so that it can taxing its own citizens." at the end of the 23rd paragraph to,
"– so that it can avoid taxing its own citizens", to help the people you are
criticizing for making things so difficult for you.
Michael Hudson is a modern day Saint! Who cares about a few typos when his ideas are truly REVOLUTIONARY!
For example, i had no idea about Debt Jubilees in early civilizations 3000 years ago! The
pyramids built by FREE MEN! Liberty and Freedom originating from canceling debts! Torches and
Beacons of light as representatives of said Debt Jubilees!
If you ask me, the #HudsonHawk is trying to awaken the Workers of the World in
Forgiveness, Peace, Love, and Solidarity.
I didn't know that until I read anthropologist David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000
Years.
But there's a fundamental difference between debt in the past and debt today. In the past
debt was owed to the state, today it's owed to some wealthy corporations. Good luck with debt
jubilees in the absence of violent uprisings.
The difference is they internalize profit and externalize cost. And that's fundamentally
different from all other epochs in the past. Even the birth of nation state was out of their
rationalization of how to maximize profit extraction and cost externalization in the 1st
place. Good luck with debt jubilees.
That is why Russia, China and other powers that U.S. strategists deem to be strategic
rivals and enemies are looking to restore gold's role as the preferred asset to settle
payments imbalances.
How would this occur aside from a repudiation of the almighty buck one wonders, and would
it be based on reserves in the vault, or actual use as money?
Keep in mind that there isn't a human alive now who ever proffered a monetized gold coin
in order to purchase something, and increasingly relatively few that have ever used a
monetized silver coin for the same purpose.
I don't have a huge amount of sympathy. The Eurozone and China could run trade deficits,
thereby creating an opportunity for their currencies to become reasonably viable alternative
reserves. But they don't because they don't want to cede control of their manufacturing and
export-driven economic bases away.
The US doesn't mind and doesn't care about the domestic repercussions. For how much longer
that can continue, especially as Trump's America First policy is putting that under
some strain, is an open question. But for now, it's willing to be satisfied with a little
rowing back rather than wholesale reversal (back to, for example, an immediate-post war
position of significant trade surpluses although the article is correct to point out this was
due to the US being the last man standing, in terms of having a manufacturing base still
intact).
The Eurozone and China are not only not showing any signs of a policy change, they've
continued embedding and strengthening the current modus operandi. You pays your money, you
takes your choices. Here as elsewhere. If they'd rather not have the US$ having a
more-or-less monopoly position in then global financial system as a reserve currency, they'll
need to make the compromises needed to set up these challenger currencies as viable
alternatives.
But they can't have their economic cakes and eat them, too.
And it's not just currencies. You need legal systems which are deemed to be (which can
only come through real, observational experience) investor-friendly -- not just prone to
supporting or at the very least given an easy ride to domestic stalwarts. Again, this has
repercussions if you then have to stop cosseting domestic "champions". The US legal system is
ridiculously business friendly. But it doesn't, overtly, differentiate between US and non-US
companies in a commercial dispute.
The sine qua non of our economic empire (which I learned here) is that a global currency requires global trade
deficits, which must grow as quickly as the global economy to fulfill its role. Tell that to Germany! If your silly little euro or yen or renminbi tries to go
global, the dollar-based currency speculators will shrivel it like Soros did the pound in the
90s.
So American deficits are structural. Our debt-ceiling controversies are theater. And our
dollar is exceptional until the instant it isn't–then the Fed electron-tranfers
trillions more to the speculators whose notional dollars just evaporated, keeping the
currencies in the air with their new casino chips. Is this a loan? A gift? An electron cloud?
It's the fog of war by other means . . .
It may have been Hudson who explained that a quarter (or was it half?) of all corporate
profits after WWII went to American companies, when our economy was that much of the world's.
Now we're a much smaller fraction of the global economy, but our corporate sector still
profits as much as it did when it was producing, rather than marketing, real goods. Another
exceptional achievement.
Really all we know is that such a plan would create a different order. That so many
countries have continued to pauper their populations long after the obviousness that
"development" is a sham doesn't bode well for their intentions even after the USA is brought
to heel.
Agreed. The likes of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership are still under
negotiation and still, like every other multilateral investment agreement of recent vintage,
apparently primarily concerned with creating supranational rights for landlords, especially
of the absentee variety, at the expense of citizens in their collective capacity.
This is a good summary of our irrational world. MMT and the GND can save the situation but
only if we industrialized humans forego any more fossil fuels except for long-term survival
purposes. Ration it with draconian discipline. That in turn will discipline our military and
turn our energies to things we can no longer ignore. Money doesn't bother me much. Resources
and the critical health of the planet bother me a lot. Money and "gold" are, in the end, both
fictitious obsessions.
Thanks for providing this transcript prior to Hudson posting it to his own website. He was
the first political-economist to lay out the Outlaw US Empire's game plan when he published
Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire in 1972.
You'll find few
authors willing to provide their seminal work for free online– 2nd Edition
PDF . I think it fair for those unfamiliar with Hudson's work to read his analysis prior
to being judgmental.
I think Calvin and his role in today's debt based monetary system is much underestimated.
The meteoric rise of the seven provinces and what was to become the Dutch colonial empire was
in no small part funded and financed by this debt based system in the latter half of the 16th
century. The same applied shortly afterwards to the UK. The book passage I quoted from is
from Devaluing the Scholastics: Calvin's Ethics of Usury .
I read the Michael Hudson piece and shake my head at the manifest obfuscation at play
The world is in WWIII which is between private and public finance. To characterize the
private finance side as being just the US is obfuscation
Global private finance exists outside the bounds of any one nation state and the US is
just the current face of the centuries of empires under this model.
Why is the West unable to have a discussion about the core component to the world war we
are engaged in?
Sad comment on the successful brainwashing at work here.....that is why I call the web
site Michael Hudson's writing is provided at ALMOST Naked Capitalism
Wake the rest of the way up fellow humans of the West.
The essential problem is that money functions as a contract, with one side an asset and
the other a debt, but as we experience it as quantified hope and security, we try to save and
store it. Thus Econ 101 tells us it is both medium of exchange and store of value. Even
though one is dynamic and the other is static, like blood and fat, or roads and parking
lots.
Necessarily then, in order to store the asset side, generally equal amounts of debt have
to be manufactured and this creates a centripetal effect, as positive feedback pulls the
asset side to the center of the economy, while negative feedback accumulates the debt on the
fringes.
The ancients used debt jubilees to push the reset button, but since we have been conditioned
to think of money as private property, not a public medium, now the only way to reset is for
societal collapse.
Value, as a savings for the future, needs to be stored in tangibles, like strong social
and environmental networks, not as abstractions in the financial circulation system. The
functionality of money is in its fungibility. We own it like we own the section of road we
are using, or the fluids passing through our bodies.
We are also conditioned to think of ourselves as individuals, not as parts of a larger
community, so this social atomization enables finance to mediate most transactions and tax
them. A figurative version of The Matrix.
I was pretty much banned from NC for questioning MMT. Yves called me a troll. The exchange
is jan 6, in the links post.
Consequently I'll only try posting very occasionally and one or two have gone through
moderation.
My view in MMT is that either these people are extremely naive, or operatives for the
oligarchy, as there is no free lunch and the public issuing ever more promises only drives it
further into debt. Which is then accumulated by the oligarchy and eventually traded for
remaining public assets. It's basic predatory lending/disaster capitalism and has been going
on since the dawn of civilization.
Not that people are not often incredibly stupid, but I suspect some recognize the dynamic.
When you start having to pay tolls on most roads, you will know we are way down that rabbit
hole.
John Merryman @7: Sure there are free lunches, Uncle Sugar has been getting lots of free
lunches ever since WWII. The thing about free lunches is those situations cannot be permanent
in a growth economy. To have permanent free lunches you have to have an ecologically stable
economy and a stable population consuming it. In other words, you can't get too greedy.
What's ridiculous is to fall for the "public vs. private" scam, one of the most potent
divide-and-conquer scams of the corporate state, where in reality there's zero distinction
between public and private power.
Power is power, and the finance sector is purely wasteful, purely destructive, serves zero
legitimate purpose, and needs to be abolished as a necessary part of any kind of human
liberation.
Of course the Mammon religion has brainwashed almost everyone into believing, among other
lies, that the dominion of money is necessary for human existence. Never mind that the vast
majority of societies didn't use money for more than a few special transactions, and many
didn't use it at all. Almost all of those societies were humanly more wholesome than this
one, and all of them were less ecologically destructive by many orders of magnitude.
"The ancients used debt jubilees to push the reset button, but since we have been conditioned
to think of money as private property, not a public medium, now the only way to reset is for
societal collapse."
John Merryman @4
There are compromises in this business: debt repudiation being an obvious one.
It is easy enough to make a case for declaring large parts of the public debt, odious. This
is particularly true of the enormous debts run up by Public-Private Partnerships of the sort
that the former UK Premier Brown promoted so enthusiastically. But it is generally true of
debts contracted for purposes which contradict the public interest.
Debt used to make deposits in private bank accounts in the Caymans for example can
justifiably be repudiated by the public, particularly when the creditor was well aware that
its loans were going to be employed for corrupt purposes.
Most of the US Debt, contracted to finance the MIC, is not only odious on general grounds
(Defending what against whom?) but on a contract to contract basis, most contracts being
padded to ensure the ability to provide kickbacks: when Congressmen receive funds from
government contractors and 'public servants', including military types, get jobs/sinecures
from the same, then any money borrowed to finance such contracts is, clearly, odious.
It would be revolutionary no doubt but perfectly practicable to push a 'reset' button on
the Public Debt by proclaiming that, in future, all borrowing for purposes not approved or
understood the putative taxpayer would be found to be odious.
Another possible course would be to stop paying interest on public debt and issue bonds to
repay the capital amounts lent.
The fact that such options are understood would make the regular claims, by neo-liberals
pushing austerity, that there is no money for such things as social security or living wages,
an obvious trigger for debt reduction measures designed to impact the rich rather than their
victims.
Predators and Prey. But the prey believe themselves to be predators also, or at least to have
the potential to become predators should they win the lotto.
"... I thought all these foreign countries were international." He explained that "international" means countries that are not really countries. They're Liberia and Panama, countries that only use the US dollar, not their own currency. So the oil industry doesn't have a currency risk. They are flags of convenience and they don't have any income tax. ..."
"... He explained to me that Standard Oil sold its oil at a very low price from the Near East to Liberia or Panama or Lagos, or wherever they have a flag of convenience and no income tax. Then they would sell it at a very high price to its refineries in Europe and America, at such a high price that these "downstream" affiliates don't make any income. So there's no tax to pay. ..."
"... Standard Oil and other U.S. oil companies – and also mining companies – don't earn an income there, because they sell it so low, all the profits are reported to be taken in Liberia or Panama. These are non-countries. ..."
"... Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant CIA). "We want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and became the bank for all the criminal capital in the world." He said, "We figured out we can finance, (and he said this in an elevator), we can finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money coming into America, all of the criminal money. Can you make a calculation of how much that might be?" ..."
"... I found that the entire US balance of payments deficit in the 1960s, since the Vietnam War, the entire balance of payments deficit was military spending abroad. The private sector's trade and investment was exactly in balance; tourism, trade and investment were exactly in balance. All the deficit was military. ..."
"... Mr. Barsanti said that McNamara said that Arthur Andersen would never get another government contract if it published my report. ..."
"... There were three people, known as the Columbia Group, saying the Vietnam War was going to destroy the American monetary system as we know it. The group was composed of Terence McCarthy, my mentor; Seymour Melman, a professor at Columbia University's School of Industrial Engineering where Terence also taught; and myself. We would basically go around the New York City giving speeches. ..."
I worked at Chase Manhattan until 1967, then finally I had to quit to finish the
dissertation. I spent a year on that. At Chase I had become the specialist in the oil
industry's balance of payments. When the Vietnam War began and escalated, President Johnson
in January 1965, right after I joined the bank in December 1964, passed the voluntary –
in reality, compulsory – foreign investment rules blocking American companies from
investing more than 5% of the growth of the previous year's investment. The oil industry
objected to that. They came to David Rockefeller and said we've got to convince the
government that we're ripping off other countries so fast, we're able to exploit them so
rapidly, that it really helps the US balance of payments to let us continue investing more
abroad. Can you help us show this statistically?
So David Rockefeller asked me to do a study of the balance of payments of the oil
industry. Rockefeller said, "We don't want to have Chase's oil and gas department do it,
because they would be thought of as lobbyists. Nobody knows who you are, so you're neutral.
We want to know what the real facts are, and if they're what we think they are, we'll publish
what you write; if we don't like it we'll keep it to ourselves, but please just give us the
facts." He said, "You can ask the oil companies all the questions you want. They will fill
out the forms you design for a statistical accounting format. We'll give you a year to write
it all up." To me this was wonderful. Oil was the key sector internationally. It turned out I
found out that the average dollar that actually was invested abroad by oil companies was
recaptured by the US economy within 18 months. The payback period was that fast.
The report that I wrote was put on the desk of every senator and every representative in
the United States and I was celebrated for being the economist of the oil industry. So this
taught me everything about the balance of payments which, as I said, is a topic that's not
taught in any university. So I finished that, finished the dissertation, and then I developed
a methodology for the overall US balance of payments. Most of the balance of payment
statistics were changed when they designed the gross national product accounts. The accounts
now treat exports and imports as if they were paid for fully for cash. So if you make a
million dollars worth of grain exports, you are assumed to bring a million dollars into the
economy. And if you export a million dollars of arms, of military, it all comes back.
What I found out is that only a portion actually of exports actually comes back. And
imports have an even lower balance-of-payment costs as compared to their nominal valuation.
For instance, all of America's oil imports are from American oil companies, so if you pay a
hundred dollars for oil, maybe thirty dollars of that is profit, thirty dollars is
compensation to American management, thirty dollars is the use of American exports to
physical equipment, oil drilling equipment and others to produce the oil.
The closest people that I worked with for the study were at the Standard Oil Company,
which was always very close to the Rockefellers, as you know. So I went over the statistics
and I said, "In the balance of payments, I can't find where Standard Oil makes the profit.
Does it make the profit by producing oil at the production end? Or does it make it selling it
at the gas stations, at the retail sales end?" The treasurer of Standard Oil said, "Ah I can
tell you where we make them. We make them right here in my office." I asked how. "What
countries could I find this in? I don't find it in Europe, I don't find it in Asia, I don't
find it in Latin America or Africa." He said, "Ah, do you see at the very end of the
geography headings for international earnings, there's something called international?"
I said, "Yes that always confused me. Where is it? I thought all these foreign countries
were international." He explained that "international" means countries that are not really
countries. They're Liberia and Panama, countries that only use the US dollar, not their own
currency. So the oil industry doesn't have a currency risk. They are flags of convenience and
they don't have any income tax.
He explained to me that Standard Oil sold its oil at a very
low price from the Near East to Liberia or Panama or Lagos, or wherever they have a flag of
convenience and no income tax. Then they would sell it at a very high price to its refineries
in Europe and America, at such a high price that these "downstream" affiliates don't make any
income. So there's no tax to pay. For all US oil investment in Europe, there's no tax to pay
because the oil companies' accountants price it so high, and pay so little per barrel to
third world countries such as Saudi Arabia, that they only get a royalty. Standard Oil and
other U.S. oil companies – and also mining companies – don't earn an income
there, because they sell it so low, all the profits are reported to be taken in Liberia or
Panama. These are non-countries.
That gave me the clue about what people these days talk about money laundering. In the
last few months that I worked for Chase Manhattan in 1967, I was going up to my office on the
ninth floor and a man got on the elevator and said, "I was just coming to your office,
Michael. Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant CIA). "We
want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and became the
bank for all the criminal capital in the world." He said, "We figured out we can finance,
(and he said this in an elevator), we can finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money
coming into America, all of the criminal money. Can you make a calculation of how much that
might be?"
So I spent three months figuring out how much money goes to Switzerland, from drug
dealings, what's the dollar volume of drug dealings. They helped me with all sorts of
statistics on that, and said, "We can become the criminal capital of the world and it'll
finance the dollar and this will enable us to afford the spending to defeat communism in
Vietnam and elsewhere. If we don't do that, the bomb throwers will come to New York."
So I became a specialist in money laundering! Nothing could have better prepared me to
understand how the global economy works! I had all the statistics, I had the help of the
government people explaining to me how the CIA worked with drug dealing and other criminals
and kidnappers to raise the money so it would be off the balance sheet funding and Congress
didn't have to approve it when they would kill people and sponsor revolutions. They were
completely open with me about this. I realized they'd never done a security check on me.
So I wanted to do a study of the balance of payments of the whole United States. I went
to work for Arthur Andersen, which was at that time was one of the Big Five accounting firms
in the United States. Later it was convicted of fraud when it got involved in the Enron
scandal and was closed down. But I was working before the other people went to jail, before
they closed down Arthur Andersen. So I spent a year applying my balance of payments analysis
to the US balance of payments. When I finally finished, I found that the entire US balance of
payments deficit in the 1960s, since the Vietnam War, the entire balance of payments deficit
was military spending abroad. The private sector's trade and investment was exactly in
balance; tourism, trade and investment were exactly in balance. All the deficit was
military.
So I turned in my statistics. My boss Mr. Barsanti, came in to me three days later and
he said, "I'm afraid we have to fire you." I asked, "What happened?" He said, "Well, we sent
it to Robert McNamara." (who was the Secretary of Defense and then became an even more
dangerous person with the World Bank, which probably is more dangerous to the world than the
American military. But that's another story). Mr. Barsanti said that McNamara said that
Arthur Andersen would never get another government contract if it published my report.
In all of the Pentagon Papers that later came out of McNamara's regime, there's no
discussion at all of the balance-of-payments cost of the Vietnam War. This is what was
driving America off gold. At Chase Manhattan from 1964 until I left, every Friday the Federal
Reserve would come out with its goal, its weekly statistics. We could trace the gold stock.
Everybody was talking about General de Gaulle cashing in the gold, because Vietnam was a
French colony and the American soldiers and army would have to use French banks, the dollars
would go to France and de Gaulle would cash it in for gold.
Well, Germany actually was cashing in more gold than de Gaulle, but they didn't make
speeches about it. So I could see that the war spending was going to drive America off gold.
There were three people, known as the Columbia Group, saying the Vietnam War was going to
destroy the American monetary system as we know it. The group was composed of Terence
McCarthy, my mentor; Seymour Melman, a professor at Columbia University's School of
Industrial Engineering where Terence also taught; and myself. We would basically go around
the New York City giving speeches.
The key problem for Trump is reaction of China and Russia... If Russia supports Iran the USA attack onIran might well be the
second Vietnam and KSA will probably seize to exit.
Notable quotes:
"... The bottom-line is this -- if Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia and China. ..."
"... The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front. ..."
"... it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine. ..."
"... There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed into a corner, will do so. ..."
"... The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK. ..."
"... As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran. ..."
"... A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double? ..."
"... I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check. Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not. ..."
"... "Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party." ..."
"... Yes. A demented obsession that is not in US interests. Is it really in Saudi and Israeli interests when they may be hurt too? ..."
"... The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off. ..."
"... Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump? ..."
"... The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region. ..."
"... If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway. ..."
"... The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S. ..."
"... Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid dog. ..."
Donald Trump appears to be on the verge of doing what the "Never Trumpers" could not--destroy his Presidency and make re-election
impossible. It all boils down to whether or not he decides to launch military strikes on Iran. The bottom-line is this -- if
Trump launches military strikes against Iranian military targets it is very likely he will ignite a series of events that will escalate
beyond his control, expose him as a paper tiger full of empty bellicose threats and risk a war with other countries, including Russia
and China.
The "War" class in Washington and the media are exhorting tough action and doing all within their power to
portray Iran as an imminent threat to the West. The mantra, "the must be stopped," is being repeated ad nauseam in all of the media
echo changers. President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when it comes to
employing military force. He reminds me of Lyndon Johnson during the early stages of the Vietnam War -- i.e., being exhorted to take
action, increase forces and not back down rather than lose face on the international front.
The media is busy pushing the lie that Iran launched an unprovoked "attack" on a British flagged ship. They ignore the British
action two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker heading to Syria. Britain justifies its action as just
keeping the sanction regime in place. But it is more likely the Brits intended this as a provocation, in coordination with some
members of Trump's team, that would bait the Iranians to respond in similar fashion. Iran has taken the bait and given the Brits
what Iran sees as a dose of its own medicine.
There is a dangerous delusion within the Trump National Security team. They believe we are so dominant that Iran will not
dare fight us. I prefer to rely on the sage counsel of Colonel Patrick Lang -- the Iranians are not afraid to fight us and, if backed
into a corner, will do so.
I see at least four possible scenarios for this current situation. If you can think of others please add in the comments section.
"two weeks ago, when the British Navy seized an Iranian flagged tanker"
Via Associated Press:
Royal Marines took part in the seizure of the Iranian oil tanker by Gibraltar, a British overseas territory off the southern
coast of Spain. Officials there initially said the July 4 seizure happened on orders from the U.S." .......
It gets even better than on orders from the U.S.
"Britain has said it would release the vessel, which was carrying more than 2 million barrels of Iranian crude, if Iran could
prove it was not breaching EU sanctions"
We are supposed to believe that Syria is importing oil on ships which sail through the Straights of Gibraltar rather than getting
oil from, say, Russia! or going from Iran (it is Iranian oil, so they say) through the Suez Canal? What did they
do, sail around the continent of Africa to stage this?
So the brilliant minds at GCHQ that brought us Christopher Steele and the dossier have decided that they really, really, need
to get rid of the Orange Man and they don't care how many Iranian or American lives it takes. I wonder just how many people the
man not in the news, Jeffrey Epstein, had the dirty goods on and just which government was behind his operation.
The tanker is too big to use the Suez canal and too big to discharge oil in a Syrian port. It was possibly going to a Mediterranean
port, but Iran will not back-down to the UK.
Thanks for the comment. I did a bit more research. It seems strange to me that Iran would use a ship to large for the canal
to make such a shipment to Syria, if indeed that was where it was heading.
Larry, your intel about the JCS not advising caution is most disheartening. I wouldn't be surprised if the warmongers surrounding
Trump are also telling him that his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists. That may not be far off.
Sure those who support Trump for his professed aversion to adventurism will be appalled at war with Iran, but his more rabid base
may follow him anywhere. Trump has no ideological need for war, but he does have a psychological need for adoration. That's not
a good situation.
"...his rally attending base is all for taking it to the raghead terrorists.."
TTG
I have seen private surveys commissioned by a deep pocketed hedge fund of working class folks in the mid-west & the south.
When the consequences of a military confrontation with Iran are described the overwhelming majority oppose it.
Larry is spot on. Trump will lose his re-election bid if he kowtows to Bibi & MbS. The short-term financial & economic effects
would crush his base and the half-life of jingoism after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, & Syria will be rather short. Trump will be
blamed by the "right" for cocking up teaching Iran a lesson and demonized by the "left "for getting us into another ME quagmire.
How does one wake POTUS Trump to the reality that his NEOCONS and Israel Firsters in his Cabinet will destroy his Presidency if
he doesn't jettison them out the door.
There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US, and I think the calculus might be to use the exact thing
Israelis want most (war with Iran) to do that. I think the resurrection of the Epstein case is also part of that effort. Thus,
war with Iran is inevitable.
"There is an effort underway to undermine Israeli influence in the US"
Is it an organized effort? Where do I sign up?
Rick Wiles heads TruNews, a Christian evangelical network. He's been outspoken in his criticism of zionism, calls out Christian
zionists, and deplores that "the US has been taken over by zionists." To be sure, ADL has labeled Wiles an "antisemite." If TruNews
survives, it may be part of game-changing.
"From what I am hearing from knowledgeable sources [is that] no one on the Joint Chiefs of Staff at DOD are advising caution."
We should probably ignore the notion that the Joint Chiefs are bullish about a war with Iran -- the situation in the area is
terrible for us and the Joint Chiefs know it.
For example, Turkey, Iraq and Pakistan have military understandings with Iran and the former is now installing advanced S-400
Russian missiles to defend itself from us. Furthermore, Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbajian and Armenia will not allow
transit of war materiel or aircraft en-route to Iran. So how does the US project anything into that country?
Then again, US Central Command is located in Iran friendly Quatar, which merely hosts us and could require us to leave. How
come? Wouldn't you know it, Quatar is developing a massive gas reserve with Iran in the Gulf, is now very, very friendly with
big-brother Turkey and presently negotiating with Russia for S-400 missiles -- clearly against us.
Well, what about our Navy?
Alas, recent improvements in missiles have rendered our deep water Navy a liability -- not that the narrow Persian Gulf / Sea
of Oman is deep in any case. (President Trump learned about our Navy's vulnerability to missile attack last year as the Pentagon
quickly pulled our three carrier group force from Korea and parked those impressive ships on the south coast of Australia! )
Then there is Iran's near east client / ally Hezbollah, which has made clear that any bombing of Iran, a huge country, would
trigger heavy missile attack on postage-stamp Israel.
The Neocons may have managed to silence public Pentagon doubts, but President Trump is clearly attempting to avoid military
adventures. "No, the Iran downed drone was old and not that expensive." "The UK captured an Iranian tanker and the Iranians have
reciprocated. The two should sit down and work the situation out."
I believe that Iran is going to want to avoid war if they can. Their program of adding precision guidance to Hezbollah missiles
in Lebanon means that the longer they postpone war, the better for them. If they get to a point where they have 10,000 precision
guided missiles in Lebanon then the next Israel-Lebanon war will force Israel into a humiliating defeat.
Eighty percent of Israel's water comes from water desalination plants - and then there are electricity generation plants, sewage
treatment plants, and numerous other infrastructure targets that can be hit. Israeli civilians are soft and will cry uncle as
soon as their air conditioning cuts out.
Why not, then, have the Americans initiate the deed now... destroy Iran and Lebanon, and then, with France, the UK, Germany,
Canada et al. spend billions to rebuild Israel, with the Palestinians being sent to Jordan (if not worse).
Israel has gambled on a broader war several times in the past, and they believe (despite the fiasco in Lebanon) that each was
a win.
When did this group, leading the charge overseas in D.C. for the past 20 years, once get it right, as far as assumptions and expectations
of military necessities or outcomes? I am beginning to think this creating a greater danger out of a lesser mess is a feature,
not a defect. If so, why? To what end? Or is the policy process that broken?
Saddam ain't around any more, neither is Muammar Gaddafi. The neocons take those as great victories since the sacred state
of Israel is safe from those two.
imo a war with iran is theatre and will not take place.
should iran be attacked imo you can kiss the UAE goodbye as well as most if not all of the Saudi oil infrastructre along the
gulf. i would also expect a massive direct bombardment of israeli cities and other important targets from hezbollah starting with
the massive ammonia storage system in haifa whose destruction would annihilate that entire region. all of useful israel is in
the middle to upper third of the country closest to lebanon and easy reach for all of hezbollahs missiles.
the persian gulf upon the start of the war becomes the hotel california for any warship within. none would likely escape. and
the coup de gra for iran is whether they have the ballistic missile reach and or can gain access to russian long range bombers
fitted with kalibr or better cruise missiles able to smash diego garcia absolutely critical american relaestate in the indian
ocean.
trump imo is not crazy and can read a map as well as anyone with help from his REAL pentagon military professionals.
we have not even gotten to what happens to all those oil and interest rate derivatives far out of the money right now in somewhat
normal times. if war starts they go from notional to real fast and the western financial system implodes even with a force majeure
declaration
An Iran war would indeed most probably kill off Trump's chance of re-election. The almost inevitable spike in the price of oil
which it would bring about would have two implications:
1/ ROTW xUS manufacturing is already in recession, with services close to joining it in many countries. The US is clearly slowing
down and appears headed on the same course. The global economy is in no shape to withstand even a relatively short-lived surge
in oil prices.
2/ There is no knowing what lurks out there in the oil derivatives market, but the banking system - particularly the European
banking system - is far too fragile to sustain another bout of counterparty risk aversion along the lines of 2007/08. (And amongst
the trillions of gross derivatives exposure, one has to wonder just how many US and other banks are sitting across from Deutsche
Bank oil positions and happily netting off the counterparty risk.)
Regretably, from my side of the Atlantic the US looks like a traditional imperial power, addicted to war and conquest and with
a significant proportion of the population fetishizing (probably not a real verb) all things military. Whether Trump can be truly
damaged by extending the 'forever war' to Iran depends very much on how it goes - and I doubt he has the knowledge required to
think through all the plausible scenarios. We can be a lot more confident that carrying the blame for an unnecessary recession
into the election campaign has a solid chance of sinking him.
Just what good has the past two decades of "war and conquest" done for America, whether flyover country, Jussie Smollett's
"Maga Country" section of Chicago or the homeless encampments of Seattle, LA or Portland?
As the Saudi's appear to be losing their war with Yemen, the UAE has announced that they are not desirous of being in the
middle of any US-Iran conflict. Qatar is doing a huge nat gas deal with Iran.
Bolton is heading to Japan to "mediate" the
current economic disagreements between Japan and S. Korea.
Pompeo is declaring that the Iranian Ballistic Missile program is suddenly on the table. It would appear that the whole Iranian
atomic bomb thing was smoke and mirrors and hasbara.
There is a deal available, preparation for making the deal will involve political kabuki, grand posturing, the beating of drums
without rhythm and the flooding of the Old American Infotainment outlets with much wailing and whining about "the only democracy
in the MENA."
A deal will eventuate that allows both the USA and Iran to move on, about a week before the 2020 presidential election. Or
maybe not.
I have a question for those of you well versed with Iranian military capability. What are the capabilities of Iranian ballistic
missiles in terms of range, precision and payload lethality?
As Col. Lang has noted in the transition to war, before the US
Navy gets its ducks in a row, that is the window of opportunity that Iran has to strike back. What damage could they inflict on
oil & gas infrastructure including LNG, port & pipelines across UAE, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?
A 50% reduction in oil & LNG output for greater than 3 months would crush already weakening Asian economies who are the
manufactured products supply chain for most of the world and in particular the US. Will voters in Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan cheer
Trump's military strikes on Teheran when prices at Walmart double?
As Larry notes "..President Trump, regrettably, is ignorant of military history and devoid of strategic intelligence when
it comes to employing military force.." , but I believe he has good political instincts and as his Reality TV/Twitter presidency
shows he has an excellent sense of how it plays both in the MSM and social media. He must know that while the "shock & awe" and
"boom-boom" videos may give him an instant boost the stock market that he has rested his presidency on may not soar but in fact
plummet. And he can't blame Jay Powell for that.
He must also instinctually know that November 2020 is a year away and a lot can go wrong as it is economically and in financial
markets since he's been harping at the Fed to lower rates in supposedly the best economy evah. Uncertainty spikes volatility and
the credit markets are already stressed particularly in offshore eurodollar funding which is an order of magnitude larger than
mortgage credit markets were in 2007.
Maybe Rand Paul is his counter to the ziocon fifth column? I don't think he's that foolish to pull the trigger on Iran and
sink his presidency when the Deep State & NeverTrumpers are out for his blood. He must know he'll lose immunity from legal jeopardy
when he's no longer POTUS.
As Col. Lang has repeatedly observed, the decisions to go to war do not necessarily follow economic, nor domestic political logic.
It is therefore better to speculate on the players state of mind rather than looking at the aforesaid rational drivers like economics
and votes.
I have no faith in Donald Trump when it comes to Israeli's interests. Embassy moved to Jerusalem check, Golan Heights check.
Deal of the Century by his Anti-Christ Son-In-Law check. Not sure if that is a joke or not.
Israeli wants Iran destroyed and their ability to pressure US Presidents to do their bidding all the way back to President
Truman is 100% success. Trump so cravenly promotes the Zionist interest that I see no reason he will not pursue regime change
in Iran to its logical conclusion.
The plan is ultimately Greater Israeli and the leaders of Iran are well aware of this.
Many comments say that Israeli will be badly damaged by any regional war. Why do you believe Israeli is just going to take
the blows? Analysis is not advocacy as Col. Lang says.
My fear is the ultimate weapons of mass destruction are introduced into the Middle East.
"Trump's advisers have a demented obsession with Iran. They've been spoiling for a fight with Iran for decades. They have no idea
how destructive it would be. It would make Iraq look like a tea party."
Option 1 - Diplomatic solution: The UK will do what it must do, ie what the US allows it to do. The GB Imperial project is no
more and the UK is riding along somewhere in the wake of the Imperial City. Whatever influence it exerts on power there is by
flattery or deception (Steele dossier.) Trump slapped the UK Ambassador out of Washington as if he were a fly. Moreover, the UK
alone carries no stick to wield against Iran. Iran is no Falklands.
Options 2 thru 4 - some degree of military attack on Iran:
as you point out, the return on investment for any kind of attack on Iran is highly unpredictable. It depends entirely on how
Iran chooses to respond and whether it decides to roll the dice, go all in, and endure the onslaught, and inflict what damage
it can where it can, which it very well may. Does anyone in Washington have an intel based fix on Iran's intentions when attacked?
I doubt it.
Not a single intervention in the last 18 years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya resulted in the anticipated outcome. Do they
have rear view mirrors in Washington?
My weakly held expectation, especially now with the passing of a few days, is that Washington will decide to temporize and
tell the UK to accept the humiliation, in effect kicking the can down the road. Everyone will know it is only doing what it has
been told to do.
Of course they will announce more face saving sanctions. The Donald will hope that he will be able to gut it out to 2020 without
having to make a decision that could blow him up, and likely would - but who knows? Iran will hope to gut it out to 2020 and in
the interim pray to God that some Democrat floats back down to earth with some issues, like the Donald once espoused, that will
be used to beat the Donald and send him and his family back to the upper East Side.
With the escalation game fully in play, it's going to be a close call.
I find it a bit hard to believe that leaders like Dunford, Selva, Milley, Richardson, and the others on the Joint Chiefs are
not advising caution. Milley, the next Chairman, for sure has advised caution at his recent Senate hearing. Dunford has only pushed
for an international coalition Task Force to guard ships transiting the Strait. Selva and Richardson appear to be more worried
about China.
Let us all hope that your knowledgeable sources are wrong.
The real danger is if Fred Fleitz gets to be DNI. If that happens be prepared for another scam like the Office of Special Plans
a la Wolfowicz and Feith. Probably Bolton and/or PomPom already have one hiding in the basement ready to go.
Iran's FM Zarif made a peaceful impression during Fareed Zakaria's interview. But all the headlines focus on his one statement:
"Start a war with Iran and we will end it" . Although those were NOT his words, what he said was "We will never start
a war,...But we will defend ourselves, and anybody who starts a war with Iran will not be the one who ends it."
The question is whether he speaks for the hardliners.
You forgot to mention what will happen to the world economy if the Strait of Hormuz is closed to all shipping by Iranian missiles
an mines. Stock marks would collapse and a deep recession if not depression would ensue quickly.
The same idiots running the show seem to believe that American oil and gas fracking makes it impervious to the loss of
Middle Eastern oil (in fact, a secret motivation might be to save American frackers economically), but they forget that oil is
a fungible commodity and always flows to the highest bidder. They could try of ban oil exports, but the Europe and Japan's economies
would be utterly toast as there would be virtually no oil available to them, especially if Russia backed Iran and cut them off.
Rather than blaming this on the media, neocons or the Pentagon, put the blame where it lies - with President Trump. Trump
campaigned on tearing up the Iran nuclear agreement which he did once he was elected. The Trump administration re-imposed sanctions
on Iran which are meant to inflict serious hardship on the Iranian people. Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo - both hawks from previous
administrations. Trump is attempting to enforce the sanctions. Is there anyone else to blame but Trump?
Iran is also not entirely innocent in the affairs of the Middle East. Israel believes with some evidence that Iran is building
forward bases in Syria - an unacceptable condition for Israel considering the thousands of missiles owned by Hezbollah and the
ballistic missile testing by Iran. Iran is also supplying weapons directly to Hezbollah (as they always have). In addition, Iran
is supplying weapons and (likely) ballistic missile technology to the Houthis. The Houthis have used ballistic missiles to attack
the Saudis. Yemen is on the border of Saudi Arabia - and a (Shia) Houthi government is unacceptable to the Saudis. The Trump administration
tore up the nuclear agreement because of the destabilizing political agenda of Iran (to US interests).
Trump campaigned on a more isolationist foreign policy so option 1 is still the most likely possibility for the moment (IMO).
The use of the golden rule suggests problems with your logic. Would we sit still, for example, if Russia and/or China started
fostering guerrilla movements in South America? Of course not. We would actively intervene in support of what we see as our local
security imperatives. That appears to me to be all Iran is doing in its region.
Your third paragraph is a stretch. Iran's actions that you describe are realistic (in the strategic sense of the word) responses
to Israel's overt hostility, overwhelming superiority in air power and its possession of scores of nuclear weapons.
I'm wondering if in case of war, Iran would need to "close the Gulf" at all.
If the Gulf oilfields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE are heavily rocketed and put out of commission along with tanker loading
docks and pipeline infrastructure, there won't be any oil to ship out of the Gulf anyway.
The primary damage from a war with Iran will be economic. Oil flowing through the Staits will come to a halt and that will
hit China, Japan and the rest of Asia very hard and their buying power will decrease significantly hurting our exports. Even though
the U.S is self-sufficient in oil if oil prices hit $100+ on the world market look for the U.S. oil companies to increase their
prices to approach the world price driving gas prices into the $5.00+/gallon range. Trump will undoubtably prohibit U.S oil exports
but the damage to the economies world wide will still negatively impact the U.S.
Insurance on oil vessels will become almost impossible to get. The U.S will have to indemnify ship owners and I suspect
many will not trust the U.S. to come through with the money for claims. Trump has a history of this and thus many ships will stay
in port.
A war with Iran will not be won or lost militarily, but economically. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq and has 3 times the
population and I simply do not think we can successfully occupy the country. That being the case, I don't think the U.S can permanently
prevent sabatoge in the Staits - meaning an oil induced recession will linger world wide for many years.
UNO: increased false flag incident instigated by the anglo-zionist
DUE:Increased takfiri movements in Idlib and provocatiev
attacks InnAleppo ,Hama Dara and Dier Ezurr as the Syrian Arab Army is consolidating around Northern Hama and Around Idlib .
TRE: More tanker siezures by the Nato cohorts and portraying Iran as breachoing the JCPCOA treaty. Nevr mentioning the breach
of contract from the western alliance from Pax-Americana and its Western European vassals
Quattro Russia and China will be either utilised as middle men or further labelled as agressors and Iranian?Syrian?Yemeni apologist.
Post Scriptum: Signs of a dying paradigm as the western elite have gone into total sclerotic mode. Dangerous as a rabid
dog.
Last week it was all fire and brimstone. The US was threatening more sanctions on Iran, the
Brits were seizing oil tankers and Iran was violating the JCPOA.
I thought National Security Advisor John Bolton said the US would apply pressure until "the
pips squeak."
Where the pips are squeaking is on the Arabian Peninsula, not across the Persian Gulf in
Bandar Abbas. Specifically, I'm talking about the United Arab Emirates. The UAE sent a
delegation to Tehran recently that coincided with its partial withdrawal of troops from
Yemen.
"The UAE would like to avoid seeing their country transformed into a battlefield between
the US and Iran in case of war, particularly if Trump is re-elected. The Emirates officials
noted that the US did not respond to Iran's retaliation in the Gulf and in particularly when
the US drone was downed. This indicates that Iran is prepared for confrontation and will
implement its explicit menace, to hit any country from which the US carries out their attacks
on Iran. We want to be out of all this ", an Emirates official told his Iranian counterpart
in Tehran.
Iran promised to talk to the Yemeni officials to avoid hitting targets in Dubai and Abu
Dhabi as long as the UAE pulls out its forces from the Yemen and stops this useless war.
Saudi Crown Prime Mohammad Bin Salman is finding himself without his main Emirates ally,
caught in a war that is unwinnable for the Saudi regime. The Yemeni Houthis have taken the
initiative, hitting several Saudi strategic targets. Saudi Arabia has no realistic objectives
and seems to have lost the appetite to continue the war in Yemen.
So, with the Houthis successfully striking major targets inside Saudi Arabia and the UAE
abruptly pulling forces out, the war in Yemen has reached a critical juncture. Remember, the
Republican-controlled Senate approved a bill withdrawing support for the war back in March,
which the White House had to veto in support of its fading hopes for its Israeli/Palestinian
deal pushed by Jared Kushner.
But things have changed significantly since then as that deal has been indefinitely
postponed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu facing a second election this fall
after he failed to secure a stable coalition.
After that there was the failed economic conference in
Bahrain in June where Kushner revealed the economic part of the plan to a half-empty room
where only the backers of the plan showed any real support.
And that's the important part of this story, because it was Kushner's plan which was the
impetus for all of this insane anti-Iran belligerence in the first place. Uniting the Gulf
states around a security pact leveraging the U.S/Israeli/Saudi alliance was part of what was
supposed to pressure the Palestinians to the bargaining table.
By placing maximum economic sanctions on both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iran while continuing
to foment chaos in Syria was supposed to force Israel's enemies to fold under the pressure
which would, in turn, see the Palestinians surrender to the will of Kushner and Bibi.
The problem is, it didn't work. And now Trump is left holding the bag on this idiotic policy
which culminated in an obvious provocation when Iran shot down a $220 million Global Hawk
surveillance drone, nearly sparking a wider war.
But what it did was expose the US and not Iran as the cause of the current problems.
Since then Trump finally had to stand up and be the grown-up in the room, such as he is, and
put an end to this madness.
The UAE understood the potential for Iran's asymmetric response to US belligerence. The
Saudis cannot win the war in Yemen that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman began. The fallout
from this war has been to push Qatar out of the orbit of the rest of the Gulf Cooperation
Council, cutting deals with Iran over developing the massive North Pars gas field and pipelines
to Europe.
And now the UAE has realized it is facing an existential threat to its future in any
confrontation between Iran and the US
What's telling is that Trump is making Yemen the issue to negotiate down rather than Iran's
nuclear ambitions. Because it was never about the nuclear program. It was always about Iran's
ballistic missile program.
And Secretary of State Mike Pompeo would have us believe that for the first time Iran's
missile program is on the negotiating table. I have no idea if that's actually true, but it's a
dead giveaway that it's what the US is after.
The main reason why Trump and Netanyahu are so angry about the JCPOA is the mutual
outsourcing of the nuclear ballistic missile program by Iran and North Korea. North Korea was
working on the warhead while Iran worked on the ballistic missile.
Trump tweeted about this nearly two years ago, confirming this link. I wrote about it when
he did this. Nearly everything I said about North Korea in the blog post is now applicable
to Iran. This was why he hated the JCPOA, it didn't actually stop the development of Iran and
North Korea into nuclear states.
But tearing up the deal was the wrong approach to solving the problem. Stop pouring hundreds
of billions of dollars in weapons to the region, as Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif pointed out
recently, is the problem . By doing this he took both Russian President Vladimir Putin and
Chinese Premier Xi Jinping off his side of the table.
Now he stands isolated with only the provocateurs – Israel, the U.K., Saudi Arabia
– trying to goad him forward into doing something he doesn't want to do. And all of those
provocations that have occurred in the past month have failed to move either Trump or the
Iranians. They've learned patience, possibly from Putin. Call it geopolitical rope-a-dope, if
you will.
I said last month that the key to solving Iran's nuclear ambitions was solving the
relationship with North Korea. Trump, smartly, went there, doing what only he could
do , talk with DPRK Chairman Kim Jong-Un and reiterate his sincere desire to end
proliferation of nuclear weapons.
He can get Iran to the table but he's going to have to give up something. So, now framing
the negotiations with Iran around their demands we stop arming the Saudis is politically
feasible.
Trump can't, at this point, back down directly with Iran. Yemen is deeply unpopular here and
ending our support of it would be a boon to Trump politically. Trading that for some sanctions
relief would be a good first step to solving the mess he's in and build some trust.
Firing John Bolton, which looks more likely every day, would be another.
He's already turning a blind eye to Iranian exports to China, and presumably, other places.
I think the Brits are acting independently trying to create havoc and burnish Foreign Secretary
Jeremy Hunt's resume as Prime Minister against Boris Johnson. That's why they hijacked the oil
tanker.
But all the little distractions are nothing but poison pills to keep from discussing the
real issues. Trump just cut through all that. So did Iran. Let's hope they stay focused.
"... Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at ..."
"... , and a frequent contributor to ..."
"... That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form astounds me. ..."
"... It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them over and over again. ..."
If there is any direct communication between American and Iranian officials, it is hidden
from public view. All of this has made Senator Rand Paul's initiative to open dialogue with
Tehran urgent, necessary, and prudent.
According to a July 17 story
in Politico , Paul recently pitched himself to President Trump as a possible
presidential emissary to the Iranians -- someone who could sit down with Foreign Minister
Mohammed Javad Zarif and begin a conversation on the issues that have nearly resulted in
military conflict. Trump apparently accepted Paul's pitch while the two were on the golf course
last weekend. His decision, while not yet confirmed by the White House, suggests that Trump is
slowly beginning to recognize the deficiencies of the maximum pressure policy that National
Security Adviser John Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and outside counsels like the
Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Mark Dubowitz have peddled for years. Far from forcing
Tehran's surrender, economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation have yielded more Iranian
aggression. Iran is now a wounded animal backed into a corner, ready to fight rather than
submit. The chances of a clash have increased substantially.
In a town filled with tough talkers who see foreign policy as an extension of domestic
politics, Rand Paul is one of those strange creatures who is willing to throw himself in front
of a bus for the sake of preventing a war. His foes (of which there are many, from Bill Kristol
and Lindsey Graham to Marco Rubio and Liz Cheney) use the lazy isolationist epitaph to paint
him as a gadfly on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But at his core, Paul is neither a
gadfly nor an isolationist. The junior senator from Kentucky is a non-interventionist who has
the audacity to search for diplomatic solutions before doing what most of his colleagues on
Capitol Hill would have long preferred -- involuntarily reaching for more punitive options.
This isn't the first time Paul has tried to create space for dialogue with a U.S. adversary.
Last year, when so much as talking to a Russian was universally frowned upon by the political
class, Paul flew to Moscow and delivered
a letter on behalf of President Trump to Russian parliamentarians. A month later, he
introduced an
amendment that would have lifted travel restrictions on Russian lawmakers if Moscow did the
same for their American counterparts. The amendment was a small and reasonable gesture that
removed largely symbolic sanctions in order to encourage Americans and Russians to familiarize
themselves with each other. It was lambasted in committee and
killed .
Paul's latest initiative with Iran could run into the same brick wall. The fact that the
arrangement was leaked to the media is an indication that somebody in the Trump administration
is totally opposed to the idea and wants to bury any potential conversations with the Iranians
before they begin. One can almost picture John Bolton, holed up in the White House basement,
hearing the news and frantically ordering his minions on the National Security Council to
expose it in the press.
There are also practical questions that need to be answered. With Zarif only in New York for
another few days, does Paul have the time for a one-on-one meeting? Would the Iranians be
interested in meeting with the senator, even if he does have the president's ear? Or is
Khamenei, still seething over the administration's withdrawal from the nuclear deal and
watching his government's oil exports disappear, dead set on banning any contact with the
Americans for as long as Trump remains in the Oval Office?
Organizing a backchannel with the Iranians could be difficult, in large measure because it
will be fought tooth-and-nail by the usual suspects. But Rand Paul's potential role as an envoy
should be pursued. After all, it isn't like the hawks have such a great track record.
Daniel R. DePetris is a foreign policy analyst, a columnist at Reuters , and a
frequent contributor to The American Conservative.
That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form
astounds me.
It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the
hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them
over and over again.
That TAC columnists continue to hold out hope that Trump will revert to his 2016 form
astounds me.
It's like watching Obama cultists convince themselves that The Real Obama®, the
hopey changey guy from 2008, will finally put in an appearance, even as he betrays them
over and over again.
Your pessimism is certainly warranted and frequently seconded by Larison and others at TAC.
Agreed. But, what choice do we have but to encourage proposals like this one and recognize
that Trump, as infuriatingly inconsistent as he has been, needs to be encouraged when he
does something sensible.
Rand at least seems to have his ear, no small feat.
I am not saying that such moves, if they come to pass, should not be encouraged.
But let's see if anything comes of it, or if the Boltons, Pompeos and Haspels of this
world make sure that Rand fails and then chant "But we have to go to war because we tried
so hard we tried everything ZOMG war war war!"
The best reason I can think of to choose to send someone other than Rand Paul to negotiate
with Iran is that Paul was NOT one of the seven WPP senators who didn't sign Tom Cotton's
odious open letter to Iran trying to put the kibosh on the Obama nuke deal with Iran.
Maybe try Corker, or Alexander or Murkowski...someone whom the Iranians might have some
reason to trust.
I seriously doubt that Rand Paul has a whit more credibility in Tehran than Trump does,
and why would he?. I can't think of a single reason why Iran should trust him.
Good and very to the point made in this article about the hawks, these neo-cons, these war
lovers, not having a good track record.
They have a record of death and destruction and they could care less about people
suffering.
Just why do they want America to continue attacking and threaten and make war on numerous
nations?
Why...
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
I see the parallels, but not that one. I think the neocons hope to force the Iranians into
making that "all-in" call though. Perhaps as the neocons see it, such a strike would
magically rally the American populous to the war they so desire. Imperial conquest performed
as a defensive reflex. So they needle nearly everyone in the hopes of triggering a replay of
the WW2 saga which has taken on a mythical good vs evil aura in the US. Ironically, I would
say it is the neocons who think they need to start a war with the Iranians so that they can
be the men they think they are. The only thing still holding them back is the
passive-aggressive need to make it look like someone, anyone, else started it so they can
play the victim card once the body bags start coming home.
USN CDR A. H. McCollum was the man who conceived the so-called "Eight Action Plan" which he
outlined in his Oct 7, 1940 memo. This was his proposal for the U.S. and Britain to initiate
actions which would essentially force Japan into making a decision to wage war against the
United States.
The key elements of the plan, as outlined in McCollum's memo, include the following:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific,
particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of
supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the
Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo
imposed by the British Empire
Not too terribly different from the squeeze currently being placed on Iran by the team of
Pompeo/Boton.
The journalist Robert Stinnett in his now 20 year old book 'Day of Deceit: The Truth About
FDR and Pearl Harbor' made the case that FDR was aware of McCollum's memorandum. I have not
read Stinnett's book, but historians apparently doubted the veracity of Stinnett's thesis
regarding FDR's knowledge of the McCollum memo.
You are correct that initial embargoes of essential defense materials went to effect under
the Export Control Act during the summer of 1940. Additional items were added to the list of
embargoed materials subsequent to October 1940, following the drafting of the McCollum
memo.
So no FOR did not approve of that plan, but some guy wrote a book 20 years ago, one you
didn't read. That's quite helpful in evaluating current war mongering over Iran today.
I read Day of Deceit a month ago and found Stinnett's analysis and sourcing quite
convincing. He demolishes the standard narrative that the attack was a total tactical
surprise and to a large extent a strategic one as well. Admiral Yamamoto's orders to maintain
radio silence were honored very much in the breach, one of the worst offenders being the
at-sea mission commander himself, Admiral Nagumo. Many individual ship captains continued
reporting their positions at specified times of the day, as was their peacetime practice.
This enabled the US, British and Dutch signals monitoring stations, which were sharing
information in spite of the fact that the US was not yet a combatant, to triangulate and
track the Japanese mission fleet from its assembly point near the Kurile Islands eastward to
their launch position several hundred miles north of Oahu. Stinnett assembles a strong
circumstantial case asserting this information was available to the intelligence circles in
Washington DC and in the US radio detection/cryptanalysis stations at Corregidor, the
Aleutian Islands, and Station H on Oahu itself, practically within sight of Admiral Kimmel's
office, but it never made it to the admiral himself or to General Short. He got much of the
supporting information through the FOIA process, but some of the most damning documents he
cited he found by walking into various historical archive sites outside of the DC area and
simply asking to see what they had. He makes the point that many of the documents he cites
never saw the light of day during any of the three formal investigations of the affair: in
the months immediately after the attack; shortly after the end of the war; and half a century
later in the early 1990s. What he is unable to cite are documents that concretely connect the
president, Admiral Stark the CNO, or General Marshall the Army Chief of Staff with knowledge
of the available intelligence. Those known to have existed which might have been smoking guns
that he sought via the FOIA were either still highly classified or were "unable to be found."
However the circumstantial case that they must have known and been on board, in some cases
reluctantly, is strong. For example, it is known that the McCollum memo gained the attention
of FDR himself soon after it was published, and the White House chief usher's log documents
that the commander had several meetings with the president. McCollum, a USNA graduate, had
spent much of his childhood in Japan as the child of Christian missionaries and was almost
natively fluent in the language as well as deeply steeped in the culture.
I don't know if it came from the McCollum memo or not, but at the ABC-1 meetings in early
1941, the British delegation proposed that the US take over the defense of Singapore from the
Royal Navy, a proposal that was rejected by the American delegation.
The minutes of the ABC-1 meetings were published by the British National Archives some
years ago and I have it somewhere on my hard drive but I couldn't give you a link. As I
recall, it was interesting to see the American side rejecting the Singapore and other schemes
to get the US to defend British colonial territories.
It would seem that the best strategic option for Iran is to lay low and absorb the
economic squeeze. The Chinese are unlikely to support the oil sanctions, so they'll be able
to continue to sell them until the US navy starts to interdict their tankers. But oil is
fungible.....
It would also seem that their best military strategy is a defensive one. Obtaining the
best air defense systems and significant medium-range missiles with high payload capacity and
accuracy. At the very least they'll be able to give a black-eye while going down.
Of course the question is how the Ayatollah controls his fire breathing, martyrdom loving
hawks who bristle at their treatment by the US, Israel & the Saudis. My sense is Bibi
will get more itchy than the Ayatollah to take advantage of his perception of complete
control of Trump.
I've wondered if the Chinese will use their own tankers to pick up Iranian oil or re-flag
Iranian ones with Chinese colors as the US did for Kuwait during the Iran-Iraq war in the
1980's.
I can see the neocons wanting open conflict with Iran, but I don't know if they would risk
war with China.
I'm not sure how much control Iran has of its proxies (the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, the Shia
Militias in Iraq, etc.). That strikes me as a reason fo both the US/Britain AND Iran to go
carefully and slowly.
Nice map, I assume it can't be considered a chart. Maps make me think. Anyway, when I
heard about the four tankers at Fujairah damaged by "sabotage" I took a look up at Qeshm
island in front of Bandar Abbas (it looks to me like a shark) and wondered how far it was
down to Fujairah. I get about 140 nautical miles.
I know that there are hardened sub-pens on the land side of Queshm Island probably out to
the western end. Recently I have read comments speculating what the Iranian class of mini- or
midget subs would be useful for. One learns that one use would be to deliver a sea-mine;
another to launch the one torpedo it can carry; and another would be as a transport for naval
commandos, or swimmers trained in demolition and mine warfare.
Then I remembered something. I took a look at the last place down on the right side of the
map on the Iranian mangrove shore, Trask, once an old fishing port. Trask is also where the
pipeline down from the CIS countries will end, and a large refinery, manufacturing, and
shipping complex is planned. Since 2008, Trask has been developed for a number of military
uses. First as a naval base which berths fast motor patrol boats of the kind that can launch
missiles like the Qader, a sea-skimmer carrying a warhead of 200 kilos which can reach out to
186 miles; also as a drone base, complete with a rail launcher which could indicate
proficiency in big stay-aloft reconnaisance drones, soon enough to be weaponized, if not
already. Significantly, it is also a base for littoral-class submarines, which would include
mini-subs design based on the North Korean Yono class, submarines that would be similar to
the one that is thought to have sunk the ROKS Cheonan in 2011 with a torpedo. Travelling at
nine or ten knots, the Iranian model of the Yono, the Ghadir, could make the crossing to
Fujairah in about twelve hours. That's a distance of 127 miles or so.
It looks to me as if the stern location of the tanker the news videos show would not have
been hit unless the ship backed into a mine. And it doesn't look like the kind of damage a
naval mine would do. A naval mine would have made an enormous ten or twenty foot cavernous
dent in that stern, at the least. What it looks like to me was that a swimmer or swimmers
placed a sticky explosive or satchel charge. (?) I think it is meant as a warning. 'We can
get you any time..."
There's another message. Fujairah and also the ports of Salalah, Sohar, and Duqm, in Oman,
have been billing themselves as "the Gateway to the Arabian Gulf." (For that historical and
scholarly insult alone they should pay.) Fujairah is the only one of the UAE that is on the
eastern side of the Musandam Peninsula. It has been advertised as the emirate that would not
be involved in a Gulf war. Out of range. Think again me buckaroos.
The United States has just signed an agreement in late March with Oman which allows US
naval and air forces to use the new state- of-the art port facilities and airport at Duqm,
down in the middle of the Oman coast, and also Salalah. Sultan Qaboos, a very impressive
leader, one of the best, who happens to be gay (but the father of his country), balances
carefully between the various powers he must deal with. Iran is already there in Oman and has
the right to establish companies and to store materiel there, and to ship cargoes. Just as
Iran does in Qatar, where two hundred trucks come across from Bushire every day and have
since June 2017 since Trump the Brain gave the OK to Mohammed Bin Salman to lay siege to
Qatar. Consider this: "Sohar Freezone has options for leasing pre-built warehouses and
commercial offices, as well as 100% foreign ownership...and a One-Stop-Shop for all relevant
permits and clearances." (From Overview--SOHAR Port and Freezone.) As to how you get this
cargo to points south, that is an interesting question...
Russia will come in if push comes to shove. Russia will not countenance the idea of an
America naval and drone base on the Caspian, which is what will happen if Iran is bombed
flat. Russia will second pilots to the Iranians and will send bombers like the Tu-95 Bear or
the Backfire capable of carrying the KH-101 which will carry Iranian markings etc. These
bombers, with enormous range, could wreck havoc on Diego Garcia, and could destroy a carrier
group.
The Iranians show us now that they were the ones who invented the game of chess. Trump can
look at China, and then he can look at Fujairah, and he can see the American economy going
down... The Iranian move is worthy of a grand master...
Great comment!
I think transferring a Tu-95 bomber will be a bit too much since the Iranians don't have much
of an air force. But missiles will do the job anyways, so why bother with planes. You don't
need to hit Diego Garcia, Israel is close enough. So is Al Udeid. Plus there will be attacks
on all US bases spread across Iraq and I suspect Syria. There is no shortage of targets for
sure for the Iranians, it this leads to war.
By the way, Chess was invented in India not ancient Persia. So was the numeral system which
is now called Arabic numerals (the Arabs have been trying to give their names to stuff which
is not theirs for a long time now) including the decimal system and negative numbers.
Thank you for your comment. You remind me that I have a group of expensive, unread books
about that part of the world. I may never read them, the way things are going.
I want to stress that Russia and Iran have already worked out the diplomatic agreements
which allow Russia to have based bombers at Hamadan, from which attacks were made on Isis in
Syria. In other words, Russia knows the way. The question is, is Russia going to stand by and
do nothing while the United States bombs Iran back to the stone ages, as it did in North
Korea during the Korean conflict? I find that hard to believe. I assume that at some point
Russia will, as Russia has previously done in other conflicts, or places, such as in Yemen,
in the 1970s and early 80's, assign pilots, and transfer planes ostensibly to the control of
the Iranian military.
Diego Garcia is an atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is a critical anchorage for
prepositioning supply ships for any land operations, such as the invasion of Iraq; it is also
a support facility, where submarines and other ships can get repairs. It is also an airbase,
where B-2 bombers might be assembling as I write, though given everything else that is NOT
happening, I assume that is doubtful. Speaking in a general way, the distance from the
Persian Gulf, Muscat, or Bahrain, say, to Diego Garcia, is about 2600 or 2700 miles.
If Russia seconded a squadron of bombers such as the TU-22M3 (NATO reporting name Backfire
C) under the aegis of Iran, and based them out of Bandar Abbas, Iran will have gotten a lot
of reach out into the Indian Ocean, since the Backfire has a combat radius of about 1300-1500
miles.
The missile it will be carrying would be the standard Russian cruise missile--it is not
hypersonic-- but it is a sea-skimmer, with a range of about 1550 miles. This is the
KH-101/102 (nuclear). It seems certain to me that the Backfire can get the KH-101 (Raduga)
missile out there; as can the Blackjack and the Bear. The mission of four or five bombers
delivering each about eight missiles could be to sink some of those prepositioning ships; and
to wreck the drone base/the airfield, and certain warehouse facilities. There is another
thing such an attack could do. Diego Garcia has more than ample rainfall. As things stand
today, it has never had a better fresh water supply system. Pipes and water storage, all has
been greatly improved. Fresh water for two to three thousand support personnel and base
activities is not a problem. I don't think Diego Garcia even needs to have a desalination
system. There is one thing, though. Diego Garcia is built on a series of coral reefs, the one
stacked on the other in geologic history as ocean levels rose 300 feet from 13,000 years ago.
The coral beneath the island is permeated with salt water. The fresh water aquifers of the
atoll sit on top of the salt water in what are called "lenses". These lenses hold an enormous
amount of water kept stable and tappable by isostatic pressure, I am guessing. If an attack
were made by JDAM missiles in areas determined from studies of the island to have these lense
aqufiers, and if the missiles went deep into them before exploding, then I think the entire
fresh water structure of the island could be ruined. The lenses would be penetrated and
ruined. Salt water would permeate, mix and spread through the aquifer. It would become like
Basra Governate, which now has an evil polluted salt brine aquifer where once it had fresh
water. (And which means that there is already considerable migration from southern Iraq into
Kurdish areas around Irbil, to the north.)
Iran should arrange with Italy for a meeting in Rome with Putin, Xi Jinping, and Trump. The
Donald could take the role of Churchill in that meeting, who got an inkling that he was the
odd-man out.
Six months later, Mark Clark went to Rome alone rather than execute the British - American
pincer plan.
Historian Andrew Buchanan argues that Clark was ordered to take that action by FDR himself
in a meeting with Clark at Bernard Baruch's plantation in North Carolina https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii
US forces in control of Rome shut out all diplomats, including Churchill's representatives,
from the diplomacy that then took place that determined Italy's future; USA became,
effectively, in charge of Mediterranean and trade routes to Levant and North Africa.
Israel and its US lobbies, Jewish & Christian, have GOT to be reined in, or the
American empire is on its way to the dustbin of history.
That historian Andrew Buchanan does not know that Bernard Baruch's plantation was off of
Winyah Bay on Waccamaw Neck across from Georgetown, SOUTH Carolina, is, in my view, a red
flag about his scholarship. The plantation, Hobcaw Barony, was for FDR, in 1944, a month-long
retreat which made it, in effect, the southern White House. Buchanan obviously doesn't know
anything at all about southerners in FDR's administration and the New Deal. I cannot help but
wonder if Buchanan has ever looked at the papers of James Francis Byrnes, which are held at
the University of South Carolina. My guess is that Byrnes might have made some comment about
significant matters which happened at Hobcaw, including the visit of General Clark. Shrewd,
devious Byrnes is a fascinating figure. (His handiwork is the Santee-Cooper hydroelectric
project which you get a glimpse of on I-95 as you drive over lake Marion there, created by
damming the Santee. It provided electricity for the whole depression hit state of South
Carolina.) Byrnes knew them all, including Stalin. Also, it ought to be noted that Buchanan
himself says that there is not a shred of evidence that at Hobcaw FDR personally ordered Mark
Clark to disobey the clear orders of Field Marshall Alexander and break away from what could
have been a decisive victory and instead go into Rome. It ought to be noted as well that
Buchanan's argument that by putting into power the more left-wing politician Ivanoe Bonomi
instead of the British backed General Pietro Badoglio, it meant that the communist partisans
in northern Italy therefore accepted the new government and willingly laid down their arms,
whereas under Badoglio and the King they might not have. I don't think they had a choice; and
I wonder if they actually didn't maintain a clandestine arsenal thereafter. They were by no
means ready to quit. A quick look at Wikipedia tells us that it was Churchill's government
that persuaded Bonomi, who came in in June and was ready to quit by November, to stay on. He
did so. The communists were a powerful force in Italy all the way up almost into the
1980s--it was the Red Brigade which kidnapped and murdered Aldo Moro, for example. Further,
as a reaction , to the communist threat, there is the whole question of "strategic tension"
which gave Italy the "years of lead"-- years of terror bombings by the right, such as the
Bologna train station bombing, the bombing of the passenger plane which fell off of Ustica,
and the whole mysterious thing that was Gladio. Michael Scammel in 'Koestler', his biography
of the writer Arthur Koestler, gives an account of the near hysteria in western Europe in
1948 after the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. "The coup fulfilled Koestler's direst
predictions and worst fears: there was no room for a third force in Europe anymore--not, at
least, in countries where the Communists were strong. In France, rife with rumors of a coup
of its own and convulsed by increasingly violent strikes, he found a populace growing more
jittery by the day. Malraux talked darkly of a plot to foment civil war and publicly
threatened "a reorganization of the Resistance" to oppose communism. Charles "Chip" Bohlen,
the new American ambassador, talked wildly about dropping an atom bomb on Baku, and
newspapers were full of the threat of a new world conflict." (Page 311.) Koestler, when he
left Europe for the United States, actually believed that Europe was going to go communist.
That Europe was a lost cause.
This is not to say that I am disagreement with what you are saying overall. I find Andrew
Buchanan someone new and interesting. Very provocative. Perhaps he overreaches. Don't know
enough, really, to make the call. Thank you for the introduction to him. Hobcaw Barony is now
a large natural preserve for environmental, oceanographic and coastal studies. Remarkable
story about how the foundation was created, mostly by Baruch's daughter, who must have worked
a lifetime on it. Sixteen thousand acres on a neck of land that has the Atlantic ocean on one
side and marshes and Winyah Bay on the other. It's worth a visit.
if the true goal of the neocons is war, provoked upon iran then any naval battle group which
includes a usa carrier sent into the persian gulf is the match the neocons are looking for
once they decide to ''remember the maine'' to it sending it to the bottom, then use that
false flag as their pretext.
if its obvious to me wouldn't you suppose its obvious to the pentagon?
An apt comparison, no doubt, to "The Day of Deceit."
Then there is the high probability that, even if Iran shows restraint and plays the long
game, a provocation in the manner of "Assad gasses his own people" will be arranged for
them.
Even so, time is not on the side of the US Entity. How much longer can the Fed's
fraudulent T-bill scheme keep running? My sense is that they wouldn't be weaponizing the
dollar if they had other actual weapons to hand.
Saudi Arabia said two of its oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab
Emirates and described it as an attempt to undermine the security of crude supplies amid
tensions between the United States and Iran.
The reports come as the US warned ships that "Iran or its proxies" could be targeting
maritime traffic in the region, and as the US is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52
bombers to the Gulf to counter what it called "threats from Tehran".
Exceptionally good argument. I would also posit that the element of religious belief makes
the argument even more potent.
I can't help but think back to more recent instances where the neocons were basically daring
the other party to do something - anything. Ukraine in 2014 and Syria later on, come to mind.
They had been waiting for the Russians to send in their troops to Ukraine after which they
could have totally choked the economy. They also waited for mistakes from Assad, which he
wisely avoided.
Similarly, Iran will be wise to avoid reacting in any way to these provocations. Since these
provocations are meant to provoke a reaction, if the Iranians bite their lips and hold their
hands, they would do more to hurt the neocons than by reacting blindly as the situation and
their nature perhaps goads them towards.
I humbly suggest you watch this series. Unfortunately, I don't know Persian so I can't help
with translation. I watched these series with my sister in law who is a Persian Jew with an
excellent command of Farsi; the videos are pretty informative.
Pat,
I share your concern, but for the neocons I fear that they see that backing Iran into a
position where it has nothing to lose with a war is a feature, not a bug.
~Jon
In my opinion, the critical element is the forthcoming deployment of advanced Russian and
Chinese systems such as the Sarmat heavy ICBM, scheduled I think for 2021, new submarines,
etc., etc. and I am not even talking about joint Russo/sino developments.
As Col. Lang/Gingrich explained, we are talking economics here. But unlike Japan, the
Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese and associated economies under the stimulus of OBOR are
only going to get stronger if left to themselves. The American economy, in my opinion, is no
longer capable of replacing ageing infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical
capabilities, fielding a million man Army and supporting allies like Korea, Taiwan,
Australia, Japan, Poland, etc. without beggaring its population.
To put that another way, the American economic marvel of military production came off a
low base with millions of underemployed work hungry people available as a result of the
depression. I don't think those conditions obtain today.
Hence the Washington logic of picking off the weakest of the Axis - Iran, right
now.
You mean a million H1B visa holders and 20 million illegal immigrants aren't our strength?
Who knew! Maybe we should outsource more manufacturing to China, that'll teach the bastards
to mess with us!
The "American Political class," rather than the US economy - solutions are available and
affordable, but not within the current US political and economic and legal and hence power
structures.
FIRE take up too much of the US economy and the best and brightest and has bought the
political class hook, line and Epstein.
"The American economy, in my opinion, is no longer capable of replacing ageing
infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical capabilities"
I was in Russia for the first time last summer. I loved it, but I was surprised by how
poor they are. Our debt load aside, they have do have more limited resources.
I think the key difference is that Japan was isolated on its continent when it made the
decision to go to war. (only being allied with Nazi Germany and Italy, which were so far away
that the alliance made little difference to Japan's economic situation in 1941)
Going to war must appear more attractive when you have your back against the wall than
when you have regional allies who are still willing to support you politically and
economically in a meaningful way.
I have to admit Colonel that this post reminded me of an April 29th profile in the New Yorker
of John Bolton. Several days ago after reading the lengthy New Yorker piece I realized how
slowly but surely, the Trump admin has been consistently heading toward outright madness with
the gradual departure of people like Tillerson, J. Kelly, and Mattis from the office. It was
mentioned in the piece how Gen. Mattis thwarted multiple outright crazy attempts by McMaster
(who is now at FDD shilling for the "Long War" strategy; once a neocon, always a neocon),
Bolton and Mira Ricardel aimed at declaring war against Iran. Now that there are a few key
vacant positions in the administration such as the UN Ambs, Homeland Sec, a few at the State
Dep, and most importantly at the Pentagon, shouldn't these vacancies act as major restraining
factor against war or the Trump admin "is" stupid enough to go full war mode regardless? IMO
some things still just do not add up. just wondering...
Just curious about something. I hear news stories that we are sending the Lincoln inside the
Persian Gulf. That seems like it would negate a lot of our advantage if we actually did fight
Iran. It would be in range of every anti-ship missile they have as well as most of their navy
which is designed specifically for the Gulf and not much of a blue water navy. Why wouldn't
we keep it just outside the Gulf in the open water where our carrier and escorts would
seemingly have a bigger advantage?
I don't want a fight and I'm not pretending that I understand naval tactics, but this just
seems a bit odd to me.
The damage was above the water line and a slash as if perhaps a missile but did not
penetrate the oil bunkers. It does not look like a limpet mine. There are no reports of
airplanes or ships but is described as sabotage. It is unlikely to be a false flag. Media
reporting has been muted. Simply that it is being investigated. But as pointed out here
before there is no stockpiling of supplies needed for an invasion of Iran by a million-man
army. Inside the Persian Gulf is the last place the Commander of the Carrier Group wants to
be if war breaks out. My guess is that the sabotage to four tankers was a signal of what the
Revolutionary Guards could do if they really wanted to and as a counter to ultra-mad man U.S.
diplomacy and sanctions. Lloyd's of London must raise their insurance rates. This will raise
oil prices at the same time as prices rise due to Mid-West flooding, China's African Swine
Fever outbreak, and the imposing of a 25% tariff on Chinese imports. All sorts of bad things
are happening at once. Rather than 2003's misleading Shock and Awe propaganda, the 2019
Iranian war drums indicate total incompetence.
The Imperial Japanese believed that Americans were soft and that US troops would crumble when
faced with the mighty spirit of Bushido. They were ultimately banking on that mistaken
conclusion. I don't think the Iranians have any such delusions.
I don't see how Iran can do anything more than make some trouble that is minor in the big
scheme of things - and which will dig their hole deeper - and then lose.
I don't approve of what is being done, but I think the current Iranian regime could be
destroyed if the neocons have their way; albeit with US casualties and great material and
financial expense. I don't like how US troops and sailors may be used as bait by the
neocons.
I should add that to my mind the real question is what would follow in the wake of war. Would
the Iranians be happy to be free of the Islamic Revolutionary govt? Or would they go on for
generations with wounded pride that demands revenge, like the Palestinians? I think the
latter. In which case war/regime change solves nothing. I'm willing to bet the neocons, as
usual, have their own delusions about flowers, candy, purple thumbs, smiling faces and
freedom.
They had a front row seat for OIF and what came after. I suspect they have a good feeling for
our capability and weaknesses . . . whether they can exploit that or not, might be the issue.
Eric Newhill - IMO you are underestimating how much damage Iran could do to the fleet in a
transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed them. As for
the illusion about US willingness to fight, all our opponents have believed the same thing
before the house fell on them.
Sir,
Oh, I understand what Iran could do. As you know, it has been war gamed and the US Navy gets
hit pretty hard.
But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush Iran
that much harder.
Again, I am in no way approving of what I think may happen. I have been told by someone I
know well in the DIA that we are doing to war with Iran sooner or later. The first time I was
told this was when Obama was still in office. Then I was told that the election of Trump has
changed nothing. Make what you will of that.
"in a transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed
them" what damage could Iranian ballistic missiles do to UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia?
Could they devastate oil & gas, LNG, port and pipeline infrastructure sufficiently that
it would take a year to re-build back to full capacity?
It seems it would be a lose-lose proposition for everyone including Trump's re-election
prospects. I have seen private surveys of working class people in the mid-west and the south
who by an overwhelming majority oppose a war with Iran when informed about some of the
potential consequences.
Well, Sir, unfortunately I think you called this one spot on.
IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it. Their the
ones most impacted (though I recognize that everyone in the global markets will feel the pain
resulting from a closure of the straight).
Of course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this. Still
holding out hope that some kind of negotiation is possible, but becoming skeptical. The
Iranians want to prove they are the men they thought they were. Still, maybe a good deal will
satisfy that need.
The Bolton/neoconservative plan of starting a war with Iran is working perfectly. In a tit
for tat action, Iran has captured one or more U.K. tankers. My hopes for avoiding a
completely unnecessary war with Iran, one we have a fair chance of losing, are becoming
slimmer and slimmer.
Eric, I'm in Europe right now and I don't think any Europeans are prepared in the slightest
to support a war with Iran. For starters, if Iran did not surrender instantaneously, an oil
shortage will collapse the European and Chinese economies and that is only one of the minor,
first order effects.
The question of "not being the men they thought they were" cuts both ways. Does the
European union want to see war with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to see Britain, egged on
by the Neocons, take "a hard line" with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to aid and abet the
U. S. in fighting a war with Iran through NATO? No. Do they want to be "saved from Iran " by
the U.S. galloping all over hemisphere as in 1944? No.
So do you really want to see NATO and American relationships with Europe, Russia and
China, India and the rest of the world put under severe stress in a @#@# waving contest
between Trump and the Mullahs? At the behest of Israel? Because that is what you are going to
get.
Then there is the prospect of the Chinese and Russians retaliating, and I don't even want
to go there.
The Mullahs have ruined the weekend for the leaders of each and every major nation. What
will be happening this weekend in every capital is a series of committee meetings asking the
same questions; What should our response to Iran be? What should our response to possible
American action be? What is the likely effect of war with Iran on our energy supplies? What
is the likely effect of war with Iran on our own security? What is the likely effect of war
with Iran on our economy? Public servants will be working late into the night to answer these
questions. The only thing for sure is that the price of gold is going to skyrocket when
markets open and that a lot of troops are going to get warning orders about notice to move
monday morning.
This is the same type of situation that started WW1. ....... So we decide to give those
pesky Iranian Mullahs a good whupping because they had it coming. Should be easy, after all
they are just more sand niggers, right? All of a sudden Russia drops an air defence regiment
into Tehran, We lose aircraft. China let's North Korea off the leash and at the same time
issues an ultimatum to Taiwan. Suddenly we are taking losses, have three war theatres going
at the same time. What happens then?
I suppose you think nothing is going to affect the continental U.S., so who cares?
There I must disagree:
Nethanyaou is again in election campaign same goes for President Trump; IMHO no war for the
newt 6 months and probably never.
A deal is possible ? maybe
but it should encompass the Syrian issue from where all this Iranian crisis is actually
born-again.
For example Iran could agree to withdraw its troops from Syria if USA and partners did the
same as Trump was considering.
This move would surely have some effect on the YPG position, thus on Turkey's activism along
its frontier with Syria (Afrin being not included).
Entering in negociations for a JCPOA bis will not be acceptable for Iran if sanctions (some
at least) are not lifted. My educated guess is that is precisely what's going on.
I was hoping yesterdays Zarif/Rand Paul discussion would lead to a ratcheting down of
tensions. But the hardliners on both sides would hate to have that happen and will attempt to
wreck any détente.
Did Zarif offer the idea of allowing more intrusive inspections of its nuclear program
before or after his meeting with Paul? In any case some unnamed US officials said it was a
non-starter. Probably the unnamed ones were the Mousetache-of-Idiocy and his minions?
Never should have cancelled JCPOA. Why should we have to do Israel/KSA/UAE's dirty
work?
Sir;
Isn't the "wild card" here the Israelis?
I can imagine an Iranian government, or perhaps the IRGC in a 'bitter ender' phase targeting
Israel proper before they collapse. As the fate of Gerald Ball indicates, the Israelis are
understandably paranoid about their regional competitors.
We are now engaging in cartoon villainy in terms of trying to squeeze Iran into a tiny
box. Iran cannot transact in dollars so they are reduced to bartering with Brazil for corn.
Oops, even their urea export is sanctioned but that doesn't matter because we won't let
Brazil sell them fuel oil to ship corn back to their home port. This is flat out evil.
I wondering if the former Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejah ...2005 to 2013 and His
"Apocalyptic Shiites" were put in the background...with disinformation about His falling out
of Favor....So Iran could play strategic games with the P5+1 agreement IN 2015 especially
with President Obama..
"But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush
Iran that much harder."
Cm'on man... wake up and open your eyes...
The US hasn't won any war since... Eternity...
Do I have to remind you what happens in Afghanistan, in Irak or more recently in Syria ?
Well Iran is FIVE times bigger than Syria and is not a divided
multicultural/multi-religious country. Do you think that anything you do could change the
fact that those 80 something millions people will survive and will ALL be behind their
leaders whoever he might be ?
If I was Iranian and even if the leader of the country was Adolf Hitler or some fanatic
religious Abu Satanist al Muslim, I would still be behind him if my country was attacked by
some foreign bully. My guess is that 99% of the Iranians think the same way....
Forget about allies like Hamas, Hezbollah or Houtis or even China and Russia.
Iran exists since 7000 BC and you really think that the new kid in the block with a couple
hundred years of existence would be able to take it out ?
Given your history of military victories ???!!! Don't make me laugh...
Even if you naively believe that, do you think about the consequences of such a war ? Not
on Iran, OK, you might level part of the country, but then what ?
Israel would most probably cease to exist. But so as the middle eastern Arab monarchies
and most the world's oil industry, which we all depend on...
Which means that the whole planet will suffer for years to come...
If I can't feed my kids because my country can't get enough oil thanks to some nutcase in
WDC guess how I'll feel about the US ?
Most of the world already hate you for a reason. If you want to be not just hated but
treated like enemies where ever you go, go ahead, bomb Iran, start a war, have the whole
world crumble...
And for what ???
Just "because you can" is not a valid answer...
"IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it... Of
course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this."
Will HAVE TO do this ???!!!
Who the hell is forcing you not to mind your own business ?
Has Iran attacked the US ? Or Britain ? Or Europe ?
Or anyone else in the past several hundreds of years ?
No...
But.... Does the US oil industry would like the oil prices to go up ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in DC want to make more money by selling more weapons ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Wahabistan hate the Shias and want to get rid of them ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Israel want to get rid of a powerful neighbor ? YES !!!
Do even some crazies in the US want Israel to go in flames so that Jesus comes back ?
Charles Michael
You are not correct. The Israelis have a deep psychopatholgy about Iranian ballistic missiles
and a possible nuclear weapon that might - might exist someday. That has nothing to do with
Syria.
I think the comment by 'Elliot' back in May reflects assumptions which are very
deep-seated in the West, are questionable, and if wrong, could prove extraordinarily
dangerous. So an extended response seems appropriate.
Of course the Russians have far more limited resources than the United States. What is
important is to understand the implications of that fact for their strategic thinking.
On this I would strongly recommend two pieces at the top of the 'Russia' page on the
'World Hot Spots' section of the 'Army Military Press' site.
The first is a translation of a 2017 article from the journal of the 'Academy of Military
Science', entitled 'Color Revolutions in Russia', by A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov.
Among other things, this illustrates very well the rather central fact that Russian
military strategists are very well aware that one of the things that wrecked the Soviet Union
was the attempt to maintain permanent preparedness for a prolonged global war with a power
possessing an enormously greater military-industrial potential.
As to the implications for contingency planning for war, these are spelt out in a piece,
also published in 207, by the invaluable Major Charles K. Bartles of the Foreign Military
Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, entitled 'Recommendations for Intelligence Staffs
Concerning Russian New Generation Warfare.'
At the risk of glossing his meaning overmuch, what is involved is a kind of 'higher
synthesis' of the ideas of two figures who were on opposing sides of the arguments of the
'Twenties of the last century, Georgiy Isserson, the pioneering theorist of 'deep
operations', and Aleksandr Svechin, who cautioned against an exclusive focus of the
'Napoleonic' strand in Clausewitz.
Both are quoted by the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation, General Valery Gerasimov, in his crucial and much misunderstood address to the
Academy of Military Science in February 2013, reproduced on the same page as the articles to
which I have referred.
What Svechin was saying, in essence, was that an attentive reader of Clausewitz would
realise that 'toujours la'audace' should be replaced as a motto by 'l'audace at the right
place and time'.
It was crucial to be able to judge when an offensive approach was absolutely the right
choice, and caution suicidal, and when the promise of a decisive victory was a snare and a
delusion, and defensive and attritional responses appropriate.
(This argument crops up in many contexts: the 'Tabouleh Line' strategy adopted by
Hizbullah, which Colonel Lang discussed in posts during and following the 2006 Lebanon War,
and also that advocated by James Longstreet at Gettysburg, are classic examples of what
Svechin would have seen as circumstances where a sound 'defensive' strategy was the key to
victory.)
As regards contemporary Russian thinking, an implication is that one of things they have
been trying to create is the ability, in appropriate situations, to use characteristics of
'deep operations' – surprise, speed, shock – in support of clearly limited
objectives.
The kind of possibility involved was alluded to in the conversation between the 'Security
Adviser' and the 'American Soldier' – seemingly involved on the ground in the
'deconfliction' process – which accompanied Seymour Hersh's June 2017 article in 'Die
Welt' on the Khan Sheikhoun sarin incident the previous April, and the U.S. air strikes that
resulted.
'SA: There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after
Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper
tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do.
'AS: I don't know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the
Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they
might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to
expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The russian air defense system is capable
of taking out our TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal...we are still all systems go...'
And that brings one to another critical strand in the approach of contemporary Russian
strategic thinkers.
Not simply for war-fighting, but, critically, for 'deterring' the United States from
escalating if the Russians do successfully achieve limited objectives, they have been
concentrating on 'asymetric' involving focused investment in specific technologies.
So, Bartles explains that the Russian Ground Forces are 'significantly ahead' of the U.S.
Army in electronic warfare, key objectives being to disrupt the demonstrated American
capability for precision strikes, and also exploit the latent vulnerabilities involved in the
dependence of so much equipment on GPS. (As an Army man, he does not discuss the interesting
question of naval and air applications.)
And crucially, there has been a focus on developing a very wide range of missiles which
'missile defence' technologies are not going to be able to counter effectively in any
forseeable future, and which have steadily increasing range, accuracy and lethality. One
central purpose of this, which Gerasimov has spelt out in later addresses to the Academy of
Military Science, also available on the page to which I have linked, is to provide
non-nuclear 'deterrence' options.
It is, of course, always difficult to be clear as to what is, or is not, hype in claims
made for new weapons systems. That said, it is I think at least worth reading some
contributions by the Brussels-based American analyst Gilbert Doctorow.
In February, he produced a piece entitled 'The INF Treaty is dead: will the arms race be
won this time by the most agile or by the biggest wallet?', and another, headlined 'The
Kremlin's Military Posture Re-considered: strategic military parity with the U.S. or absolute
military superiority over the U.S.'
Certainly, a good many assertions Doctorow made merit being taken with a pinch of salt, if
not a great deal more. However, before one empties the full salt-cellar over them, a few
observations are worth making.
How much salt should be applied to Shoigu's assertion that the cost of the systems being
developed is hundreds of times less than that of the systems being developed by the United
States against Russia I cannot say.
Some questions are however worth putting. It would be interesting to be clearer than I am
as to how relevant, or irrelevant, is the fact that for a long time now Russian universities
have, frankly, wiped the floor with their Western counterparts in international programming
competitions is one.
Another relevant range of issues relates to how expensive the 'software' component of the
relevant weaponry actually produced, once it is developed. A third relates to that of how far
the new missiles, with their greater range, can be effectively deployed, either by updating
old platforms – like Soviet-era bombers – or by creating relatively low
cost-ones.
And then of course one comes to the question of how the technical military issues interact
with the 'geopolitics' involved. In recent years, a range of different Russian analysts have
been claiming, in essence, that the 'Petrine' era of Russian history is over. Three examples,
from Dmitri Trenin, Sergei Karaganov, and Vladislav Surkov, can be found at
If, as Trenin argued back in 2016, Russia has moved from aspiring to become part of a
'Greater Europe' to seeing itself as a central part of a 'Greater Eurasia', then this has
implications for how it should react to the asymetry which was central to Soviet views of INF
in the 'Eighties.'
Put simply, INF in Europe can pose a 'decapitation' threat to Russia, while Russian INF do
not do so to the United States.
At that time, the deployment of cruise and Pershing II helped to encourage a burgeoning
awareness among important sections of the 'security intelligentsia' in Moscow of the extent
to which their own security policies – of which the SS-20 deployment was just one of
many examples – had created suspicion, fear and antagonism.
The conclusion – classically expressed in Georgiy Arbatov's joke about the terrible
thing that Gorbachev was going to do to the United States, deprive it of an enemy –
turned out hopelessly naive. The liquidation of the existing Soviet security posture did not
lead to any lesssening of Western antagonism.
In his second piece, Doctorow has an interesting discussion of views expressed by Yakov
Kedmi, the sometime 'refusenik' who became a pivotal figure in organising Russian Jewish
emigration to Israel, and is now a regular guest on Russian television. And he writes:
'Perhaps Kedmi's most interesting and relevant observation is on the novelty of the
Russian response to the whole challenge of American encirclement. He noted that for the past
200 or more years the United States considered itself secure from enemies given the
protection of the oceans. However, in the new Russian military threat, the oceans will now
become the most vulnerable point in American defenses, from which the decapitating strike can
come.'
Putting the point another way. Potentially at least, the 'Greater Eurasia' as Trenin
describes it includes the Western European countries – indeed, it appears to include
Ireland. It is, obviously, enormously in the interest of the Russians to include these, in
that doing so both makes it possible to isolate the 'Anglo-Saxons', and also to provide a
counterweight to Chinese preponderance.
To do so however – and at this point I am moving towards my own speculations, rather
than simply relying upon better-informed observers – requires a complicated balancing
act.
On the one hand, the West Europeans – above all the Germans – have to be
persuaded that if they persist in following with the 'Russia delenda est' agendas of
traditional 'Anglo' Russophobes, and 'revanchists' from the 'borderlands', they should not
think this is going to be cost-free.
But on the other, the promise has to be implied that, if they 'see sense' and realise that
their future is with a 'Greater Eurasia', without their needing to 'remilitarise' in any
serious way, then they will not be threatened militarily.
This balancing act, ironically, makes it absolutely imperative for the Russians not to
threaten the Baltics – particularly given their historical links to Germany.
By the same token, it provides a particularly cogent reason for threatening to respond to
new American IMF deployments in Europe with ones that target the United States.
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> Iran has
also said that it will not only follow graded response to the sanctions, including possible
exiting from the JCPOA, but also reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, a thinly veiled threat to follow in North Korea's footsteps. It is clear that Iran will
fight the status quo arising out of Trump's maximum pressure policies in various ways, and not
allow itself to be economically strangulated.
The UK's position has now become very dubious. Why did it seize Iran's supertanker Grace
1 in the Gibraltarwaters? Four of Grace 1 's officers, including the ship's captain,
all Indians, have been charged in a Gibraltar court and are now out on bail.
In a new twist on this issue, we now know that Gibraltar changed its law
underpinning the seizure just one day before it occurred . This adds weight to reports in
Spain quoting government sources that the UK carried out the seizing of the tanker under
U.S.instructions.
The argument that Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to Syria's Baniyas refinery, and so
was violating European sanctions on Syria, sounds weak on various counts.The
Gibraltar court's order mentions EU Regulation 36/2012 on sanctions on Syria as the basis
for action against Grace 1 . Oil exports from Syria to the EU have been
banned, but not oil imports to Syria under EU regulations. Also, imports to the Baniyas
refinery are banned for machinery and equipment , not oil.
More important: In international trade, do countries through which transit takes
place have the right to impose their laws on the merchandise in transit? For example, can
pharmaceutical products from India, which arein consonance with Indian and the receiving
country's laws, be seized in transit in Europe if they violate the EU's patent laws? Such
seizures have happened , creating a trade dispute between India and the EU. The EU finally
agreed not to seize such goods in transit. So can the EU extend its sanctions to goods
in transit through its waters? Assuming the crude was indeed for Syria -- which Iran has denied
-- do EU sanctions apply when transiting through Gibraltar waters? In short, was the UK
imposing EU sanctions on Syria -- or U.S.sanctions on Iran?
There has also been another
incident involving Iran and the UK in the developing Tanker War 2. This makes the UK's role
even more suspect. Iran has denied the UK's story of its empty tanker Heritage being
blocked by Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. The U.S., which first broke the story, claimed it
was five Iranian boats that tried to seize a British tanker. The UK authorities
claimed that it was three Iranian boats that were impeding the tanker's journey,
which were driven off by a British warship. The Iranians deny that any such incident took
place. No video or satellite image of the incident has been made public, though a U.S.aircraft
reportedly took video
footage of the incident. In his Twitter feed, BBC's Defense Correspondent Jonathan Beale
condemned the failure of the British government to release images of the incident: "UK MOD say
they will NOT be releasing any imagery from incident in Gulf when @HMS_MONTROSE confronted #Iran IRGC boats. Shame as far as I'm
concerned."
What remains unexplained is why the empty UK tanker switched off
its transponder before the alleged incident for about 24 hours, particularly in the period
when it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz -- or why an empty tanker was accompanied by a
British warship. Was the UK baiting Iran by manufacturing a maritime incident in the Gulf?
UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said on Twitter that after a phone call with Javad
Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, he
offered to release the tanker Grace 1 on the condition that it will not send the oil
to Syria. This still begs the question of the UK's locus in deciding the destination of Iranian
oil -- or why Iran should accept EU sanctions.
Trailer Trash is exactly right about brittle supply chains. To "maximize Shareholder value"
(the Prime Directive from Wall Street), corporations are maximizing (not optimizing)
efficiency, at the expense of long-term priorities.
Summer Diaz is sorta right about what I might describe as US cultural/political obesity,
but I don't look forward to living here after the shit hits the fan. There are lotsa crazy
bastards with guns. We'll see real race war, starvation, all 4 Horsemen.
Re questions about Israel's fate in Marandi's scenario: I think it's smart that he/they
don't talk about retaliation against Israel. Everybody knows that Iran has the ability to
really hurt Israel (sans Nukes, they probably can't obliterate it); but this threat is much
better left unsaid, just hanging in the air. Threatening Israel would be bad PR, decreasing
chances that EU, Russia, & China can talk the US back from the brink of WWIII. And making
sure Israel knows they're in danger - without bragging about it - gets (non-crazy) Zionists
in USA to help prevent all-out war!
It's OK for Iran to talk about the threat to KSA, UAE, etc, because everybody hates them
anyway, and cutting off the world's energy supply is their Doomsday Bomb. They need to remind
the world that if the US attacks Iran, everybody loses.
Three main antagonists have aimed at post-revolution Iran: The Outlaw US Empire, Occupied
Palestine, and Saudi Arabia, the latter being the most recent and vulnerable, while the first
two have already waged varying degrees of war with the Empire's Economic War having existed
for 40+ years. The Levant's former Colonial powers--Turkey, France, UK--are feeble, and in
Turkey's case is allied with Iran while being spurned by NATO and EU. Lurking in the
background are Russia and China's designs for Eurasian Integration which only the Outlaw US
Empire seeks to prevent as such integration benefits Saudi Arabia, Occupied Palestine, France
and UK. Thus the only entity that might benefit from non-hybrid war with Iran is the Outlaw
US Empire--Occupied Palestine's interests actually lie with becoming part of an Integrated
Eurasia not in trying to impede it. And the same goes for the other nations occupying the
Arabian Peninsula--but they all need to come to their senses by deeply examining their actual
long term interests as Qatar seems to have done in its rapprochement with Iran.
But, just how would a non-hybrid conflict with Iran benefit the Outlaw US Empire if it
consumes its regional allies? Would it bring more riches or create greater debt atop the
human cost? Most analysts have pointed to the Empire's vulnerability upon the trashing of the
current global economic structure. Indeed, the only visible benefit might accrue from slowing
Eurasian Integration. Then there's the highly negative result to the Empire's global
credibility which is already scrapping rock bottom and the likely end of Dollar Hegemony and
the Free Lunch it's lived on for the past 70+ years. But what about the fulfillment of the
Christian Rapture Myth? Sorry, but there should be no need to answer that fantastical,
magical, thinking. Not a very good balance sheet is it as liabilities seem to vastly outweigh
assets. Unfortunately, such logic is ignored by ideologues drunk on magical thinking. And
these results don't take into consideration an escalation into global nuclear conflict that's
in nobody's interest.
But as noted, Trump's up a tree and keeps climbing higher onto ever thinner, more
precarious branches. Iran offered him a chance to climb down if he removes illegal sanctions
and returns to JCPOA, which Pompeo promptly replied to with a lie that Iran would negotiate
on its ballistic missiles, thus giving the overall goal away.
So, Trump can't/won't climb down and non-hybrid conflict would do great damage to Outlaw
US Empire interests, which is where we were at July's beginning.
Iran will respond to a limited military strike with a massive and disproportionate
counterstrike targeting both the aggressor and its enablers.
Which will be the green light for an even more violent & disproportionate counterstrike
on Iran. Make no mistake - there are plenty of gung-ho Washington & Tel Aviv power
brokers who want to trash Iran. And they will do it, given the chance. The above scenario is
precisely what the war gods are hoping for.
I don't know about that. The US and Israel would really be opening up a can of worms. Any
over reaction by the USA and Israel gives Russia, India, and China a precedent to follow.
China might it easy to settle their difficulties with Taiwan. Kiev might go up in a mushroom
cloud. The USA isn't the only country in the world with problems. If they don't play by the
rules it just leads to more rule breakers.
An Alternate Scenario
There is a saying in Persian language called "Namad Maali" translates as "feltman massag", it
means slow killing.
This proverb is very often used in contemporary Persian language but most of the people do
not know the actual origin of the proverb.
There is an interesting legend behind it. Holagu Khan, a Mongol ruler, the grandson of
Chengiz Khan conquered Baghdad on year 1258, and captured the Caliph Al-Mo'tasam, the last
Caliph of Abbasid dynasty. Holagu decided to execute the Caliph and finish the 500 years
Muslim caliphate.
Many statesmen begged him to hold on. They told him that the caliph is legitimate successor
of prophet Mohammad. Caliphate is the pillar of the world, if you remove this pillar there
will be sun eclipse, thunder storm and total darkness. Holagu, with his shamanistic believes
fearing sky revenge was yielding, but he consulted his prime minister a Persian mullah, Nasir
al-Din Tusi. Nasir told him do not worry, these are total nonsense, all of our great Shai
twelve imams were direct descendants of prophet Mohammad, they were inherently innocent,
while Abbasid are not direct descendants of prophet. See that our imams, eleven out of
twelve, were martyred, there was no sun eclipse, no thunder storm, no darkness of the
world.
Holagu was bold enough to carry out the execution. Other statesmen brought forward a group of
astrologists who searched through their horoscopes and studied signs of stars and concluded
that all the signs are catastrophic, if a drop of caliph's blood drops on earth, there will
be a devastating thunder storm, rain of bloods pours down from sky and end of world ...
Holagu consulted Nasi again. Nasir being a great humorist, told him not worry, we can devise
a pretty easy solution for your peace of mind, send the caliph to hot bath of feltman
workshop, order to be wrapped in felt, they will give him a hot water bath with soap, they
will roll him slowly over and over, as they are crafting a felt, his life will be ended
peacefully in massage, without a drop of blood, meanwhile I will assign one of my intelligent
apprentice who is familiar with sky ways ( Nasir was a great mathematician and Astronomer, he
founded a famous observatory, he was inventor of trigonometry), to sit on the roof top of the
feltman workshop, he will monitor any changes on sky if there is a minor change, he will
signal to the feltman to release the caliph.
President Vladimir Khan has been giving warnings to Ayatollah do not burn JCPOA, do not close
Strait of Hurmoz. Ayatollah is telling him do not worry we are giving a feltman massage. Just
tell Xi khan do not lean his back against the wall street pillar, clean up your hands from
future fund casino, the pillars are collapsing slowly.
the US and its allies are bluffing. don't get caught up in wars and rumors of it. the only
way it was going to happen was if syria and iraq fell and both of them didn't.
when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy.
@C I eh? #14
I don't see China as the same situation as Russia.
The Russians who have largely supported Putin despite economic ill-effects from sanctions
are, at best, 1 generation removed from 1991-1996 post-Soviet collapse privation. They
remember the bad times and how to get through them.
The mainland Chinese today are 2 generation removed from the famines in the 50s and 60s, and
furthermore there is a largely generational break due to the Cultural Revolution.
I don't see China collapsing, but I also don't see the mainstream population taking a
oil-starvation induced economic collapse well at all, because the deal is social repression
if the economy and standards of living continue to improve.
The difference is French cheese and EU fruits and vegetables - luxury goods vs. oil = energy
= everything.
There seems to be misconception about Kuwait, in particular.
Kuwaitis are fed up with the Saudis and are more Iranophile than anything. They see who is
a true regional power.
Recently, I happen to be invited to a diplomatic function, welcoming a new Kuwaiti
ambassador (Not in US). There were several businessmen associates of the new ambassador at
that function. In an impromptu conversation, they professed their love for anything Iranian
or Persian, from culture and history to food and the people, and their disdain for the Saudis
and their ruling family.
In fact, one of them, much to my shock, uttered the circulating rumor that the ruling
family in SA are actually Jews. He said everyone in the region knows about this open secret
but afraid to talk about. That was a revelation for me coming from a Kuwaiti since I never
did pay attention to those rumors.
I think in the event of a regional conflict, Kuwait will be spared by Iran. What would
happen to the ruling family will be another story.
thanks Seyed Mohammad Marandi.. i agree with your headline...
the usa is not agreement friendly.. everything is on their terms only... they rip up
contracts when a new president doesn't like it, and make endless demands of others under
threat, just like bullies do. they sanction countries and don't mind killing, starving and
subjecting people in faraway lands to their ongoing and desperate means of domination..
nothing about the usa is friendly... they spend all their money on the military not just
because it works so well for wall st and the corporations but because they think they can
continue to bully everyone and anyone indefinitely.. they get support from the obvious
suspects and all the other colonies of the usa - europe, canada and etc - turn a type of
blind eye to it all, fearful they might be next if they step out of line.. thus, all these
chattel countries fail in line with the usa regime sanctions...
basically, the prognosis isn't good.. none of the colonies are capable of speaking up to
the usa regime, largely because they lack strong leadership and independence of thought in
all this... we continue to slip towards ww3 and at present all the observing countries sit on
their hands waiting for the next shoe to drop.. that is where we are at present with regard
the ramp up to war on iran...
The Gulf states know they would be in the front lines in any conflict, Saudi and UAE
infrastructure destruction would mean Kings, Princes and Emir's scurrying from their
destroyed countries because of their inability to sell oil and feed their people, as one
Iranian General said.. the US bases in the region are not threats, "they are targets". Its
true Iran has an army of 500,000, they also have millions of military aged men who would form
militias and have the reputation of taking their shrouds with them into battle.
I think a major miscalculation by Trump, initiating this kind of scenario is unlikely, those
other whack jobs Pence, Pompeo and Bolton are a cause for concern, just hear this nutcase
Lindsey Graham threatening the Europeans....
"The United States should sanction "to the ground" European countries that continue to trade
with Iran under the 2015 nuclear deal and refuse to join America's pressure campaign against
the Islamic Republic, says top Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.
"I will tell the Europeans, 'If you want to side with the Iranians, be my guest, but you
won't use an American bank or do business with the American economy,'" Graham said".
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2019/07/16/601067/US-Graham-Trump-Iran-JCPOA-EU-sanction-to-ground
Punitive sanctions against nations with a powerful military establishment have an incredibly
poor track record. Germany after WWI. Japan prior to Pearl Harbor. And one might add Russia
today. The more "effective" the sanctions, the closer to war.
But, of course, military planners in the U.S. and Israel have already picked out the
targets for nuclear strikes during the very first wave of attacks on Iran. It will be nuclear
first, ask questions later. Heil Trump has already said he will use nuclear weapons:
"obliterate". But will even that work? I doubt it. Iran must expect nuclear attacks in the
first wave. Yes, their urban populations will be destroyed, but their military? I doubt
it.
The folks who now are called Iranian once fought the most militaristic society ever - the
Spartans. There is likely a memory of that conflict still, and the lessons learned. They face
a military that no longer remembers Vietnam or its lessons. Sanctions are an act of war, not
military war but war against another who have been made into enemies nonetheless. Be mightily
careful who you make your enemy, one sage reminds that you become like them. Look at those
the U.S. has made enemy: Hitler and National Socialism; Mussolini and Fascism; Stalin and
State Authoritarianism; Franco and Military Repression; and the list continues substantially,
and then look at the U.S. in a distortion free mirror and what does one see?
Taking into consideration the novel Rand Paul intervention, the likely way forward is this,
and I'm sure it is what Putin (the master negotiator) has in mind: Trump blundered badly by
throwing out the JCPOA, but he needs a way out that allows him to save face and even turn it
into a partial "win". On the world stage (ie. for the public) it needs to look like Trump
accedes to reinstate the JCPOA IN EXCHANGE for Iran withdrawing from Syria! This will not
only save the nuclear deal, thereby reducing tensions, but it will force Israel to back down
and shut up. Israel can't complain and Trump can sell it as an achievement of his, "without
having to go to war". The US, of course will have to give Iran, Syria and Russia something in
exchange: Iran and Russia ultimately bolstered their forces in Syria in order to save Assad.
All things considered, Assad has won the war, so the reason for the bolstered Iranian and
Russian presence no longer applies. What the US must agree to is to suspend its efforts to
overthrow Assad (which Trump has been trying to do via the withdrawal of US troops in
northern Syria), thereby returning the country to the status quo ante. The wild card in all
of this, however, is Turkey's presence in Syria. Perhaps China can lend a helping hand on
that issue?
@35 "when it didn't. they resort back to the usual MO, look busy."
I agree with that comment, though I will add that for this Administration "looking busy"
has a Keystone Cops look about it.
I mean, let's be real here: Norman Schwarzkopf did not make a single move against Iraq
until he had well over 500,000 GI's at his command, and Tommy Franks was not willing to
restart the Crash Boom Bang until he had built up his army to just shy of 500,000
soldiers.
And Iraq then was nowhere near as formidable as Iran is now.
Where are the troop buildups? Where is the CENTCOM army?
Nowhere. And no sign of it happening.
There is a real possibility that Bolton might get his way and start his dinky little war,
only to find that the USA loses a great big war before he even manages to get out of bed.
CENTCOM is not ready for war, nowhere close to it, and for that reason alone Iran is
correct to tell the USA that if Trump launches a "limited strike" then their response will be
"it's on, baby".
@ William Herschel 61. If the U.S. or anyone else uses any type of Nuclear weapons against
Iran, a declared ally of Russia, it will result in an immediate and full scale Nuclear
retaliation. This is a recent statement made by Vladimir Putin. Pompeo, Bolton et all are
well aware of this. The U.S. might talk of using tactical nukes but despite their Hubris,
even the most pro war in the Pentagon know what the results of that type of planned
anihilation will have on the U.S. mainland. People like Lindsey Graham are merely empty
vessels making a lot of noise.
Why would Iran allow any Western nation to save face through negotiations or
otherwise?
Khamenei yesterday tweeted several statements that were later posted to his website:
"At this meeting, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran stressed that Western
governments' arrogant behavior is the main obstacle in establishing ties and maintained:
Western governments' major vice is their arrogance. If they face a weak government, their
arrogance will be effective. But if that country knows the truth about them and resists, the
Western governments will be defeated.
"Referring to problems rising between Iran and the European partners of the JCPOA,
Ayatollah Khamenei said: Now, in the matters between us and the Europeans, the problems
persist, because of their arrogance.
"The Leader of the Islamic Revolution highlighted Iran's commitment to the JCPOA -- also
known as the Iran Deal -- and criticized European dignitaries of the deal for breaching it,
saying: As stated by our Foreign Minister, who works hard, Europe has had eleven commitments,
none of which it has met. The Foreign Minister, despite his diplomatic considerations, is
clearly stating that. But what did we do? We acted based on our commitments, and even beyond
that.
"Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated that Iran continued to stay within the JCPOA despite the
fact that the EU partners of the JCPOA as well as the British government violated the
international plan of action and yet demanded Iran to stay with its promises: Now that we
have started to reduce our commitments, they step forward. They are very insolent, and they
have not abided by their eleven commitments. We have just started to reduce some of our
commitments, and this process will surely continue."
The hypothetical suggestion Zarif made in his interview with NBC News was just
that--hypothetical--as it had to spell out again for the
apparently illiterate, deaf or both SoS Pompeo and BigLie Media presstitutes.
In his arrogance, Trump climbed up the tree he's now stuck within; and as I've pointed out
again and again, Iran isn't going to help him in his climb down--they'll be no face saving
for the arrogant Western nations. I mean, how clear can the Iranians make that?! They quite
well understand the very real interests at stake I put forth in my comment @32. And the Turks
on their own have upped the stakes with Erdogan
assuring :
"that his country is prepared to leave NATO during a meeting with Russian Deputy Vladimir
Zhirinovsky.
"'I met twice with Turkish President Recep Erdogan and he told me personally that Turkey
was willing to withdraw from NATO,' Zhirinovsky wrote."
Trump seems desperate for a way to climb down from his tree. Controversial Kentucky
Senator Rand Paul apparently volunteered his services as an emissary
to Iran , which Trump okayed but Paul's office is being mum about. As noted, Iran isn't
going to talk unless tangible, visible concessions are made prior to any talks
occurring--concessions Zarif and Rouhani have already stated as the minimum required: Ending
all illegal sanctions and return to JCPOA.
Iran just announced that they would be open to talk about ballistic missiles when US stops
selling arms in the Middle East.
You have to hand it to the Iranians. In the one-up-manship game, they are a formidable
opponent. Obviously, there is less than zero chance that would ever happen, but they are
super smart in driving the message of US arrogance home. I am happy to see they don't take
any shit from the Empire.
Washington's aggression is part
of a decades-long quest to control the spigot in the Persian Gulf.
Notable quotes:
"... As it happens, the world economy -- of which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country's nuclear supremacy. ..."
"... True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he told a nationwide TV audience. ..."
"... All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables. ..."
"... Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040. ..."
"... More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products. ..."
"... To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East). ..."
"... When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging" mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir Fighting for Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much more explicit than that. ..."
"... As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost. ..."
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared
at TomDispatch.com .
It's always the oil. While President Trump was hobnobbing
with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20 summit in Japan, brushing off a
recent UN report about the prince's role in the murder of Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Asia and the Middle East,
pleading with foreign leaders to support "Sentinel." The aim of that administration plan: to
protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.
Both Trump and Pompeo insisted
that their efforts were driven by concern over Iranian misbehavior in the region and the need to
ensure the safety of maritime commerce. Neither, however, mentioned one inconvenient three-letter
word -- O-I-L -- that lay behind their Iranian maneuvering (as it has impelled every other
American incursion in the Middle East since World War II).
Now, it's true that the United States
no longer relies on imported petroleum for a large share of its energy needs. Thanks to the
fracking
revolution , the country now gets the bulk of its oil --
approximately 75 percent -- from domestic sources. (In 2008, that share had been closer to 35
percent.) Key allies in NATO and rivals like China, however, continue to depend on Middle Eastern
oil for a significant proportion of their energy needs.
As it happens, the world economy -- of
which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive
trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices
low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking
geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would
their country's nuclear supremacy.
This logic was spelled out clearly by President Barack Obama
in a September 2013 address to the UN General Assembly in which he
declared that "the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power,
including military force, to secure our core interests" in the Middle East. He then pointed out
that, while the United States was steadily reducing its reliance on imported oil, "the world
still depends on the region's energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire
global economy."
Accordingly, he concluded, "We will ensure the free flow of energy from the
region to the world." To some Americans, that dictum -- and its continued embrace by President
Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo -- may seem anachronistic. True, Washington fought wars in
the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the
flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his
decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our
country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic
independence," he told a nationwide
TV audience.
But talk of oil soon disappeared from his comments about what became Washington's
first (but hardly last) Gulf War after his statement provoked
widespread public outrage .
("No Blood for Oil" became a widely used protest sign then.) His son, the second President Bush,
never even mentioned that three-letter word when announcing his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet, as
Obama's UN speech made clear, oil remained, and still remains, at the center of US foreign
policy. A quick review of global energy trends helps explain why this has continued to be
so.
THE WORLD'S UNDIMINISHED RELIANCE ON PETROLEUM
Despite all that's been said about climate change and oil's role in causing it -- and about
the enormous progress being made in bringing solar and wind power online -- we remain trapped
in a remarkably oil-dependent world. To grasp this reality, all you have to do is read the
most recent edition of oil giant BP's "Statistical Review of World Energy," published this
June. In 2018, according to that report, oil still accounted for by far the largest share of
world energy consumption, as it has every year for decades. All told, 33.6 percent of world
energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global
disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of
nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables.
Most energy analysts believe that the global reliance on petroleum as a share of world
energy use will decline in the coming decades, as more governments impose restrictions on
carbon emissions and as consumers, especially in the developed world, switch from oil-powered
to electric vehicles. But such declines are unlikely to prevail in every region of the globe
and total oil consumption may not even decline. According to projections from the International
Energy Agency (IEA) in its " New Policies Scenario " (which assumes significant
but not drastic government efforts to curb carbon emissions globally), Asia, Africa, and the
Middle East are likely to experience a substantially increased demand for petroleum in the
years to come, which, grimly enough, means global oil consumption will continue to rise.
Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced
demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's
dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global
energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy
consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil
production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105
million barrels in 2040.
Of course, no one, including the IEA's experts, can be sure how future extreme
manifestations of global warming like the severe heat waves recently tormenting
Europe and
South
Asia could change such projections. It's possible that
growing public outrage
could lead to far tougher restrictions on carbon emissions between now and 2040. Unexpected
developments in the field of alternative energy production could also play a role in changing
those projections. In other words, oil's continuing dominance could still be curbed in ways
that are now unpredictable.
In the meantime, from a geopolitical perspective, a profound shift is taking place in the
worldwide demand for petroleum. In 2000, according to the IEA, older industrialized nations --
most of them members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) --
accounted for about two-thirds of global oil consumption; only about a third went to countries
in the developing world. By 2040, the IEA's experts believe that ratio will be reversed, with
the OECD consuming about one-third of the world's oil and non-OECD nations the rest.
More
dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of
petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040,
its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other
Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already
buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products.
Where will Asia get its oil? Among energy experts, there is little doubt on this matter.
Lacking significant reserves of their own, the major Asian consumers will turn to the one place
with sufficient capacity to satisfy their rising needs: the Persian Gulf. According to BP, in
2018, Japan already obtained 87 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, India 64
percent, and China 44 percent. Most analysts assume these percentages will only grow in the
years to come, as production in other areas declines.
This will, in turn, lend even greater strategic importance to the Persian Gulf region, which
now possesses more than 60 percent of the world's untapped petroleum reserves, and to the
Strait of Hormuz, the
narrow
passageway through which approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil passes daily.
Bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the Strait is perhaps the most
significant -- and contested -- geostrategic location on the planet today.
CONTROLLING THE SPIGOT
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year that militant Shiite
fundamentalists overthrew the US-backed Shah of Iran, US policy-makers concluded that America's
access to Gulf oil supplies was at risk and a US military presence was needed to guarantee such
access. As President Jimmy Carter
would say in his
State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980,
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic
importance: It contains more than two thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort
to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian
Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil
must flow. Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of
the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force.
To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a
new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained
basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president
in 1981, made the RDJTF
into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which
continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing
the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East).
Reagan was the first president to
activate the Carter Doctrine in 1987 when he ordered Navy warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers, "
reflagged " with the stars and stripes, as they traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. From
time to time, such vessels had been coming under fire from Iranian gunboats, part of an ongoing
" Tanker War ," itself part
of the Iran-Iraq War of those years. The Iranian attacks on those tankers were meant to punish
Sunni Arab countries for backing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in that conflict. The American
response, dubbed Operation Earnest Will , offered an
early model of what Secretary of State Pompeo is seeking to establish today with his Sentinel
program.
Operation Earnest Will was followed two years later by a massive implementation of the
Carter Doctrine, President Bush's 1990 decision to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Although he
spoke of the need to protect US access to Persian Gulf oil fields, it was evident that ensuring
a safe flow of oil imports wasn't the only motive for such military involvement. Equally
important then (and far more so now): the geopolitical advantage controlling the world's major
oil spigot gave Washington.
When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted
that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging"
mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later
recall in his memoir Fighting for
Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent
and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our
offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly
acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever
since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the
Persian Gulf.
Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US
policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal
favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a
report on the
geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based
think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the
report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special
responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much
more explicit than that.
Of course, along with this "special responsibility" comes a geopolitical advantage: By
providing this service, the United States cements its status as the world's sole superpower and
places every other oil-importing nation -- and the world at large -- in a condition of
dependence on its continued performance of this vital function.
Originally, the key dependents in this strategic equation were Europe and Japan, which, in
return for assured access to Middle Eastern oil, were expected to subordinate themselves to
Washington. Remember, for example, how they
helped pay for
Bush the elder's Iraq War (dubbed Operation Desert Storm). Today, however, many of those
countries, deeply concerned with the effects of climate change, are seeking to lessen oil's
role in their national fuel mixes. As a result, in 2019, the countries potentially most at the
mercy of Washington when it comes to access to Gulf oil are economically fast-expanding China
and India, whose oil needs are only likely to grow. That, in turn, will further enhance the
geopolitical advantage Washington enjoyed as long as it remains the principal guardian of the
flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. How it may seek to exploit this advantage remains to be
seen, but there is no doubt that all parties involved, including the Chinese, are well aware of
this asymmetric equation, which could give the phrase "trade war" a far deeper and more ominous
meaning.
THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE AND THE SPECTER OF WAR
From Washington's perspective, the principal challenger to America's privileged status in
the Gulf is Iran. By reason of geography, that country possesses a potentially
commanding position along the
northern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the Reagan administration learned in 1987–88
when it threatened American oil dominance there. About this reality President Reagan couldn't
have been clearer. "Mark this point well: The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not
be dictated by the Iranians," he
declared
in 1987 -- and Washington's approach to the situation has never changed.
In more recent times, in response to US and Israeli threats to bomb their nuclear facilities
or, as the Trump administration has done, impose economic sanctions on their country, the
Iranians have threatened on numerous occasions to block the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic,
squeeze global energy supplies, and precipitate an international crisis. In 2011, for example,
Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi
warned that should the West impose sanctions on Iranian oil, "not even one drop of oil can
flow through the Strait of Hormuz." In response, US officials have vowed ever since to let no
such thing happen, just as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in response to Rahimi at that
time. "We have made very clear," he
said , "that the
United States will not tolerate blocking of the Strait of Hormuz." That, he added, was a "red
line for us."
It remains so today. Hence, the present ongoing crisis in the Gulf, with fierce US sanctions
on Iranian oil sales and threatening Iranian gestures toward the regional oil flow in response.
"We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no
one,"
said Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, in July 2018. And
attacks
on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on June 13
could conceivably have been an expression of just that policy, if -- as
claimed by the United States -- they were indeed carried out by members of the
Revolutionary Guards. Any future attacks are only likely to spur US military action against
Iran in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. As Pentagon spokesperson Bill Urban
put it in response to Jafari's statement, "We stand ready to ensure the freedom of
navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows."
As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a
threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely
trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support
for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its
leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a
danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost.
If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word "oil" uttered
by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: That three-letter word lies at the
root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world's long-term fate.
Michael T.
Klare The Nation 's defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security
studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in
Washington, DC. His newest book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on
Climate Change , will be published this fall.
"... It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary ..."
"... But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position. ..."
"... Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different amounts. ..."
Crooke points out, correctly I believe, that the real issue is not nuclear, or the
oft-repeated foolish "largest state sponsor of terrorism," it is the revolutionary basis of
Iran's success in the Middle East, besting the Gulf dictators.
That bit about the revolution, I don't agree with. It's more the Iranian
renaissance that the Gulf States fear.
Two separate aspects need to be distinguished:
1) It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has
deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary right. Even within Iran, upper/middle class people I met had the same
attitude - a kind of hurt that they weren't running the country. The regime is of course
populist.
2) But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple
renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position.
The classic case is of course Bahrain, where the "king" is Sunni, and the vast mass of the
population Shi'a, and they're kept down by force, supported by the guns of the US 5th fleet.
But the case of Saudi is much more serious, because it's so much bigger, and every single oil
well is sitting under the feet of the Shi'a, and there are none anywhere else, certainly not
in the Saudi homeland of Najd, which is real camel-herder territory (to which we can expect
the Saudi princes to return, if ever the poor suffering Shi'a ever manage a successful
revolt).
Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle
Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different
amounts.
Those being: it's Shiia, it's populist, and it was indeed a political revolution. And for
all of them it represents a viable alternative to the way they wanted things to be. Now, I
think, it's too late. Many will take note of what they have done and how, it will be
studied.
As b mentioned, stay tuned for a major op. against the British East India
Company.
from the Tehran Times:
TEHRAN – Iran's Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi has demanded an immediate release of
an Iranian oil tanker seized by the British government, Fars reported.
"It seems that the British and Europeans are well aware of the Islamic Republic's reach
and potential , and accordingly, it is to their own benefit that they immediately release
this oil tanker, otherwise they should await the ramifications of their action," Raisi said
on Monday.
"... There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it. ..."
"... The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as related in a popular fairy tale. ..."
"... Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system. ..."
"... Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then. ..."
"... Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR. ..."
"... Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel to become the “western” power in the middle east. ..."
"... The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. ..."
"... America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America. ..."
"... By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s absolute capitulation. ..."
"... For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations, but the US refused. ..."
"... Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention the most powerful Shia Muslim nation. ..."
>>US President Donald Trump’s ruthless use of the centrality of his country’s financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Just spit-balling here: The Iranian leadership, with good cause, wants to diminish or eliminate the U.S. grip on the region
and this subversive, potentially destabilizing sentiment resonates among the citizenry of various Middle Eastern countries.
There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential
loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it.
The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear
an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as
related in a popular fairy tale.
This is hardly definitive and I’m sure others could elaborate.
Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to
control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system.
I’m sure this is obvious to most people at this kind of web site and is overly simplistic but i sense sometimes some people
are shocked about the conflict with Iran and don’t get that basic dynamic of this conflict.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important
for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR.
Mossadegh, by nationalising the oil supply until, played against the status and he was overthrown in a MI/CIA sponsored coup
in 1953, leaving the Shah as the sole ruler in Iran till the revolution of 1979 when Iran came under theocratic rule and basically
diminished the power the US had throughout the years of the Shah’s rule.
The US was also shown to be quite powerless -- short of an invasion -- to deal with the hostage crisis in the US embassy, which
was finally after more than a year resolved with the help of Canada.
Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel
to become the “western” power in the middle east.
The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with
the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war.
This U.S. approach towards Iran has been the result of its lack of an intrinsic interest in the country. The same was true
of Britain. The late Sir Denis Right, the UK’s ambassador to Iran in the 1960s, put it best by writing that Britain never considered
Iran of sufficient value to colonize it. But it found Iran useful as a buffer against the competing great power, the Russian
Empire. Thus, British policy towards Iran was to keep it moribund but not dead, at least not as long as the Russian threat
persisted.
America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance
to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But
Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America.
By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated
Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle
of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began.
Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s
absolute capitulation.
For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations,
but the US refused.
Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the
world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention
the most powerful Shia Muslim nation.
"... Aditya Chakrabortty ( It's reckless. But a Tory cash splurge could win an election , 3 July) is right to point out the hypocrisy of the political right about public expenditure. While progressive proposals for public spending are decried as burdening the hard-pressed taxpayer, the right is happy to use public money to rescue the banks or boost their electoral chances. ..."
"... As I explain in my book Money: Myths, Truths and Alternatives, neoliberal economics is built on a fairytale about money that distorts our view of how a contemporary public money system operates. It is assumed that public spending depends on extracting money from the market and that money (like gold) is always in short supply. Neither is true. Both the market and the state generate money – the market through bank lending and the state through public spending. Both increase the money supply, while bank loan repayments and taxation reduce it. There is no natural shortage of money – which today mainly exists only as data. ..."
Neoliberal economics and other fairytales about money Politics is not about a
struggle over a fixed pot of money, says Mary Mellor, and the best way to end austerity is to
reject it as an ideology, says Peter McKenna
Aditya Chakrabortty (
It's reckless. But a Tory cash splurge could win an election , 3 July) is right to point
out the hypocrisy of the political right about public expenditure. While progressive proposals
for public spending are decried as burdening the hard-pressed taxpayer, the right is happy to
use public money to rescue the banks or boost their electoral chances.
As I explain in my book Money: Myths, Truths and Alternatives, neoliberal economics is built
on a fairytale about money that distorts our view of how a contemporary public money system
operates. It is assumed that public spending depends on extracting money from the market and
that money (like gold) is always in short supply. Neither is true. Both the market and the
state generate money – the market through bank lending and the state through public
spending. Both increase the money supply, while bank loan repayments and taxation reduce it.
There is no natural shortage of money – which today mainly exists only as data.
The case for austerity missed the point. Politics is not about a struggle over a fixed pot
of money. What is limited are resources (particularly the environment) and human capacity. How
these are best used should be a matter of democratic debate. The allocation of money should
depend on the priorities identified. In this the market has no more claim than the public
economy to be the source of sustainable human welfare.
Professor Mary Mellor Newcastle upon Tyne
• Over the years Aditya Chakrabortty has provided us with powerful critiques of
austerity. His message now – that EU membership "is the best way to end austerity"
– overlooks the fact that the UK was in the EU all that time.
Moreover, the EU's stability and growth pact requires that budget deficits and public debt
be pegged below 3% and 60% of GDP respectively.
Such notions are the beating heart of austerity, and the European commission's excessive
deficit procedure taken against errant states has almost universally resulted in swingeing
austerity programmes. These were approved and monitored by the commission and council, with the
UK only taken off the naughty step in 2017 after years of crippling austerity finally reduced
the deficit to 2.3% of GDP.
The best way to end austerity – and to sway voters – is to reject austerity as
an ideology regardless of remain or leave, and rehabilitate the concept of public investment in
a people's economy.
Peter McKenna
Went on Kunstler's website with the tasteless name and read comment about Hannity
screaming to bomb Iran. And if Mr. Kunstler's facts are correct I imagine the Republicans
will be saving Mueller's answers for the next election. Whatever Mr. Kunstler has to say, he
says it well. What a mess. The way the bad guys have dug in and rigged the election process
and the "News" business, it is difficult to imagine anything can change.
The controls of our society have become so efficient it is tempting to say what the hell
and see if there is a good old film or an meaningful sporting event and let it go at
that.
In saying that, it brings to mind the other CN article about anti-war sentiment and
organizing against war and the war machine that has gone missing makes the point very well. I
do think the protest against the Iraq war was a watershed moment, when the protests were
simply ignored, and the in your face response by the powers that be.
Eddie S , July 4, 2019 at 10:01
"I do think the protest against the Iraq war was a watershed moment, when the protests
were simply ignored, and the in your face response by the powers that be."
Yes, I know that the whole Iraq War-crime episode was an extremely disheartening episode
to myself and millions of others who had marched in protest. It was horrible enough when the
neo-cons were able to blatantly orchestrate an illegal invasion (with the obeisance of the
long-cowed Democrats), but the RE-election of 'W' -- a year after the non-existence of the
WMDs was proven by our OWN invading military -- was in a political sense worse because it
showed that the majority of the US public was indifferent to illegal US invasions of other
countries, so there would be little resistance in the future to these 'wars'.
It was only when the media was portraying the deaths & bad injuries to US soldiers
occupying Iraq that a modest amount of public sentiment turned against the whole sordid
episode.
So the tacit message was pretty clear to powers that be -- - as long as US troops aren't
hurt, go-ahead and bomb-away those foreign men, women, and even children getting killed by
them don't matter, especially if our military leaders offer-up oh-so-sincere apologies and
state that 'these were unavoidable collateral civilian casualties because we only perform
surgical strikes on terrorists' (and said in a most serious, gravitas-laden tone, so you KNOW
they're telling the truth).
Windup , July 4, 2019 at 16:09
George wasn't 'elected' in the first place, let alone 're-elected'. I don't know if that
makes you feel better. Maybe it does- at least about the American public (at that point in
time anyway).
But it was certainly a forerunner to how we 'elect' our officials, which at this point is
more blatantly fraudulent. At least to those of us not reading/watching msm.
"... Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang. ..."
"... I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth. ..."
"... There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos". To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos. ..."
"... You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras. ..."
"... I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day. ..."
"... The purpose, and effect, of empire is theft. ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
How do you define terror? Perhaps, because of the way the term has evolved in the English
language, one wouldn't call the west 'terrorists' per se, but 'we' are certainly spreading
terror and terrorizing very large groups of people. Yeah, bring on the tanks and parade them
around town. Add a marching band that plays some war tunes.
The 'official' storyline : at the request of the US, Gibraltar police and UK marines have
seized an oil tanker in Gibraltar. The super-tanker, 1000 feet (330 meters) long, carrying 2
million barrels, had stopped there after sailing all around the Cape of Good Hope instead of
taking the Suez canal on its way, ostensibly, from Iran to Syria.
And, according to the storyline as presented to and in the western press, because the EU
still has sanctions on Iran, the British seized the ship. Another little detail I really
appreciate is that Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said Madrid was looking into
the seizure and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty since Spain does not recognize the waters
around Gibraltar as British.
That Borrell guy is the newly picked EU foreign policy czar, and according to some sources
he's supportive of Iran and critical of Israel. Them's the webs we weave. He's certainly in
favor of Palestinian statehood. But we're wandering
Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because potential
problems were anticipated in the Suez canal. But also: why dock in Gibraltar? Because no
problems were anticipated there. However, the US had been following the ship all along, and set
this up.
A trap, a set-up, give it a name. I would think this is about Iran, not about sanctions on
Syria; that's just a convenient excuse. Moreover, as people have been pointing out, there have
been countless arms deliveries to Syrian rebels in the past years (yes, that's illegal) which
were not seized.
The sanctions on Syria were always aimed at one goal: getting rid of Assad. That purpose
failed either miserably or spectacularly, depending on your point of view. It did achieve one
thing though, and if I were you I wouldn't be too sure this was not the goal all along.
That is, out of a pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations in 2016 identified
13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance; over 6 million are internally displaced
within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. About half a million are
estimated to have died, the same number as in Iraq.
And Assad is still there and probably stronger than ever. But it doesn't even matter whether
the US/UK/EU regime change efforts are successful or not, and I have no doubt they've always
known this. Their aim is to create chaos as a war tactic, and kill as many people as they can.
How do you define terror, terrorism? However you define it, 'we' are spreading it.
That grossly failed attempt to depose Assad has left Europe with a refugee problem it may
never be able to control. And the only reason there is such a problem is that Europe, in
particular Britain and France, along with the US, tried to bomb these people's homelands out of
existence. Because their leaders didn't want to conform to "our standards", i.e. have our oil
companies seize and control their supplies.
But while you weren't looking some things changed, irreversibly so. The US and Europe are no
longer the undisputed and overwhelming global military power they once were. Russia has become
a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their armies, assembled in NATO,
wouldn't stand a chance.
China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either. Their military prominence ended around the turn
of the century/millennium, and they're not going to get it back. Better make peace fast.
So what we've seen for a few decades now is proxy wars. In which Russia in particular has
been reluctant to engage but decisive when it does. Moscow didn't want to let Assad go, and so
they made sure he stayed. Syria is Russia's one single stronghold in the Middle East, and
deemed indispensable.
Meanwhile, as over half of Syrians, some 11 million people, have been forced to flee their
homes, with millions of them traumatized by war, 'we' elect to seize a tanker allegedly headed
for a refinery in the country, so we can make sure all those people have no oil or less oil for
a while longer.
So the refugees that do have the courage and will to return will find it that much harder to
rebuild their homes and towns, and will tell those still abroad not to join them. At the same
time Assad is doing fine, he may be the target of the sanctions but he doesn't suffer from
them, his people do.
Yes, let's parade some tanks around town. And let's praise the heroic UK marines who seized
an utterly defenseless oil tanker manned by a bunch of dirt-poor Philippinos. Yay! There is
probably some profound irony that explains why Trump and Bolton and Pompeo want a military
parade at the very moment the US military must concede defeat in all theaters but the
propaganda one.
Still there it is. The only people the US, the west, can still credibly threaten, are
defenseless civilians, women, children. The leaders of nations are out of reach. Maduro, Assad,
let alone Putin or Xi.
Happy 4th of July. Not sure how independent you yourself are, but I can see a few people who
did achieve independence from western terror. Just not the poor, the ones that count. But don't
look at the tanks, look at the wind instead. The winds are shifting.
The EU has been a sticking plaster and a shot of Novocain at the open wound that is
Gibraltar. Without that stabilising influence, that plaster is about to be ripped off and a
slash of neat peroxide is about to be poured onto it.
Watch for more -- unpleasant -- developments coming soon on this one.
I wondered about that myself. There could be an unspoken message now out that the UK gets
to say who gets to use the Straits of Gibraltar. I am sure that the Spanish would see no
problem with that. One thing is sure. That is a few more countries that the UK has completely
antagonized now which will come back to bite it post-Brexit.
Thank you and well said, Gentlemen, Clive, the Reverend and the author, and to Yves for
sharing.
The winds are indeed shifting, but as long as defeat is not obvious in the propaganda
theatre, that's all that matters.
The NC community, especially Anonymous 2, David and Harry, have often written about the
calibre of civil servants in the Treasury with regard to Brexit, it's the same with the
Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Middle East experts, often termed "Arabists", have left, often forced out for ideological
reasons. They would have cautioned against such adventures. The newer and younger breed of
Foreign Office officials, e.g. the co-author of the dodgy / sexed up (WMD) dossier Matthew
Rycroft, and some veterans like John Scarlet, now retired and consulting with former Tory MP
James Arbuthnott (whose wife "presided" over Assange's recent hearing), are far more
ideological (neo con) and willing to blur the boundaries between impartial advice and
enabling what politicians want. There are few, if any regional, specialists at the Foreign
Office any more.
Sadly, it's the same with the officer corps, more ideological, enablers and less, if at
all, cognizant of the strategic implications of such actions.
As the above happens, HMG becomes more and more dependent on advice from the likes of US
neo con think tanks, especially the Henry Jackson Society. Unlike at the Treasury and Bank of
England, so far, no such neo cons and neo liberals have been imported from the former
colonies by the Foreign Office.
As both Clive and the Reverend conclude, watch out for more unpleasant developments things
that come back to bite the UK.
Maybe there is something else behind it, but it does seem to be a very clumsy operation
– its annoyed a lot of important people (not least in Spain) at just the time when this
isn't needed for the UK. I wonder if the neocon element in Whitehall is using the interregnum
in power to seek to bind the UK even more firmly to the US post Brexit.
"Russia has become a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their
armies, assembled in NATO, wouldn't stand a chance."
I am not sure the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats in the UK (or the US) know
this.
As the Colonel observes, people with specialist knowledge are being replaced with
ideologically-motivated enablers. And the Pentagon and its NATO assets stress their ability
to wage a "limited" nuclear war
"China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either."
Indeed. And I would suggest China's "might level" is very close to not only Russia's but the
US's. Just as a for instance: the PLAN (Peoples' Liberation Army Navy) has instituted
probably the largest ship building program in history. All its newer vessels are equal to or
(significantly?) better than comparable US types.
All this war talk about just how fabulously strong, or not, this and that polity is
annoyingly ignorant; let's look at the reality that China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
the Philippines, would all be facing strong food shortages without any harvest failures. With
even moderate shortfalls, add in the rest of the world as countries start scrambling for food
to stockpile even those who are completely self sufficient. The United States has destroyed
it industrial base so much that it cannot provide all the parts, tools, white goods,
clothing, etc that it needs just to function daily. I have not checked Russia's economy, but
I suspect that like the UK, or any European country it needs other countries to survive.
One of the reasons that the British almost lost World War One, that Germany did, and the
nations that used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire did so poorly after that war was the
breaking up of all those trade connections. Everyone was gung-ho on war or independence, but
no-one has made any plans whatsoever on to run their economy(ies) after the first few years
of war or peace. And no, sticking it all on the Germans did not work either.
I'm starting to get that last election feeling where previous sorts went a bit curious
when confronted with the choices and the past went poof . strangest thing[s]
Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much
garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new
boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the
president the news that this stuff is for show only.
The Israelis claim to like the F-35 and to have used it in Syria to attack Syrian Air
Defense installations after the Syrian Air Defense installations fired at their other manned
aircraft.
That's something of an endorsement of it's capabilities. How much I don't know.
I think the issue of Israeli use of US aircraft is complex – the US seems to have
pressurised Israel to drop its own aircraft, the Lavi , and it may well have been that giving
Israel priority with the F-35 was part of the quid quo pro over that. For many
countries, choosing the F-35 seems to owe more to politics than defence considerations.
I have, for some time, been of the opinion that one of the (relatively minor) reasons that
Turkey went with the S-400's is that it gets them out of the F-35 contract without legal
financial penalties. I bet the reports of the Turkish crews training in the US have been
scathing.
I have wondered if the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or the Su-57 might be good contenders.
I think it was RT that reported the other day that Russia is planning on starting full
production of the Su-57 in 2020. Given that it was speculated that production of the Su-57
was too expensive with the Russian Federation as the only customer, I wonder who might be
interested. China? Renewed Indian interest? Turkey ?
Personally, I think we in Canada should ask Sukho to submit a bid for our fighter
replacement program.
> But this time I thought how awful it would be to hear those monsters and know they
were loaded with missiles and there was no safe place to hide.
Around here there is a boat race where the military flies jets for show and quite a few
years ago, on a Saturday,while I was tinkering in the garage, this one pilot, and he or she
must have been having a grand old time, really put on a show. For half an hour to an hour the
neighborhood was subjected to the most thunderous roar, it made my skin crawl and hair stand
up, and I started thinking about and getting a tiny taste of the terror people that are
actual targets of this machine get.
On Sunday, there was no "air" show. So many people bitched and complained about Saturday
the military or show organizers called it off. Phone calls to stop the jets does not work in
the middle east, however.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the sanction-busting war profiteers losing their illicit
cargo? Or am I supposed to feel sorry for Assad not being able to top off the gas tank on his
human rights violating war wagon?
Nobody's cool with the jingoism coming from the White House. But if the tanks come out for
only just this one very special episode of the Apprentice, the people of earth have dodged a
very obnoxious golden BB.
You're supposed to feel sorry for millions America killed in Syria and many other nations,
and the tens of millions she displaced from their homes.
According to the U.N., Nobel Peace prize winning Obama caused the greatest refugee crisis
since WW2 with all the browned skinned nations he bombed until America ran out of bombs and
then he made more and bombed again – Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Ukraine who have I missed there so many .
Said another way, The War on Terror IS terrorism.
About 10 years I started to realize the U.S. is an Evil Empire, a force for evil in the
world.
Happy 4th.
And may the bombing continue until there is peace. There are so many countries this great
nation has not yet bombed. Maybe we're just getting warmed up.
Google "UN says greatest refugee crisis since world war" and you'll annual reports
starting about 2014 till about 2017 – the Apex of the Obama wars – each year
replacing the previous year as all time records as humanitarian disasters.
Interesting word "illicit" meaning "outside the law." So exactly what law gives the
Americans and their faithful poodles the authority to do this?
Gibraltar was once the playground of the Barbary Pirates so it is an appropriate venue for
the hegemon to engage in a little piracy of its own. But Ilargi may be right that the winds
are shifting and bullies will get their comeuppance.
Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang.
I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is
bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies
emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the
Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor
Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth.
It makes the whole enterprise ridiculous – no one but the stupidest and most
brainwashed believes the filthy liars. Terrible that our ruling class are traitors to the
country – because why lie unless you have no respect for those ruled? Lie to the stupid
cattle – let them repeat the lies and laugh at their stupidity.
The Iranians are calling it piracy and now claim the right to seize any British oil tanker
in their waters. Perhaps they have passed "sanctions" against the Brits or the EU.
I'm thinking of passing some sanctions myself under my sovereign powers and seizing some
stuff. Hey why not? EU says it's ok.
Sanctions are for OUR profiteers, not their. We impose them so that our corporations and
profiteers can benefit from higher blackmark prices. When others cut into the profit it will
not be tolerated.
I think the glass jaw is appropriate, long time PR machinations are finding it harder to
peddle, considering the outcomes, hence the need for rather vulgar public displays of
military Sergeant Major marching up and down the field too imbue greatness on the unwashed by
proxy whilst swirling down the gurgler.
This is made even more surreal by grandiose gestures of minuscule proportions magnified
way beyond their scope in the big scheme of things sans a modern news cycle.
For some ridiculous reason I keep envisioning all the new data on shipwrecks during the
east indies company era and the findings .. silly me
I still don't understand why so many "commentators" have to try discussing
important topics without considering basic facts.
There are classes of ships called, for instance, Panamax or now specifically Suezmax.
These are the largest vessels that can transit said canals. The Panama Canal has locks
of a specific size and therefore there is a hard limit. Suezmax is a bit harder to define
because, without locks, it can vary some.
But there is a maximum and at just a first glance this vessel is at least near it.
"Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because
potential problems were anticipated in the Suez canal." Well, yes. But which problems.
There seem to be many, starting with the fact that the Grace 1 is under the Iranian
flag. But besides that, it is not at all unusual for a vessel of that size to sail around
the
Cape. There are many reasons. I, myself, have made a longer passage in a smaller
vessel – 13100 nautical miles from Kharg Island in Iran to New Brunswick
(Irving refinery). Around the Cape. Nobody was particularly surprised.
Reminiscent of all those US "journalists" piling on to an Aeroflot flight to Havana in
search of Edward Snowden. They, and the world, were certain he was aboard, until
the craft flew over downtown Miami.
Yes, that would be unusual but according to the articles of engagement
it could happen.
More relevant though is that there are lots of reasons for
a loaded tanker to take an indirect route not necessarily having
much to do with the ownership of the cargo. The "tanker trackers"
don't seem to be unduly surprised by the itinerary. Happens every
day.
Incidentally, I was once on a tanker sailing from Providence, RI
with orders to "steam due south until you hear from us". That could
have led to some interesting results. In the event, however, we
ended up in India after a change in engagements. The return leg
of that voyage was the 13100 mile passage I mentioned earlier.
Another time I thought I was going somewhere in the Caribbean and
ended up on a circumnavigation. Hey, it's normal. Let's not get too
excited about somebody who wants to go around the Cape instead
of risking Suez.
By the way, my experiences all occurred under the US flag so why
try to find some strange dirt on the Iranians when they are only
doing what everybody else does.
I don't think that you get it. The US seized a North Korean ship a few weeks back and now
the US had the UK seize an Iranian ship on 'suspicions'. Do you really want to see an
international situation for trade where ships can be seized as political pawns and sold? Or
maybe airplanes as well? The big insurance companies certainly want to know. The Iranians are
saying that they now have the right to seize a British ship in retaliation. Will the Brits
sell that captured ship? Will they sell the oil aboard or take it back to the UK for their
own use? Do we really want to see a widespread return to Prize Laws again?
Can we give you some sort of award for admitting you made a mistake with your first post,
and then admonishing us to "engage brain before operating mouth" ?
"Game of Thrones" LOL!! The more time changes the more it stays the same!
It's "piracy" if "they" do it to us (or our co-conspirators); it's "legal sanctions" if we do
"it" to "them".
What a farcical, lying, two-faced world we live in!
There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos".
To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos.
Has this been the "plan" for this period
since the end of World War Two? Even if it is not a "conspiracy", but rather a "concatenation
of interests", what difference does this terminology make to those suffering the boot
heel?
You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions
of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes
to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras.
Neither the Reagan Years (and those years before) nor the Obama Years have been a picnic
for many that live anywhere in CA (other than possibly CR and Panama). Not that most of those
running those countries are in any way innocent, particularly those that we funneled arms and
money to.
I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of
the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day.
re: Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline?
in case anyone else has not yet noted it, super tankers, VLCCs that can carry as much as 2
million barrels, cannot get through the Suez canal, which is limited to oil tankers in the
aptly named "Suezmax" class, less than half that size
Yeah this is not a well educated writer. Contradicts his own story at one point, and no
the US can't afford to get into a major war,but that does mean they lose either, the other
side would still lose more.
The winds change are blowing, indeed. Is that the fog of war on the horizon, or the
smokestacks of progress? Neither is good for the environment but as they say, fight one
battle at a time.
America's War On Terror has long since become the War OF Terrorism and it's good to see
the rest of the world has not only caught on but is doing something about it. Great Britain
went quietly and prospered. Will America do the same or will it struggle against the
inevitable? I suspect a bit of both. We do love to kill poor innocent brown people, after
all. It's what we're best at.
Time to find another line of work. Surely we can find something more productive to do?
The war on terror is a war on non-combatants. Its western terrorists, spooks and soldiers,
against Asian terrorists, Muslims.The other form of terrorism against non-combatants is
nuclear war – that's when the military attacks civilian targets like we did in WWII in
Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo but using more destructive ordinance.
Can we say, in light of the regular failures of our initiatives overseas, that we the
people are expecting something that is not intended. We imagine war is fought to achieve
unconditional surrender and bring the humiliated enemy to our feet begging for life but
perhaps these attacks in the Middle East and North Africa are not for a military victory at
all but to take away the natural resources of those countries, using the fog of war to
conceal our purpose?
China calls Trump's bluff; Trump blinks on sanctions threat
span ed by gjohnsit on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 4:37pm
Trump made it perfectly clear: No one will buy Iranian oil and still do business with
America. That includes
China .
Two Trump administration officials said on Friday that neither a wind-down period nor a
short-term waiver on China's oil purchases from Iran are being contemplated after Washington
surprised Iran's customers on Monday by demanding they halt the purchases by May 1 or face
sanctions.
The administration has been clear to China, Iran's top oil consumer, about no additional
waivers to the sanctions after the ones granted last November, one of the senior officials
said.
No additional waivers. No wind-down period.
It's clear and final.
China is buying Iranian oil in defiance of US sanctions and providing what Tehran hopes will
be a financial lifeline for the country's buckling economy.
Although Beijing customs data show crude purchases from Iran are down month-on-month,
China is still importing Tehran's oil despite US measures designed to cut exports to
"zero".
Last week the Chinese received their first delivery of an Iranian oil cargo since the
Trump administration in May scrapped exemptions on Iranian sanctions.
So Trump is a big, tough, strongman. So what do you think he's going to do when he's
challenged?
He's going to fold .
But according to three U.S. officials, the department's Iran czar, Brian Hook, and his team
of negotiators have discussed granting China a waiver to a 2012 law intended to kneecap the
Iranian oil industry. The alternative is allowing China, which recently welcomed a shipment
of approximately a million barrels of Iranian oil, openly to defy U.S. sanctions.
...
The 2012 Iran Freedom and Counterproliferation Act targeted the Iranian shipping,
shipbuilding and energy sectors, requiring states or companies that wish to import Iranian
oil and conduct business with the U.S. to obtain waivers from the U.S. government. A separate
law targeted purchases, rather than imports of that oil.
Officials say the State Department is discussing an arrangement that would allow China to
import Iranian oil as payment in kind for sizable investments of the Chinese oil company
Sinopec in an Iranian oil field -- and administration officials have offered to issue a
waiver for the payback oil in official correspondence between the State Department and
Sinopec, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The waiver is merely a face-saving measure. China is going to continue to defy the sanctions
one way or another.
And if China gets a waiver then
India will too.
As it stands, India has halted buying Iranian oil, but that has just pushed them into buying
more
Russian oil .
"... The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers ..."
"... It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent on the United States ..."
"... American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got to lose." ..."
"... The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president ..."
"... Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market, and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat in Latin America. ..."
"... The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments problems ..."
"... The IMF enables its wealthy constituency to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss ..."
"... Wall Street speculators have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style. ..."
"... When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. ..."
"... Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products. ..."
"... Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries. ..."
"... This control by the U.S. financial system and its diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism. ..."
"... The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires holding their money in Switzerland ..."
"... The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF so vicious an institution. ..."
"... America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other. ..."
"... You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap in Korea and other Asian countries. ..."
"... This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight. ..."
"... Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors. ..."
"... But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's called "grandfathering". ..."
"The purpose of a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose
tribute. The genius of the World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute,
or to take over its industry, agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries
play an artificial economic game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing
and loss of life by soldiers."
I'm Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter: Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show: The IMF and World Bank: Partners In Backwardness
. Dr. Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is President of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend,
a Wall Street Financial Analyst, and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
His most recent books include " and Forgive them Their Debts: Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance
to the Jubilee Year "; Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy , and J Is for
Junk Economics: A Guide to Reality in an Age of Deception . He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
, among many other books.
We return today to a discussion of Dr. Hudson's seminal 1972 book, Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire
, a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies through the IMF and World Bank, with a special emphasis on
food imperialism.
... ... ...
Bonnie Faulkner : In your seminal work form 1972, Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire ,
you write: "The development lending of the World Bank has been dysfunctional from the outset." When was the World Bank set up and
by whom?
Michael Hudson : It was set up basically by the United States in 1944, along with its sister institution, the International
Monetary Fund (IMF). Their purpose was to create an international order like a funnel to make other countries economically dependent
on the United States. To make sure that no other country or group of countries – even all the rest of the world – could not
dictate U.S. policy. American diplomats insisted on the ability to veto any action by the World Bank or IMF. The aim of this
veto power was to make sure that any policy was, in Donald Trump's words, to put America first. "We've got to win and they've got
to lose."
The World Bank was set up from the outset as a branch of the military, of the Defense Department. John J. McCloy (Assistant
Secretary of War, 1941-45), was the first full-time president. He later became Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (1953-60).
McNamara was Secretary of Defense (1961-68), Paul Wolfowitz was Deputy and Under Secretary of Defense (1989-2005), and Robert Zoellick
was Deputy Secretary of State. So I think you can look at the World Bank as the soft shoe of American diplomacy.
Bonnie Faulkner : What is the difference between the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the IMF? Is
there a difference?
Michael Hudson : Yes, there is. The World Bank was supposed to make loans for what they call international development.
"Development" was their euphemism for dependency on U.S. exports and finance. This dependency entailed agricultural backwardness
– opposing land reform, family farming to produce domestic food crops, and also monetary backwardness in basing their monetary system
on the dollar.
The World Bank was supposed to provide infrastructure loans that other countries would go into debt to pay American engineering
firms, to build up their export sectors and their plantation sectors by public investment roads and port development for imports
and exports. Essentially, the Bank financed long- investments in the foreign trade sector, in a way that was a natural continuation
of European colonialism.
In 1941, for example, C. L. R. James wrote an article on "Imperialism in Africa" pointing out the fiasco of European railroad
investment in Africa: "Railways must serve flourishing industrial areas, or densely populated agricult5ural regions, or they must
open up new land along which a thriving population develops and provides the railways with traffic. Except in the mining regions
of South Africa, all these conditions are absent. Yet railways were needed, for the benefit of European investors and heavy industry."
That is why, James explained "only governments can afford to operate them," while being burdened with heavy interest obligations.
[1] What was "developed" was Africa's
mining and plantation export sector, not its domestic economies. The World Bank followed this pattern of "development" lending without
apology.
The IMF was in charge of short-term foreign currency loans. Its aim was to prevent countries from imposing capital controls to
protect their balance of payments. Many countries had a dual exchange rate: one for trade in goods and services, the other rate
for capital movements. The function of the IMF and World Bank was essentially to make other countries borrow in dollars, not in
their own currencies, and to make sure that if they could not pay their dollar-denominated debts, they had to impose austerity on
the domestic economy – while subsidizing their import and export sectors and protecting foreign investors, creditors and client
oligarchies from loss.
The IMF developed a junk-economics model pretending that any country can pay any amount of debt to the creditors if it just impoverishes
its labor enough. So when countries were unable to pay their debt service, the IMF tells them to raise their interest rates to bring
on a depression – austerity – and break up the labor unions. That is euphemized as "rationalizing labor markets." The rationalizing
is essentially to disable labor unions and the public sector. The aim – and effect – is to prevent countries from essentially following
the line of development that had made the United States rich – by public subsidy and protection of domestic agriculture, public
subsidy and protection of industry and an active government sector promoting a New Deal democracy. The IMF was essentially promoting
and forcing other countries to balance their trade deficits by letting American and other investors buy control of their commanding
heights, mainly their infrastructure monopolies, and to subsidize their capital flight.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Now, Michael, when you began speaking about the IMF and monetary controls, you mentioned that there
were two exchange rates of currency in countries. What were you referring to?
MICHAEL HUDSON : When I went to work on Wall Street in the '60s, I was balance-of-payments economist for Chase Manhattan,
and we used the IMF's monthly International Financial Statistics every month. At the top of each country's statistics would
be the exchange-rate figures. Many countries had two rates: one for goods and services, which was set normally by the market,
and then a different exchange rate that was managed for capital movements. That was because countries were trying to prevent capital
flight. They didn't want their wealthy classes or foreign investors to make a run on their own currency – an ever-present threat
in Latin America.
The IMF and the World Bank backed the cosmopolitan classes, the wealthy. Instead of letting countries control their capital
outflows and prevent capital flight, the IMF's job is to protect the richest One Percent and foreign investors from balance-of-payments
problems.
The World Bank and American diplomacy have steered them into a chronic currency crisis. The IMF enables its wealthy constituency
to move their money out of the country without taking a foreign-exchange loss. It makes loans to support capital flight out
of domestic currencies into the dollar or other hard currencies. The IMF calls this a "stabilization" program. It is never effective
in helping the debtor economy pay foreign debts out of growth. Instead, the IMF uses currency depreciation and sell-offs of public
infrastructure and other assets to foreign investors after the flight capital has left and currency collapses. Wall Street speculators
have sold the local currency short to make a killing, George-Soros style.
When the debtor-country currency collapses, the debts that these Latin American countries owe are in dollars, and now have
to pay much more in their own currency to carry and pay off these debts. We're talking about enormous penalty rates in domestic
currency for these countries to pay foreign-currency debts – basically taking on to finance a non-development policy and to subsidize
capital flight when that policy "fails" to achieve its pretended objective of growth.
All hyperinflations of Latin America – Chile early on, like Germany after World War I – come from trying to pay foreign debts
beyond the ability to be paid. Local currency is thrown onto the foreign-exchange market for dollars, lowering the exchange
rate. That increases import prices, raising a price umbrella for domestic products.
A really functional and progressive international monetary fund that would try to help countries develop would say: "Okay, banks
and we (the IMF) have made bad loans that the country can't pay. And the World Bank has given it bad advice, distorting its domestic
development to serve foreign customers rather than its own growth. So we're going to write down the loans to the ability to be paid."
That's what happened in 1931, when the world finally stopped German reparations payments and Inter-Ally debts to the United States
stemming from World War I.
Instead, the IMF says just the opposite: It acts to prevent any move by other countries to bring the debt volume within
the ability to be paid. It uses debt leverage as a way to control the monetary lifeline of financially defeated debtor countries.
So if they do something that U.S. diplomats don't approve of, it can pull the plug financially, encouraging a run on their currency
if they act independently of the United States instead of falling in line. This control by the U.S. financial system and its
diplomacy has been built into the world system by the IMF and the World Bank claiming to be international instead of an expression
of specifically U.S. New Cold War nationalism.
BONNIE FAULKNER : How do exchange rates contribute to capital flight?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's not the exchange rate that contributes. Suppose that you're a millionaire, and you see that your
country is unable to balance its trade under existing production patterns. The money that the government has under control is pesos,
escudos, cruzeiros or some other currency, not dollars or euros. You see that your currency is going to go down relative to the
dollar, so you want to get our money out of the country to preserve your purchasing power.
This has long been institutionalized. By 1990, for instance, Latin American countries had defaulted so much in the wake of the
Mexico defaults in 1982 that I was hired by Scudder Stevens, to help start a Third World Bond Fund (called a "sovereign high-yield
fund"). At the time, Argentina and Brazil were running such serious balance-of-payments deficits that they were having to pay 45
percent per year interest, in dollars, on their dollar debt. Mexico, was paying 22.5 percent on its tesobonos .
Scudders' salesmen went around to the United States and tried to sell shares in the proposed fund, but no Americans would buy
it, despite the enormous yields. They sent their salesmen to Europe and got a similar reaction. They had lost their shirts on Third
World bonds and couldn't see how these countries could pay.
Merrill Lynch was the fund's underwriter. Its office in Brazil and in Argentina proved much more successful in selling investments
in Scudder's these offshore fund established in the Dutch West Indies. It was an offshore fund, so Americans were not able to buy
it. But Brazilian and Argentinian rich families close to the central bank and the president became the major buyers. We realized
that they were buying these funds because they knew that their government was indeed going to pay their stipulated interest charges.
In effect, the bonds were owed ultimately to themselves. So these Yankee dollar bonds were being bought by Brazilians and other
Latin Americans as a vehicle to move their money out of their soft local currency (which was going down), to buy bonds denominated
in hard dollars.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If wealthy families from these countries bought these bonds denominated in dollars, knowing that they
were going to be paid off, who was going to pay them off? The country that was going broke?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Well, countries don't pay; the taxpayers pay, and in the end, labor pays. The IMF certainly doesn't want
to make its wealthy client oligarchies pay. It wants to squeeze ore economic surplus out of the labor force. So countries are told
that the way they can afford to pay their enormously growing dollar-denominated debt is to lower wages even more.
Currency depreciation is an effective way to do this, because what is devalued is basically labor's wages. Other elements of
exports have a common world price: energy, raw materials, capital goods, and credit under the dollar-centered international monetary
system that the IMF seeks to maintain as a financial strait jacket.
According to the IMF's ideological models, there's no limit to how far you can lower wages by enough to make labor competitive
in producing exports. The IMF and World Bank thus use junk economics to pretend that the way to pay debts owed to the wealthiest
creditors and investors is to lower wages and impose regressive excise taxes, to impose special taxes on necessities that labor
needs, from food to energy and basic services supplied by public infrastructure.
BONNIE FAULKNER: So you're saying that labor ultimately has to pay off these junk bonds?
MICHAEL HUDSON: That is the basic aim of IMF. I discuss its fallacies in my Trade Development and Foreign Debt
, which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism . These two books show that the World Bank and IMF were viciously
anti-labor from the very outset, working with domestic elites whose fortunes are tied to and loyal to the United States.
BONNIE FAULKNER : With regard to these junk bonds, who was it or what entity
MICHAEL HUDSON : They weren't junk bonds. They were called that because they were high-interest bonds, but they weren't
really junk because they actually were paid. Everybody thought they were junk because no American would have paid 45 percent interest.
Any country that really was self-reliant and was promoting its own economic interest would have said, "You banks and the IMF have
made bad loans, and you've made them under false pretenses – a trade theory that imposes austerity instead of leading to prosperity.
We're not going to pay." They would have seized the capital flight of their comprador elites and said that these dollar bonds were
a rip-off by the corrupt ruling class.
The same thing happened in Greece a few years ago, when almost all of Greece's foreign debt was owed to Greek millionaires
holding their money in Switzerland. The details were published in the "Legarde List." But the IMF said, in effect that its
loyalty was to the Greek millionaires who ha their money in Switzerland. The IMF could have seized this money to pay off the
bondholders. Instead, it made the Greek economy pay. It found that it was worth wrecking the Greek economy, forcing emigration and
wiping out Greek industry so that French and German bondholding banks would not have to take a loss. That is what makes the IMF
so vicious an institution.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So these loans to foreign countries that were regarded as junk bonds really weren't junk, because
they were going to be paid. What group was it that jacked up these interest rates to 45 percent?
MICHAEL HUDSON : The market did. American banks, stock brokers and other investors looked at the balance of payments of
these countries and could not see any reasonable way that they could pay their debts, so they were not going to buy their bonds.
No country subject to democratic politics would have paid debts under these conditions. But the IMF, U.S. and Eurozone diplomacy
overrode democratic choice.
Investors didn't believe that the IMF and the World Bank had such a strangle hold over Latin American, Asian, and African countries
that they could make the countries act in the interest of the United States and the cosmopolitan finance capital, instead of in
their own national interest. They didn't believe that countries would commit financial suicide just to pay their wealthy One Percent.
They were wrong, of course. Countries were quite willing to commit economic suicide if their governments were dictatorships propped
up by the United States. That's why the CIA has assassination teams and actively supports these countries to prevent any party coming
to power that would act in their national interest instead of in the interest of a world division of labor and production along
the lines that the U.S. planners want for the world. Under the banner of what they call a free market, you have the World Bank and
the IMF engage in central planning of a distinctly anti-labor policy. Instead of calling them Third World bonds or junk bonds, you
should call them anti-labor bonds, because they have become a lever to impose austerity throughout the world.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Well, that makes a lot of sense, Michael, and answers a lot of the questions I've put together to ask
you. What about Puerto Rico writing down debt? I thought such debts couldn't be written down.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's what they all said, but the bonds were trading at about 45 cents on the dollar, the risk of their
not being paid. The Wall Street Journal on June 17, reported that unsecured suppliers and creditors of Puerto Rico, would
only get nine cents on the dollar. The secured bond holders would get maybe 65 cents on the dollar.
The terms are being written down because it's obvious that Puerto Rico can't pay, and that trying to do so is driving the population
to move out of Puerto Rico to the United States. If you don't want Puerto Ricans to act the same way Greeks did and leave Greece
when their industry and economy was shut down, then you're going to have to provide stability or else you're going to have half
of Puerto Rico living in Florida.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Who wrote down the Puerto Rican debt?
MICHAEL HUDSON : A committee was appointed, and it calculated how much Puerto Rico can afford to pay out of its taxes.
Puerto Rico is a U.S. dependency, that is, an economic colony of the United States. It does not have domestic self-reliance. It's
the antithesis of democracy, so it's never been in charge of its own economic policy and essentially has to do whatever the United
States tells it to do. There was a reaction after the hurricane and insufficient U.S. support to protect the island and the enormous
waste and corruption involved in the U.S. aid. The U.S. response was simply: "We won you fair and square in the Spanish-American
war and you're an occupied country, and we're going to keep you that way." Obviously this is causing a political resentment.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You've already touched on this, but why has the World Bank traditionally been headed by a U.S. secretary
of defense?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its job is to do in the financial sphere what, in the past, was done by military force. The purpose of
a military conquest is to take control of foreign economies, to take control of their land and impose tribute. The genius of the
World Bank was to recognize that it's not necessary to occupy a country in order to impose tribute, or to take over its industry,
agriculture and land. Instead of bullets, it uses financial maneuvering. As long as other countries play an artificial economic
game that U.S. diplomacy can control, finance is able to achieve today what used to require bombing and loss of life by soldiers.
In this case the loss of life occurs in the debtor countries. Population growth shrinks, suicides go up. The World Bank engages
in economic warfare that is just as destructive as military warfare. At the end of the Yeltsin period Russia's President Putin said
that American neoliberalism destroyed more of Russia's population than did World War II. Such neoliberalism, which basically is
the doctrine of American supremacy and foreign dependency, is the policy of the World Bank and IMF.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why has World Bank policy since its inception been to provide loans for countries to devote their land
to export crops instead of giving priority to feeding themselves? And if this is the case, why do countries want these loans?
MICHAEL HUDSON : One constant of American foreign policy is to make other countries dependent on American grain exports
and food exports. The aim is to buttress America's agricultural trade surplus. So the first thing that the World Bank has done is
not to make any domestic currency loans to help food producers. Its lending has steered client countries to produce tropical export
crops, mainly plantation crops that cannot be grown in the United States. Focusing on export crops leads client countries to become
dependent on American farmers – and political sanctions.
In the 1950s, right after the Chinese revolution, the United States tried to prevent China from succeeding by imposing grain
export controls to starve China into submission by putting sanctions on exports. Canada was the country that broke these export
controls and helped feed China.
The idea is that if you can make other countries export plantation crops, the oversupply will drive down prices for cocoa and
other tropical products, and they won't feed themselves. So instead of backing family farms like the American agricultural policy
does, the World Bank backed plantation agriculture. In Chile, which has the highest natural supply of fertilizer in the world from
its guano deposits, exports guano instead of using it domestically. It also has the most unequal land distribution, blocking it
from growing its own grain or food crops. It's completely dependent on the United States for this, and it pays by exporting copper,
guano and other natural resources.
The idea is to create interdependency – one-sided dependency on the U.S. economy. The United States has always aimed at being
self-sufficient in its own essentials, so that no other country can pull the plug on our economy and say, "We're going to starve
you by not feeding you." Americans can feed themselves. Other countries can't say, "We're going to let you freeze in the dark by
not sending you oil," because America's independent in energy. But America can use the oil control to make other countries freeze
in the dark, and it can starve other countries by food-export sanctions.
So the idea is to give the United States control of the key interconnections of other economies, without letting any country
control something that is vital to the working of the American economy.
There's a double standard here. The United States tells other countries: "Don't do as we do. Do as we say." The only way it can
enforce this is by interfering in the politics of these countries, as it has interfered in Latin America, always pushing the right
wing. For instance, when Hillary's State Department overthrew the Honduras reformer who wanted to undertake land reform and feed
the Hondurans, she said: "This person has to go." That's why there are so many Hondurans trying to get into the United States now,
because they can't live in their own country.
The effect of American coups is the same in Syria and Iraq. They force an exodus of people who no longer can make a living under
the brutal dictatorships supported by the United States to enforce this international dependency system.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So when I asked you why countries would want these loans, I guess you're saying that they wouldn't,
and that's why the U.S. finds it necessary to control them politically.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a concise way of putting it Bonnie.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why are World Bank loans only in foreign currency, not in the domestic currency of the country to which
it is lending?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's a good point. A basic principle should be to avoid borrowing in a foreign currency. A country
can always pay the loans in its own currency, but there's no way that it can print dollars or euros to pay loans denominated in
these foreign currencies.
Making the dollar central forces other countries to interface with the U.S. banking system. So if a country decides to go its
own way, as Iran did in 1953 when it wanted to take over its oil from British Petroleum (or Anglo Iranian Oil, as it was called
back then), the United States can interfere and overthrow it. The idea is to be able to use the banking system's interconnections
to stop payments from being made.
After America installed the Shah's dictatorship, they were overthrown by Khomeini, and Iran had run up a U.S. dollar debt under
the Shah. It had plenty of dollars. I think Chase Manhattan was its paying agent. So when its quarterly or annual debt payment came
due, Iran told Chase to draw on its accounts and pay the bondholders. But Chase took orders from the State Department or the Defense
Department, I don't know which, and refused to pay. When the payment was not made, America and its allies claimed that Iran was
in default. They demanded the entire debt to be paid, as per the agreement that the Shah's puppet government had signed. America
simply grabbed the deposits that Iran had in the United States. This is the money that was finally returned to Iran without interest
under the agreement of 2016.
America was able to grab all of Iran's foreign exchange just by the banks interfering. The CIA has bragged that it can do
the same thing with Russia. If Russia does something that U.S. diplomats don't like, the U.S. can use the SWIFT bank payment system
to exclude Russia from it, so the Russian banks and the Russian people and industry won't be able to make payments to each other.
This prompted Russia to create its own bank-transfer system, and is leading China, Russia, India and Pakistan to draft plans
to de-dollarize.
BONNIE FAULKNER : I was going to ask you, why would loans in a country's domestic currency be preferable to the country
taking out a loan in a foreign currency? I guess you've explained that if they took out a loan in a domestic currency, they would
be able to repay it.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Whereas a loan in a foreign currency would cripple them.
MICHAEL HUDSON : Yes. You can't create the money, especially if you're running a balance of payments deficit and if
U.S. foreign policy forces you into deficit by having someone like George Soros make a run on your currency. Look at the Asia crisis
in 1997. Wall Street funds bet against foreign currencies, driving them way down, and then used the money to pick up industry cheap
in Korea and other Asian countries.
This was also done to Russia's ruble. The only country that avoided this was Malaysia, under Mohamed Mahathir, by using capital
controls. Malaysia is an object lesson in how to prevent a currency flight.
But for Latin America and other countries, much of their foreign debt is held by their own ruling class. Even though it's denominated
in dollars, Americans don't own most of this debt. It's their own ruling class. The IMF and World Bank dictate tax policy to Latin
America – to un-tax wealth and shift the burden onto labor. Client kleptocracies take their money and run, moving it abroad
to hard currency areas such as the United States, or at least keeping it in dollars in offshore banking centers instead of reinvesting
it to help the country catch up by becoming independent agriculturally, in energy, finance and other sectors.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You say that: "While U.S. agricultural protectionism has been built into the postwar global system at
its inception, foreign protectionism is to be nipped in the bud." How has U.S. agricultural protectionism been built into the postwar
global system?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Under Franklin Roosevelt the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 called for price supports for crops
so that farmers could earn enough to invest in equipment and seeds. The Agriculture Department was a wonderful department in spurring
new seed varieties, agricultural extension services, marketing and banking services. It provided public support so that productivity
in American agriculture from the 1930s to '50s was higher over a prolonged period than that of any other sector in history.
But in shaping the World Trade Organization's rules, the United States said that all countries had to promote free trade
and could not have government support, except for countries that already had it. We're the only country that had it. That's what's
called "grandfathering". The Americans said: "We already have this program on the books, so we can keep it. But no other country
can succeed in agriculture in the way that we have done. You must keep your agriculture backward, except for the plantation crops
and growing crops that we can't grow in the United States." That's what's so evil about the World Bank's development plan.
BONNIE FAULKNER : According to your book: "Domestic currency is needed to provide price supports and agricultural extension
services such as have made U.S. agriculture so productive." Why can't infrastructure costs be subsidized to keep down the economy's
overall cost structure if IMF loans are made in foreign currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you're a farmer in Brazil, Argentina or Chile, you're doing business in domestic currency. It doesn't
help if somebody gives you dollars, because your expenses are in domestic currency. So if the World Bank and the IMF can prevent
countries from providing domestic currency support, that means they're not able to give price supports or provide government marketing
services for their agriculture.
America is a mixed economy. Our government has always subsidized capital formation in agriculture and industry, but it insists
that other countries are socialist or communist if they do what the United States is doing and use their government to support the
economy. So it's a double standard. Nobody calls America a socialist country for supporting its farmers, but other countries are
called socialist and are overthrown if they attempt land reform or attempt to feed themselves.
This is what the Catholic Church's Liberation Theology was all about. They backed land reform and agricultural self-sufficiency
in food, realizing that if you're going to support population growth, you have to support the means to feed it. That's why the United
States focused its assassination teams on priests and nuns in Guatemala and Central America for trying to promote domestic self-sufficiency.
BONNIE FAULKNER : If a country takes out an IMF loan, they're obviously going to take it out in dollars. Why can't they
take the dollars and convert them into domestic currency to support local infrastructure costs?
MICHAEL HUDSON : You don't need a dollar loan to do that. Now were getting in to MMT. Any country can create its own currency.
There's no reason to borrow in dollars to create your own currency. You can print it yourself or create it on your computers.
BONNIE FAULKNER: Well, exactly. So why don't these countries simply print up their own domestic currency?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Their leaders don't want to be assassinated. More immediately, if you look at the people in charge of
foreign central banks, almost all have been educated in the United States and essentially brainwashed. It's the mentality of foreign
central bankers. The people who are promoted are those who feel personally loyal to the United States, because they that that's
how to get ahead. Essentially, they're opportunists working against the interests of their own country. You won't have socialist
central bankers as long as central banks are dominated by the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.
BONNIE FAULKNER : So we're back to the main point: The control is by political means, and they control the politics and
the power structure in these countries so that they don't rebel.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. When you have a dysfunctional economic theory that is destructive instead of productive,
this is never an accident. It is always a result of junk economics and dependency economics being sponsored. I've talked to people
at the U.S. Treasury and asked why they all end up following the United States. Treasury officials have told me: "We simply buy
them off. They do it for the money." So you don't need to kill them. All you need to do is find people corrupt enough and opportunist
enough to see where the money is, and you buy them off.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that "by following U.S. advice, countries have left themselves open to food blackmail." What
is food blackmail?
MICHAEL HUDSON : If you pursue a foreign policy that we don't like -- for instance, if you trade with Iran, which we're
trying to smash up to grab its oil -- we'll impose financial sanctions against you. We won't sell you food, and you can starve.
And because you've followed World Bank advice and not grown your own food, you will starve, because you're dependent on us, the
United States and our Free World Ó allies. Canada will no longer follow its own policy independently of the United States,
as it did with China in the 1950s when it sold it grain. Europe also is falling in line with U.S. policy.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You write that: "World Bank administrators demand that loan recipients pursue a policy of economic dependency
above all on the United States as food supplier." Was this done to support U.S. agriculture? Obviously it is, but were there other
reasons as well?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Certainly the agricultural lobby was critical in all of this, and I'm not sure at what point this became
thoroughly conscious. I knew some of the World Bank planners, and they had no anticipation that this dependency would be the result.
They believed the free-trade junk economics that's taught in the schools' economics departments and for which Nobel prizes are awarded.
When we're dealing with economic planners, we're dealing with tunnel-visioned people. They stayed in the discipline despite its
unreality because they sort of think that abstractly it makes sense. There's something autistic about most economists, which is
why the French had their non-autistic economic site for many years. The mentality at work is that every country should produce what
it's best at – not realizing that nations also need to be self-sufficient in essentials, because we're in a real world of economic
and military warfare.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why does the World Bank prefer to perpetrate world poverty instead of adequate overseas capacity to
feed the peoples of developing countries?
MICHAEL HUDSON : World poverty is viewed as solution , not a problem. The World Bank thinks of poverty as low-priced
labor, creating a competitive advantage for countries that produce labor-intensive goods. So poverty and austerity for the World
Bank and IMF is an economic solution that's built into their models. I discuss these in my Trade, Development and Foreign Debt
book. Poverty is to them the solution, because it means low-priced labor, and that means higher profits for the companies bought
out by U.S., British, and European investors. So poverty is part of the class war: profits versus poverty.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In general, what is U.S. food imperialism? How would you characterize it?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Its aim is to make America the producer of essential foods and other countries producing inessential
plantation crops, while remaining dependent on the United States for grain, soy beans and basic food crops.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does World Bank lending encourage land reform in former colonies?
MICHAEL HUDSON : No. If there is land reform, the CIA sends its assassination teams in and you have mass murder, as you
had in Guatemala, Ecuador, Central America and Columbia. The World Bank is absolutely committed against land reform. When the Forgash
Plan for a World Bank for Economic Acceleration was proposed in the 1950s to emphasize land reform and local-currency loans, a Chase
Manhattan economist to whom the plan was submitted warned that every country that had land reform turned out to be anti-American.
That killed any alternative to the World Bank.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Does the World Bank insist on client governments privatizing their public domain? If so, why, and what
is the effect?
MICHAEL HUDSON : It does indeed insist on privatization, pretending that this is efficient. But what it privatizes are
natural monopolies – the electrical system, the water system and other basic needs. Foreigners take over, essentially finance them
with foreign debt, build the foreign debt that they build into the cost structure, and raise the cost of living and doing business
in these countries, thereby crippling them economically. The effect is to prevent them from competing with the United States and
its European allies.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Would you say then that it is mainly America that has been aided, not foreign economies that borrow
from the World Bank?
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's why the United States is the only country with veto power in the IMF and World Bank – to make
sure that what you just described is exactly what happens.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Why do World Bank programs accelerate the exploitation of mineral deposits for use by other nations?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Most World Bank loans are for transportation, roads, harbor development and other infrastructure needed
to export minerals and plantation crops. The World Bank doesn't make loans for projects that help the country develop in its own
currency. By making only foreign currency loans, in dollars or maybe euros now, the World Bank says that its clients have to repay
by generating foreign currency. The only way they can repay the dollars spent on American engineering firms that have built their
infrastructure is to export – to earn enough dollars to pay back for the money that the World Bank or IMF have lent.
This is what John Perkins' book about being an economic hit man for the World Bank is all about. He realized that his job was
to get countries to borrow dollars to build huge projects that could only be paid for by the country exporting more – which required
breaking its labor unions and lowering wages so that it could be competitive in the race to the bottom that the World Bank and IMF
encourage.
BONNIE FAULKNER : You also point out in Super Imperialism that mineral resources represent diminishing assets,
so these countries that are exporting mineral resources are being depleted while the importing countries aren't.
MICHAEL HUDSON : That's right. They'll end up like Canada. The end result is going to be a big hole in the ground. You've
dug up all your minerals, and in the end you have a hole in the ground and a lot of the refuse and pollution – the mining slag and
what Marx called the excrements of production.
This is not a sustainable development. The World Bank only promotes the U.S. pursuit of sustainable development. So naturally,
they call their "Development," but their focus is on the United States, not the World Bank's client countries.
BONNIE FAULKNER : When Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire was originally published in
1972, how was it received?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Very positively. It enabled my career to take off. I received a phone call a month later by someone from
the Bank of Montreal saying they had just made $240 million on the last paragraph of my book. They asked what it would cost to have
me come up and give a lecture. I began lecturing once a month at $3,500 a day, moving up to $6,500 a day, and became the highest-paid
per diem economist on Wall Street for a few years.
I was immediately hired by the Hudson Institute to explain Super Imperialism to the Defense Department. Herman Kahn said
I showed how U.S. imperialism ran rings around European imperialism. They gave the Institute an $85,000 grant to have me go to the
White House in Washington to explain how American imperialism worked. The Americans used it as a how-to-do-it book.
The socialists, whom I expected to have a response, decided to talk about other than economic topics. So, much to my surprise,
it became a how-to-do-it book for imperialists. It was translated by, I think, the nephew of the Emperor of Japan into Japanese.
He then wrote me that the United States opposed the book being translated into Japanese. It later was translated. It was
received very positively in China, where I think it has sold more copies than in any other country. It was translated into Spanish,
and most recently it was translated into German, and German officials have asked me to come and discuss it with them. So the book
has been accepted all over the world as an explanation of how the system works.
BONNIE FAULKNER : In closing, do you really think that the U.S. government officials and others didn't understand how
their own system worked?
MICHAEL HUDSON : Many might not have understood in 1944 that this would be the consequence. But by the time 50 years went
by, you had an organization called "Fifty Years Is Enough." And by that time everybody should have understood. By the time Joe Stiglitz
became the World Bank's chief economist, there was no excuse for not understanding how the system worked. He was amazed to find
that indeed it didn't work as advertised, and resigned. But he should have known at the very beginning what it was all about. If
he didn't understand how it was until he actually went to work there, you can understand how hard it is for most academics to get
through the vocabulary of junk economics, the patter-talk of free trade and free markets to understand how exploitative and destructive
the system is.
BONNIE FAULKNER : Michael Hudson, thank you very much.
MICHAEL HUDSON : It's always good to be here, Bonnie. I'm glad you ask questions like these.
I've been speaking with Dr. Michael Hudson. Today's show has been: The IMF and World Bank: Partners in Backwardness. Dr.
Hudson is a financial economist and historian. He is president of the Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trend, a Wall
Street financial analyst and Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His 1972
book, Super Imperialism : The Economic Strategy of American Empire , a critique of how the United States exploited foreign economies
through the IMF and World Bank, the subject of today's broadcast, is posted in PDF format on his website at michael-hudson.com.
He is also author of Trade, Development and Foreign Debt , which is the academic sister volume to Super Imperialism. Dr. Hudson
acts as an economic advisor to governments worldwide on finance and tax law. Visit his website at michael-hudson.com.
Guns and Butter is produced by Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow Mahko and Tony Rango. Visit us at
gunsandbutter.org to listen to past programs, comment on shows, or join
our email list to receive our newsletter that includes recent shows and updates. Email us at
[email protected]. Follow us
on Twitter at #gandbradio.
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
"... In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas " which also arrived in Ukraine. ..."
"... Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in Europe with US gas ..."
"... So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs " ..."
Manlio Dinucci invites us to take a step back. He replaces the sabotage of these petrol tankers, for which Washington
accuses Teheran, in the context of the global energy policy of the United States. By doing so, he demonstrates that, contrary to
appearances, Mike Pompeo is not targeting Iran, but Europe.
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence that Iran
and Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia,
and five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ". Manlio Dinucci
"While #ISIS was stealing the Syrian oil & selling it to #Turkey, the so-called #US
led coalition (#UK included) against Daesh wasn't interested in stopping the theft of
#Syria's oil.
"But today the UK stopped an oil tanker delivering energy to the Syrian people."
Quite witty, IMO. Note the EU-3 all supported the terrorist invasion of Syria, the
destruction of Libya, and NATO's accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism.
Spain's caretaker Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said the British targeted the tanker on a
request from the US. He added that Spain, which considers the waters off Gibraltar as its
own, was assessing the implications of the operation.
Iran has reportedly acknowledged ownership of the cargo. Its foreign ministry summoned the
British ambassador in Tehran to protest the "unlawful seizure of the Iranian tanker,"
according to the IRNA news agency.
According to Reuters, the MT Grace 1 has been used by Iran in the past to ship crude to
Singapore and China in defiance of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US. The
current trip allegedly started in Iran's port of Bandar Assalyeh, thought the papers state
that the crude was loaded in the Iraqi port of Basra.
In seizing the tanker under the pretext of sanctions on Syria, the EU seems to be at least
partially siding with Washington, which is trying to cripple the Iranian economy through
harsh economic sanctions. The pressure campaign was escalated after the US broke its
commitment under the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
"Maybe the EU was trying to show that it was siding with the Americans, playing its part
in anti-Iranian policy? We know that the Trump administration has been critical of the
European countries," Ali Rizk, a Middle East-based journalist and writer, told RT.
"And it's likely a demonstration against Syria. It all helps an ongoing plan of parting
Syria with its allies."
@1 Allegedly(?), this oil tanker sailed from Basra in Iraq (not Iran) and remarkably went
around Africa rather than sail through the Suez, and further it allegedly also turned it's
transponder off(?)... as usual, we'll have to wait for real facts to emerge. It's still quite
unusual to intercept an oil tanker so blatantly when much more nefarious shipments are going
on.
Seems to me certain western governments do whatever they want, and no longer care about
international legalities.
She is now Panama flagged (presumably) Russian owned
IMO number 9116412
Name of the ship GRACE 1
Type of ship CRUDE OIL TANKER
MMSI 355271000
Gross tonnage 156880 tons
DWT 273769 tons
Year of build 1997
Builder HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES - ULSAN, SOUTH KOREA
Flag PANAMA
Class society LLOYD'S SHIPPING REGISTER
Manager & owner RUSSIAN TITAN SHIPPING LINES - DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Former names MERIDIAN LION until 2013 Mar
OVERSEAS MERIDIAN until 2011 Jun
MERIDIAN LION until 2006 Feb
The reason for holding the ship is given as breaking EU sanctions on Syria. Not JCPOA
related (in principle).
Here is a short but incomplete primer on Gibraltar territorial waters. The even more
extreme Spanish view is that only the port is Gibraltarian, or simply that Gibraltar is
Spanish.
Just to note Grace1 is anchored off the south east of Gibraltar, within the 3 mile
Gibraltar limit now, I don't know if she was stopped inside that zone, or why she would
venture into that 3 mile zone. In short it will be important to know what position she was
when boarded, the only info I have is that she veered hard to port into the Gibraltar 3 mile
limit, but am not sure if before or after being boarded. The Spanish government has said it
tolerates Gibraltar "acting in its waters" in this case because the action was based on EU
sanctions.
This shale oil/gas is no less important news. Careful analysis already knew shale oil/gas was
a farce: the problem with it is that it provides a boom of production followed quickly by a
bust (like an ejaculation). It follows a free-fall graphic line.
This is awful for investors,
who expect a more rollercoaster-like productivity typical of the normal oil reserves (slowly
crescent production, with an apex, followed by a slow decline in output).
The USA will never be self-sufficient in oil. The government's official projections are a
farce and they know it.
https://cdn.districtm.io/ids/index.html Russia's oil production in June was 50,000 bpd below
the level Moscow had pledged under the OPEC and non-OPEC production cut agreement, Russian
Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Monday, as carried by Russian news agency Interfax .
As part of the OPEC+ production cuts between January and June, Russia is taking the lion's
share of the non-OPEC cuts and pledged to reduce production by
230,000 bpd from October's post-Soviet record level of 11.421 million bpd, to 11.191
million bpd.
Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to
find himself: It may already be too late. He is there.
Professor Russell-Mead tells us "that the key
to the president's Iran policy is that his nose for power [and Trump is a keen judge of power,
R-M insists] is telling him Iran is weaker, and the US stronger than the foreign-policy
establishment believes What Mr. Trump wants is a deal with Iran that matches his sense of the
relative power of the two countries " (emphasis added).
"At the level of public diplomacy, [Trump] is engaging in his standard mix of dazzle and
spin[turning American politics into the Donald Trump Show, with the country and the world
fixated on his every move, speculating feverishly about what will come next, R-M suggests] And
at the level of power politics he is steadily and consistently tightening the screws on Iran:
arming its neighbors and assuring them of his support, tightening sanctions, and raising the
psychological pressure on the regime.
"Mr. Trump well understands the constraints under which his Iran policy is working.
Launching a new Middle East war could wreck his presidency. But if Iran starts the war, that's
another matter. A clear Iranian attack on American or even Israeli targets could unite Mr.
Trump's Jacksonian base like the attack on Pearl Harbor united America's Jacksonians to fight
Imperial Japan."
Russell-Mead's analysis probably has it right. But there is more to it than that: Trump's
approach is based on some further underlying key assumptions: Firstly, that, with the Iranian
economy tanking, and inflation soaring (Trump repeats this unfounded assertion frequently), the
Iranian revolutionary system will either implode, or approach Washington, on its knees, asking
for a new nuclear deal.
Two: Trump can afford to wait out this impending implosion, and just lever up the economic
pressures in the meanwhile. Three: Trump claims that a war with Iran would be short: "I'm not
talking boots on the ground,"
he said . "I'm just saying if something would happen, it wouldn't last very long". And
four: Trump said, (and appears to believe), that he wouldn't
need an "exit strategy" in the event of a war with Iran, which suggests that he may really
think that the war would be limited to a brief air campaign, and then it would be over.
What to say? Well, only that all of these assumptions are almost certainly wrong –
and, as Daniel Larison in The American Conservative notes ,
"if the US president thinks that a war with Iran "wouldn't last very long," he is probably
going to be more willing to start it. Iran hawks are already predictably emphasizing that
attacking Iran wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are saying that in part to
overcome Trump's apparent reservations about getting bogged down in a protracted conflict".
Iran indeed would not be like Afghanistan or Iraq, but in an entirely different way to that
claimed by the hawks.
Well, Iran will not be imploding economically: On Friday, Russia signalled its commitment
to secure Iran's oil and banking sectors, should the EU's INSTEX clearing mechanism not be
working effectively by 7 July (when Iran's window to Europe on this issue closes). Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that Moscow is ready to help Iran export
its crude and ease restrictions on its banking system should Europe
fail to make INSTEX a viable mechanism. China too, has stated that "normal energy dealings"
with Tehran are in accordance with law, and should be respected. The Governor of the Central
Bank of Iran said this week that Iran has "climbed past the peak of sanctions. Our oil exports
are on the rise", Hemmati said .
If the 'implosion hypothesis' is flawed, so too is the claim that Iran will come begging for
a new nuclear deal from Mr Trump. Here, by way of illustration, is the (Iranian) account of what the
Supreme Leader said to Prime Minister Abe:
"During the meeting with Abe Shinzo (on 13 June), the latter told Ayatollah Khamenei that "I
would like to give you a message from the President of the United States".
"Ayatollah Khamenei responded by pointing to the US ingenuity and untrustworthiness, and
argued, "We do not doubt your [Abe's] sincerity and goodwill. However, regarding what you
mentioned about the President of the US, I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging
any message with and I have no answer for him, nor will I respond to him in the future
."
"[But] what I am going to say, is said to you as the Japanese Prime Minister, and because we
consider Japan a friend of ours
"Ayatollah Khamenei noting Shinzo's assertion that the US intends to prevent Iran's
production of nuclear weapons said, "We are opposed to the nuclear weapons and my religious
Fatwa bans production of nuclear weapons; but you should know that if we intended to produce
nuclear weapons, the US could do nothing; and its non-permission [would] not be any
obstacle."
"The Supreme leader, in response to the message that "the United States is not after
regime change in Iran", insisted that "Our problem with the United States is not about regime
change. Because even if they intend to pursue that, they won't be able to achieve it When Trump
says that he is not after regime change, it is a lie. For, if he could do so, he would.
However, he is not capable of it."
"Ayatollah Khamenei similarly referred to the Japanese prime minister's remarks regarding
the United States' request to negotiate with Iran about the nuclear issue, and said, "The
Islamic Republic of Iran negotiated for 5 to 6 years with the United States and the Europeans
-- the P 5+1 -- which led to an agreement. But the United States disregarded and breached this
definite agreement. So, does common sense permit negotiations with a state that has thrown away
everything that was agreed upon?"
"He pointed to the forty years of hostility that the US has showed to the Iranian nation and
its continued hostility, and said, "We believe that our problems will not be solved by
negotiating with the US, and no free nation would ever accept negotiations under pressure."
And 'pressures' are precisely what the US is adding: i.e. increasing pressures, rather than
easing them – which stands probably as the sine qua non to resuming negotiations with
Iran. But then Trump holds to the view that America is entitled – by virtue of its
greater power – to negotiate with others only when the counterparties are under 'maximum
pressure'. Plainly, he has not been briefed well on the Iranian history of stoically enduring
far worse and violent cataclysms. Nor, that Iranians can draw on a stratum of spiritual
resilience from the narrative of Imam Hussein at times of crisis.
How so? The notion of an 'Iran on the cusp of collapse' is a meme being peddled by
various disgruntled Iranian exiles, and by the MEK, as well as by prominent hawks in the US.
But equally – and importantly, given Trump's own family predilections – this
narrative of 'just one push' and the Iranian Revolution 'is over' is being constantly urged by
Netanyahu. (Other Israelis are not so happy at their PM's open and avid support for Trump's
policy on Iran – recalling how Israel (and Netanyahu) were accused of having pushed for
the 2003 Iraq war).
So. If the assumption that Iran will either collapse, or capitulate under economic
pressure, is false; and that the presumption that 'no exit strategy' is required, because Iran
is weak and the US is militarily strong (implying that a short, quick air strike would settle
matters) – is similarly flawed, where then are we headed?
If these underlying assumptions continue to pass without serious challenge, then, as time
passes, Iran will neither have imploded, nor capitulated, as presaged; but rather, it will have
continued to send calibrated,
incrementally ascending 'messages' to demonstrating the potential costs of pursuing such a
policy – with the pain being experienced principally by those US allies who continually
advocate for harsh US 'measures' against Iran.
Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to find himself:
It may already be too late. He is there. Either having to react militarily to Iranian
'messages', with all the potential for asymmetric Iranian counterstrikes and ratchetting
escalation: A prospect from which instinctively he recoils, because he fears this route of
indecisive military tit-for-tat may not play out well for him in terms of the 2020 elections.
And even could risk his Presidency.
Or, a humiliating, concessionary journey of return into a process closely mirroring the
(despised) JCPOA – whatever be its new name: And hope to call the defeat as
'victory'.
Quite possibly, President Putin may have it in mind to lay out some of this prospective
landscape when he met with Trump at Osaka. We probably won't be told. We'll never know.
"... The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and international skepticism attests. ..."
"... Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown. ..."
"... Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something of an argument that began: ..."
"... He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out. Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf. They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share. Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. ..."
"... Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. ..."
"... There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were, they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack ..."
"... Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But he's not done with the disinformation exercise: ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is the first admission that the US had
operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
You gotta love the SCI. This shallowly-disguised Russian propaganda arm writes in the most
charming awkward idiomatic English, bouncing from a "false neutral" tone to a jingoistic
Amercia-phobic argot to produce its hit pieces.
Russian propaganda acts like Claude Raines in "Casablanca" : "i am shocked, shocked to
discover (geopolitics) going on here!" Geeeee, Europe and the US are in a struggle to
avoid Europe relying on Russia for strategic necessities like fuel, even if it imposes costs
on European consumers. If you have a dangerous disease, and your pharmacist is known for
cutting off their customers' vital drugs to extort them, you might consider using another
provider who not only doesn't cut off supplies, but also provides the police department that
protects you from your pharmacist's thugs who are known to invade customers' homes using the
profits from their own business.
The US provides the protective umbrella that limits Putin's adventurism. Russia cuts of
Ukraine's gas supplies in winter to force them into submission. Gasprom is effectively an arm
of the Russian military, weaponizing Russia's only product as a geopolitical taser. Sure, it
costs more to transport LNG across the Atlantic and convert it back to gas, but the profits
from that business are routinely funneled back to Europe in the form of US trade,
contributions to NATO, and the provision of the nuclear umbrella that protects Europeans from
the man who has publicly lamented the fall of the Soviet Union, called for the return of the
former SSRs, and violated the IRM treaty to place nuclear capable intermediate-range missiles
and cruise missiles within range of Europe and boasted about his new hypersonic weapons'
theoretic capability to decapitate NATO and American decision-making within a few minutes of
launch.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia
in your post can be said of the U.S. I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's
their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary
warfare , and thereby influence events abroad. Depending on their size and
infrastructure, they can be used as staging areas or for logistical,
communications and intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have
resulted in overseas military bases being established in large numbers by world powers and the
existence of bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and
military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The
U.S. has 36 listed here with none of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
"... To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach. ..."
"... What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike." ..."
"... D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them. ..."
"... D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular. ..."
"... It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran. ..."
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit -- the Iran Mission Center -- to focus attention on
the U.S. plans against Iran . The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration
came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas -- North
Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor -- Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)
-- continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This
was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian
diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington -- as one official told me -- that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no
special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.
Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy
of his National Security Adviser John Bolton .
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program,
and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly
controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile -- a man of a certain age, for
instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told
me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed
attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the
worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking
a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki -- who had
been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain
silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime
change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here.
These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran -- Kaplan said -- that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand
its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya,
which means prudence and not -- as Kaplan and others argue -- deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with
that group -- since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the
chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability
in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager
for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi -- a man with close links to the Saudi
monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are
capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important
role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the
dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their
water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on
Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter ,
a project of the Independent Media Institute.
"... India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose. ..."
"... Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants. ..."
leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 4:41pm In a surprise move, the EU special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran (INSTEX)
exercised its first trade today. The body was set up to facilitate exports of Iranian oil without U.S. dollars, avoiding a sanctions
regime imposed unilaterally by the U.S.
Instex is now operational despite U.S. threats to European banks and officials of reprisal sanctions if they violated Iran sanctions.
Bloomberg had reported on May 7 the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker,
issued a warning letter that Instex and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into
effect.
In defiance of U.S. pressure, Instex was set up by EU diplomats in January as a means to prevent total collapse of the Iranian
nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The first official trades occurred today, in the
shadow of the Group of 20 Summit meeting.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-claims-iran-deal-held-togethe...
A senior EU diplomat has said the first transactions were being made by a special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran at a
meeting of the remaining members of the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna.
Friday's meeting in Vienna featured "constructive discussions," Helga Schmid, the head of the EU diplomatic service said, confirming
the entity, named Instex, was making its first transactions.
"INSTEX now operational, first transactions being processed and more EU Members States to join. Good progress on Arak and Fordow
[fuel enrichment] projects," she posted.
The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) is designed to facilitate trade of essential goods, such as food and
medicine, mainly from the EU to Iran. A Chinese official said Beijing was open to using the facility.
The platform has been set up in France, with a German managing director in a coordinated European effort to counterbalance
the US economic power displayed by its sanctions policy.
President Donald Trump last year pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.
According to today's report:
As the talks kicked off on Friday, seven EU nations expressed support for Instex and the JCPOA, asking Iran "to abide by and
fully respect the terms and provisions of the nuclear agreement".
"We are working with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as with the European External Action Service and the European
Commission, to establish channels to facilitate legitimate trade and financial operations with Iran, one of the foremost of these
initiatives being the establishment of Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges," read the statement from Austria, Belgium, Finland,
the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Whether the declaration of support and first tranche of transactions will be enough to keep Iran committed to the 2015 nuclear
deal is still in question.
Crucial for INSTEX's success will be whether participating states also develop mechanisms for European companies and their
employees that protect them from the expected American sanctions and compensate for any damages incurred. The legislative instrument
for this exists: The EU's blocking statute. It just needs to be updated to meet the new requirements.
Read more: US welcomes German firms' compliance on Iran sanctions
International transactions independent of the dollar
The knowledge and experience gained in the process could later be transferred to other areas, such as European initiatives
in international monetary transactions. This expertise could then come in handy for establishing payment channels independent
of the American financial system and the dollar, which the US also uses as a lever in its sanctions policy.
Two pieces of good news in two days, Tulsi Gabbard winning acknowledgement and respect in the debate, and this encouraging
sign from Europe. A person could almost get used to thinking common sense is gaining ground. Thank you, leveymg, for posting
this.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this baffling
part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly
be for medicines and...food (?)
Right now, it's unclear which way this is going to go. If Europe bows to American power, again, it will turn out very badly
for everyone. Iraq times ten.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
...just fine. India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading
currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was
designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose.
Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding
behind Uncle Sams petticoat.
[edited to correct]
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did
before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement.
But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can
do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of
our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in
Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it
did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the
agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear
what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum
of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest
in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
See better discussion at
platts.com "But US LNG could face problems of its own – the current low prices are forcing ever growing numbers of US producers
into bankruptcy. According to a recent report by Haynes and Boone, 90 gas and oil producers in the US and Canada have filed for bankruptcy
between January 2015 and the start of August 2016." So $2 price at Henry Hub should rise to at least $4 for companies to stay in business.
Notable quotes:
"... Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is produced domestically, the rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%. ..."
"... The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage. ..."
"... Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017. ..."
"... s mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines. This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources. ..."
"... This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe. ..."
"... Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG, a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security. ..."
"... The European countries do not appear to be dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" ..."
"... The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. ..."
One of the most important energy battles
of the future will be fought in the field of liquid natural gas (LNG). Suggested as one of the main solutions to
pollution , LNG offers the possibility
of still managing to meet a country's industrial needs while ameliorating environmental concerns caused by other energy sources.
At the same time, a little like the US dollar, LNG is becoming a tool Washington intends to use against Moscow at the expense of
Washington's European allies.
To understand the rise of LNG in global strategies, it is wise to look at a
graph (page 7)
produced by the International Gas Union (IGU) where the following four key indicators are highlighted: global regasification capacities;
total volumes of LNG exchanged; exporting countries; and importing countries.
From 1990 to today,
the world has grown from 220 million tons per annum (MTPA) to around 850 MTPA of regasification capacity. The volume of trade
increased from 20-30 MTPA to around 300 MTPA. Likewise, the number of LNG-importing countries has increased from just over a dozen
to almost 40 over the course of 15 years, while the number of producers has remained almost unchanged, except for a few exceptions
like the US entering the LNG market in 2016.
There are two methods used to transport gas.
The first is through pipelines, which reduce costs and facilitate interconnection between countries, an important example of
this being seen in Europe's importation of gas. The four main pipelines for Europe come from four distinct geographical regions:
the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and Russia.
The second method of transporting gas is by sea in the form of LNG, which in the short term is more expensive, complex and
difficult to implement on a large scale. Gas transported by sea is processed to be cooled so as to reduce its volume, and then
liquified again to allow storage and transport by ship. This process adds 20% to costs when compared to gas transported through
pipelines.
Less than half of the gas necessary for Europe is
produced domestically, the
rest being imported from Russia (39%), Norway (30%) and Algeria (13%). In 2017, gas imports from outside of the EU reached 14%. Spain
led with imports of 31%, followed by France with 20% and Italy with 15%.
The construction of infrastructure to accommodate LNG ships is ongoing in Europe, and some European countries already have a limited
capacity to accommodate LNG and direct it to the national and European network or act as an energy hub to ship LNG to other ports
using smaller ships.
"All of Europe's LNG terminals are import facilities, with the exception of (non-EU) Norway and Russia which export LNG. There
are currently 28 large-scale LNG import terminals in Europe (including non-EU Turkey). There are also 8 small-scale LNG facilities
in Europe (in Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway and Gibraltar). Of the 28 large-scale LNG import terminals, 24 are in EU countries
(and therefore subject to EU regulation) and 4 are in Turkey, 23 are land-based import terminals, and 4 are floating storage and
regasification units (FSRUs), and the one import facility in Malta comprises a Floating Storage Unit (FSU) and onshore regasification
facilities."
The countries currently most involved in the export of LNG are Qatar (24.9%), Australia (21.7%), Malaysia (7.7%), the US (6.7%),
Nigeria (6.5%) and Russia (6%).
Europe is one of the main markets for gas, given its strong demand for clean energy for domestic and industrial needs. For this
reason, Germany has for years been engaged in the Nord Stream 2 project, which aims to double the transport capacity of gas from
Russia to Germany. Currently the flow of the Nord Stream is 55 billion cubic meters of gas. With the new Nord Stream 2, the capacity
will double to 110 billion cubic meters per year.
The South Stream project, led by Eni, Gazprom, EDF and Wintershall, should have increased the capacity of the Russian Federation
to supply Europe with 63 billion cubic meters annually, positively impacting the economy with cheap supplies of gas to Bulgaria,
Greece, Italy, Serbia, Hungary, Austria and Slovenia. Due to the restrictions imposed by the European Union on Russian companies
like Gazprom, and the continuing pressure from Washington to abandon the project and embrace imports from the US, the construction
of the pipeline have slowed down and generated tensions between Europe and the US. Washington is piling on pressure on Germany to
derail Nord Stream 2 and stop the construction of this important energy linkage.
Further tension has been added since ENI, an Italian company that is a leader in the LNG sector, recently discovered off-shore
in Egypt one of the largest gas fields in the world, with an estimated total capacity of 850 billion cubic meters. To put this in
perspective, all EU countries demand is about 470 billion cubic meters of gas in 2017.
ENI's discovery has generated important planning for the future of LNG in Europe and in Italy.
Problems have arisen ever since Donald Trump sought to oblige Europeans to
purchase LNG from the US in
order to reduce the trade deficit and benefit US companies at the expense of other gas-exporting countries like Algeria, Russia and
Norway. As mentioned, LNG imported to Europe from the US costs about 20% more than gas traditionally received through pipelines.
This is without including all the investment necessary to build regasification plants in countries destined to receive this ship-borne
gas. Europe currently does not have the necessary facilities on its Atlantic coast to receive LNG from the US, introduce it into
its energy networks, and simultaneously decrease demand from traditional sources.
This situation could change in the future, with LNG from the US seeing a sharp increase recently. In 2010, American LNG exports
to Europe were at 10%; the following year they rose to 11%; and in the first few months of 2019, they jumped to 35%. A significant
decrease in LNG exports to Asian countries, which are less profitable, offers an explanation for this corresponding increase in Europe.
But Europe finds itself in a decidedly uncomfortable situation that cannot be easily resolved. The anti-Russia hysteria drummed
up by the Euro-Atlantic globalist establishment aides Donald Trump's efforts to economically squeeze as much as possible out of European
allies, hurting European citizens in the process who will have to pay more for American LNG, which costs about a fifth more than
gas from Russian, Norwegian or Algerian sources.
Projects to build offshore regasifiers in Europe appear to have begun and seem unlikely to be affected by future political vagaries,
given the investment committed and planning times involved:
"There are currently in the region of 22 large-scale LNG import terminals considered as planned in Europe, except for the planned
terminals in Ukraine (Odessa FSRU LNG), Russia (Kaliningrad LNG), Albania (Eagle LNG) – Albania being a candidate for EU membership
– and Turkey (FSRU Iskenderun and FSRU Gulf of Saros).
Many ofthese planned terminals, including Greece (where one additional import terminal is planned – Alexandroupolis), Italy
(which is considering or planning two additional terminals – Porto Empedocle in Sicily and Gioia Tauro LNG in Calabria) , Poland
(FSRU Polish Baltic Sea Coast), Turkey (two FSRUs) and the UK (which is planning the Port Meridian FSRU LNG project and UK Trafigura
Teesside LNG). LNG import terminal for Albania (Eagle LNG), Croatia (Krk Island), Cyprus (Vassiliko FSRU), Estonia (Muuga (Tallinn)
LNG and Padalski LNG), Germany ( Brunsbüttel LNG), Ireland (Shannon LNG and Cork LNG), Latvia (Riga LNG), Romania (Constanta LNG),
Russia (Kaliningrad LNG) and Ukraine (Odessa).
Nine of the planned terminals are FSRUs: Albania, Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Ukraine and the UK. "In
addition, there are numerous plans for expansion of existing terminals, including in Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands,
Poland, Spain, Turkey and the UK."
Washington, with its LNG ships, has no capacity to compete in Asia against Qatar and Australia, who have the lion's share
of the market, with Moscow's pipelines taking up the rest. The only large remaining market lies in Europe, so it is therefore not
surprising that Donald Trump has decided to weaponize LNG,
a bit as he has the US dollar . This has only driven EU countries to seek energy diversification in the interests of security.
The European countries do not appear to be
dragging their feet at the prospect of swapping to US LNG, even though there is no economic advantage to doing so. As has been
evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?" This, however, is not the case with
all allies. Germany is not economically able to interrupt Nord Stream 2. And even though the project has many high-level sponsors,
including former chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the project constantly seems to be on the verge of being stopped – at least in Washington's
delusions.
Even Eni's discovery of the gas field in Egypt has annoyed the US, which wants less competition (even when illegal, as in the
case of Huawei) and wants to be able to force its exports onto Europeans while maintaining the price of the LNG in dollars, thereby
further supporting the US dollar as the world's reserve currency in the same manner as the
petrodollar .
The generalized hysteria against the Russian Federation, together with the cutting off of Iranian oil imports at Washington's
behest, limit the room for maneuver of European countries, in addition to costing European taxpayers a lot. The Europeans appear
prepared to set whatever course the US has charted them, one away from cheaper gas sources to the more expensive LNG supplied from
across the Atlantic. Given the investments already committed to receive this LNG, it seems unlikely that the course set for the Europeans
will be changed.
I live in Europe. I can honestly say that the people I know here prefer Russian gas. People are very ticked off about how the
US meddled in their gas supply and the structuring of the pipelines. Most feel that even if US LNG WAS competitive with Russian
gas price for now, that the US would in some way either increase prices or use it in some other way to control or manipulate the
EU. And sentiment towards USA tends toward resentment and distrust. That's not to say they are necessarily pro-Russia, but definitely
a wave of anti US is present.
US LNG pricing is based on Henry Hub which today is under $2.30/mmbtu.
Even adding in liquefaction and shipping costs, the price to the end user is extremely low.
Henry hub is projected to be sub $3 for DECADES!
Combine the low price with spot deliveries (pipe usually demands long term contracting commitments), and US LNG actually has
strong rationale for being accepted.
The statement above that US LNG cannot compete against Australia in Asia is preposterously false due to the VERY high buildout
costs of the Aussie LNG infrastructure.
Next year, Oz's first LNG IMPORT terminal at Port Kembla may well be supplied with US LNG.
The US has shown itself to be unreliable as a supplier of anything. Political posturing will always take precedence over any
international transaction.
Oh, for pity's sake, Laugher. Everything...absolutely everything you attribute to Russia in your post can be said of the U.S.
I'm not much of a Wiki fan, but for expediency, here's their view on military bases.
The establishment of military bases abroad enables a country to
project power , e.g. to conduct
expeditionary warfare , and thereby influence
events abroad. Depending on their size and infrastructure, they can be used as
staging areas or for logistical, communications and
intelligence support. Many conflicts throughout modern history have resulted in overseas military bases being established in
large numbers by world powers and the existence of
bases abroad has served countries having them in achieving political and military goals.
And this link will provide you with countries worldwide and their bases.
Note that Russia, in this particular list, has eight bases all contiguous to Russia. The U.S. has 36 listed here with none
of them contiguous to the U.S.' borders.
Whilst the left wants to go full throttle towards Wind and Solar, no one knows that the natural gas lobby is behind these sources
because both sources need a backup. While everyone talks "carbon footprint" they never discusses plant efficiency ( or
in the terms of engines brake specific fuel consumption and turbine specific fuel consumption ) in terms of thermal efficiency.
You know the boring stuff that plant operators stress over to make sure when your wife wakes up @ 3 in the morning to feed the
baby, the lights do go on, and they are creating that wattage in an cost affective manner. With that said, the king of thermal
efficiency i.e. burning a fuel to create electricity, is the Combined Cycle Natural Gas Power Plant. These plants combines a stationary
gas turbine buring natural gas to spin a generator and a boiler on the back side capture the waste heat to create steam to spin
a turbine to again add an input to the generator for a current state of the art of 61% efficiency . That means only 39%
going up the stack or for steam cooling to get your "Delta T" for the steam cycle to work. This 61% is vs maybe in the mid 40's
for a coal, oil plant or in the case of Nuclear just waste heat with nothing going out a stack. The greater wattage per fuel burned,
and the modularization of these Combined Cycle Plants aka have a series of 100mw turbines and bring them on line as needed, make
this a win-win IMHO for a massive refurbishing of our Utility base, with a host of benefits, before Gen 3 & Gen 4 Nuclear truly
take off again. These plants could be a great stop gap before Gen 3 & 4 are a reality. All the macinations towards wind and solar
and their disavantages aka being bird vegamatics, vistas being spoiled and huge swaths of land being used for panels make no sense
vs energy density of efficient plants. We are the Natural Gas King, lets not flare it anymore, and really, really leverage it
here, help allies, and use it for bringing bad behaving children of the world to the table ifyou will, if you want the candy,
behave....
Why do we have to treat other countries like we're the parent? We aren't. They are equal and fully functioning countries quite
capable of determining their own political and economic future...which may involve not trading or interacting with the U.S. Particularly
if we demand of them conditions we ourselves would never accede.
The Lithuanian FSRU "Independence" which was delivered from Hyundai Heavy Industries in 2014 to the port of Klaipeda drove
energy costs for heating through the roof and perhaps is one of the reasons the Prime Minister at the time only came in third
in the latest presidential elections. You can stay reasonably warm, eat or have money for medicine and other necessities. Pick
2 ONLY. Thank you USSA
Brainsick as Pompeo the US Pork without character.
As Long as Russia dlivery theier gas constantly and for a much better price then Us-Shale idiots, the ziocons only can lose.
We Europeans are not very impressed.
The biggest Capitalist economy on the planet needs to use mob tactics to push its over priced wares- seems 'long term' is not
part of their hit-and-run operation.
Now as for the article; apart from a few Eastern European Countries (The Ukraine, Poland etc.), I have seen no proof whatsoever,
that Europe is shifting to US LNG.
As for "As has been evident of late, whenever Washington says, "Jump!", European allies respond, "How high?""; I am sorry,
but I think those days are over..... this can be seen in our Iranian stance, the 2 Russian pipelines - 1 being Nordstream II and
the other Turk-stream, increased trade with Russia, joining the the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and so on and
so on......
Slowly but surely the anti-Russia propaganda is dying. You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some people
all of the time (libtards), but you can't fool all the people all of the time. Europeans (the citizens) will question why they
should pay 20-30% more for their natural gas just to please America. Politicians better have an answer or change of policy if
they want to be reelected.
IMHO, 'calling it off because casualties' was to generate a bragging point to use in his
campaign 'look what a nice guy I am for not wanting to hurt people'. There have been a couple
of other things that have happened that look like set pieces to give him crowing points.
"Better to have said nothing"
Totally agree but we will need to wait and see what he says on the stump. If a war starts the
disciples may not think much of rising oil prices, shortages and falling stock markets.
There"s allways a chance that he finally comprehended some of Putin`s wisdom that conflict in
MENA would be a catastrophic disaster for all. There is always a sliver of hope he has the
Neocons close on purpose to limit some of the chaos they create.
I'd say the neocons are convenient – Trump likes being on the brink of war to keep
everyone scared. Fear is his ally. But actual war would be a negative, so he's on a
tightrope.
A very risky strategy, except that I think the rest of the world understands it, and it's
convenient for some other countries, who are using the same strategy to maintain domestic
power.
It is interesting that Trump destiny now depends on geopolitical events he can't control namely actions of Iran and China.
Trump foreign policy appears to be driven by a combination of resentment and arrogance -- not a good combination for survival of
Trump and/or mankind
Was with Iran might result in high oil prices would kill the already anemic global growth and cause a recession (I guess
the volatility in oil prices will go through the roof at that point), Iran can destabilize the global economy by destroying most
of the oil production infrastructure around the gulf.
While Lyndon Johnson had chosen not running for reelection in 1968 because anti-war sentiment was high, G W Bush who was
reelected and the USA have now contractor army and casualties without draft does not matter much.
Notable quotes:
"... More likely they attack Saudi Arabia directly. Same impact, more justifiable if not outright popular. No one likes Prince Bone Saw. ..."
"... Iran could take those 10 million barrels a day away in 15 minutes. ..."
China will play a large roll in whether trump get re-elected.
If they decide they prefer his dysfunctional governance to his opponent, then they will engage
in a trade deal that will allow to trump to declare victory. It will likely be a very
superficial victory.
If they decide they would prefer to engage with a different administration, they will likely
refrain from a trade deal until after the election.
Have you asked yourself why Putin preferred trump? The answer is not pretty (for trump, or the
USA).
This is probably an absurd point of view. But in my opinion, it might be in Iran's interest
to drag the U.S into war, probably as indirectly as possible. That way they might
significantly reduce the chance of Trump being re-elected. (Obviously lives will be
sacrificed in this scenario)
The question is if it would work and would a Democrat president stop the war and go into the
same JCPOA deal again. Who knows. Very unpredictable.
Well, Mike, as absurd IMO is that Iran would risk self-destruction to get rid of Trump. He's
certainly a PITA for them, but closing the Strait of Hormuz to crash the global economy and
to blame it on Trump wouldn't work: Trump could blame it all on Iran while keeping on cooking
a controlled conflict with them, showing the world that the US doesn't depend on oil from any
other continent.
This would be a very difficult situation for a Democrat to step in and to
promise a better solution. The US would be relatively well off compared to Asia and Europe
and even could emerge out of such a constellation relatively more powerful.
But it could also
end up in a terrible mess. As you wrote: Who knows. Very unpredictable.
"...as Stratfor, put it, "Trump, fearing a much bigger escalation, got cold feet."
One is reminded of the scene from Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), a General in the Joint
Chiefs comments disparagingly about Kennedy for keeping his finger "on the chicken switch"
with regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.
Lyndon Johnson in the White House with Henry Cabot Lodge in 1963 declares: "Gentlemen, I
want you to know I'm not going to let Vietnam go the way China did. I'm personally committed.
I'm not going to take one soldier out of there 'til they know we mean business in Asia (he
pauses) You just get me elected, and I'll give you your damned war ."
Another question exists: should the US resist the allure of military action against Iran,
what can Iran do?
US sanctions against Iran amount to an act of war. Iran can bust sanctions up to some point
-- but for how long? Will Iran suffer half a million dead children & elderly people as
Iraq did in the 90's ? SHOULD Iran have to suffer such a criminally imposed loss of life?
Where is the way out of this insanity?
Iran won't negotiate with the US for the very good reason that the US clearly wants to
sterilize Iranian sovereignty (ie the US won't accept ANY Iranian missiles -- that is, Iran
has no right to self defense).
Sad to say, Trump does not need to launch military action against Iran, merely continue to
economically terrorise Iran until it has NO choice but to initiate military action against
its tormentors.
The war on Iran will continue till kingdom come, until it falls. Its clear as day that both
Russia and China back their Iranian allies against US provocations. China hasn't flinched
under US threats to embargo Iranian crude, and continues to purchase it, and Russia has an
oil swap agreement with Iran, where it buys Iranian oil and sells it as Russian on the
international market. This must be a severe irritation to the imperialists in Washington and
London as it renders their Iran sanctions regime practically toothless.
The imperialists are not backing down in their quest for subduing Iran. Seems like the idea
here is to put as many large ships in harms way as possible....and provoke Iran to attack one
of these......This will ensure the probability of miscalculation and/ or accidents becomes
almost unavoidable. There must be regime change in Tehran, on the road to Beijing and Moscow:
Iran has every right to defend itself from US imperialisms constant violence, as is the case
with China and Russia. It is also pleasing to see the almighty war machine get a bloody nose.
But we should never lose sight of the fact that it is always the working class that
suffers the most in terms of death, injuries and destitution.
End all wars!
End production for profit and the Nation state upon which it is built!
America's history demonstrates that loss of (foreign) life is of little concern to those in
power.
The Manhattan Project was established, and mightily financed because of reasonably well
established fears that Nazi Germany was on track to build its own A-bombs.
With the defeat of Germany that fear was gone. Nevertheless, knowing full well that Imperial
Japan had no such program, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vapourised. A clear demonstration that
they, atomic weapons, WMD, worked and a warning to the Soviet Union that it too could be
annihilated.
Robert Oppenheimer and others refused to take part in building an H-bomb for class and humane
reasons. This fell on Truman's deaf ears.
American Imperialism is indifferent to death and destruction of billions.
As WSWS has stated, Trumps announcement that the loss of 150 Iranian lives is the the reason
he pulled backs so much bilge.
Trump is in a catch 22. When push has come to shove , he simply cannot sell another war to
the US working class, and he knows it , and he's been well and truly spooked by the Iranian
response.
All the US garbage of itself as ''victim'', all the 'good cop bad cop' routines are
wearing thin. Nobody is buying it anymore , especially from a gangster.
Perhaps a predicted massive spike in global temperatures will clear out the collective
cobwebs further.
Good point about the possibility of Iran sinking a carrier. The Chinese have developed
advanced anti-ship weapons that, if the results of a RAND corporation war game can be
believed, will be able to neutralize carriers. This highlights the fact that, whatever the
salesmen of advanced weaponry might say, it will not win wars alone. All of the smart weapons
in the world have not ended the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan in the favour of American
imperialism.
We can see an historical precedent in the British development of the dreadnought, the
modern battleship, in the arms race that preceded WWI. Dreadnoughts were supposed to be the
decisive super weapons of the day, but the British and German battle fleets remained in their
moorings for most of the war for fear that these expensive ships would fall prey to torpedos.
The sinking of the HMS Formidable in 1915 is a case in point. The only major engagement
between dreadnoughts was at Jutland and it was inconclusive.
For all of the contemporary bluster about super weapons and the fetishism of smart bombs
and cyber weapons, they will not decisively win a war alone. As in the world wars of the last
century, the bourgeoisie will be forced to mobilize society for a war. This will mean
bringing the working class - against its will - into the maelstrom.
Yet again the WSWS demonstrates the incredible foresight and clarity of Marxist analysis. I
would like to extend my thanks to Comrade Andre and the editors of the WSWS for their
indefatigable efforts to impart Marxist consciousness to the masses. For all of the naysayers
who have attacked the WSWS as "sectarian" or as not involved in "practical work," need we
point to anything other than the WSWSs explanation of the connection between eruption of
American imperialism and the decline of the productive forces of that nation state? That
analysis has placed the WSWS in the position of being better prepared politically for the
consequences of war than the imperialists, as the latest farce in the Middle East
demonstrates.
A quote from Trotsky will further emphasize my point:
"We will not concede this banner to the masters of falsehood! If our generation happens to
be too weak to establish Socialism over the earth, we will hand the spotless banner down to
our children. The struggle which is in the offing transcends by far the importance of
individuals, factions and parties. It is the struggle for the future of all mankind."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system. So the question is, if the stealth advantage of
the F-35 is only good for a limited time, is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth
using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues. Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of
navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water
in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be
entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the
straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is
something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians
have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no
subterfuge or secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below). Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and
financial crisis of immense proportions around the world. The financial and speculative house
of cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down. The amount of
derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is
estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or
$1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a
billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} (See
"World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion Notional, as Banks Fight
Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at
<
https://www.globalresearch.... >). Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various
elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world
production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps
less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"Thirty years of endless war have created a veritable cult of militarism within the American
ruling elite, whose guiding assumption seems to be that wars can be waged without drastic
global consequences, including for the United States itself."
The military/security surveillance state is a trillion dollar enterprise that instigates
conflicts to expand its profits. Militarism works hand-in-hand with the neoliberal
corporatists who deploy the military to secure natural resources, wage slaves, and
geostrategic hegemony. It should be noted, that the US imperialist agenda left unhindered
after the dissolution of the Soviet Union only intensified.
However, in order for the US ruling class to achieve the "ultimate goal" of unilateral
hegemony in the Middle East the military must confront Iran a powerful sizable country with
economic and political ties to China and Russia. This is the dilemma confronting the
warmongering psychopaths
who are influenced by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A significant military attack against Iran will NOT go unanswered and if the Iranian
Military destroys a US warship and kills hundreds of sailors it would unleash another major
war in the Middle East igniting the entire region and possibly leading to a world war.
What should traumatize the US population and awaken them from their hypnotic warmongering
stupur created by propaganda proliferated on FOX, MSNBC, and CNN is that the United States
came within minutes of launching a war whose military consequences it had NOT seriously
examined.
In light of these dangerous events it is obvious that a faction of the American ruling class
circles including Trump were not prepared to face the consequences of a strike against Iran.
That is precisely why Trump aborted the mission last Friday. Just yesterday Trump himself
admitted for the first time that if it was up to John Bolton then we would be fighting the
whole world. Today Pompeo has been sent to Middle East to broaden his alliance with Gulf
Monarchical regimes most notably Saudi Arabia and UAE. It is aimed to prepare the ground for
possible confrontation with Iran.
Trump's comment re Bolton that the US "would fight the whole world" sums up what the US is
really about. Take it from me, The US hates virtually every country save one: Israel. Illegal
US Sanctions regimes now extend to almost 50% of the world's population. The US does not even
like the advanced countries such as Europe and Japan. They tolerate them because of
diplomatic support and large investment and trade ties. Outside that they have no affinity or
connection. Until we all realise the true nature of The US and its exclusive cultural mindset
[NFL, NBA, MLB etc etc], populations will merely continue to enable the US to attack and
sanction everybody and anyone of their demented choosing. The tragedy is that if the other
countries became united and were committed to ending this US terror by eg dumping the US
Dollar as international reserve currency and sanctioning all US corporations, the US would
face severe turmoil and its reign of endless terror brought to a sudden end.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
I believe things simple didn't go as planned as an airplane was threatened to be taken
down. Bolton was in Israel after that to most likely assure Netanyahu that a new attack would
be conducted, Bolton Warned Iran Not to 'Mistake U.S. Prudence and Discretion for
Weakness'...
There needs to be a correction in the article on the older Raad system not having been used
but instead the newer, 'Third of Khordad' system which brought down the MQ-4C Triton.
Pictures/ Info on the Third of Khordad reveals that it is in effect an Iranian version of the
Soviet Buk-M2 of the MH-17 downing fame which the western backed Kiev junta used from its
hand me down Soviet weapons arsenal, to shoot down the ill fated Malaysian Airliner over the
Ukraine. The system also is stark evidence of the close defense relationship between the
Russians and the Iranians, confirming the suspicions in the west that whatever weaponry Putin
transfers to Syria or Iraq is by default also available to Iran.
Not to be outdone by his failure to bring Iran to its knees, Trump ordered a massive cyber
attack on Iran's missile batteries and its command and control centers after rescinding the
military order to physically attack Iran for downing the drone. The Iranians today announced
the failure of this desperate US cyber attack:
This is in addition to the CIA placing an agent within the Iranian oil ministry for
conducting sabotage. She has been arrested and faces the death penalty for espionage:
The deep State in the US will not stop trying to subdue Iran until it capitulates. Iran
must fall to Washington in order for the US to effectively counter and sabotage both Putin's
Eurasian Integration and president Xi's BRI projects.
Trump's alterration at this moment can be due to Iran's internal coherence against American
imperialism. With santions being reinforced, one can anticipate more and more impovershment
and quality of life geting lower unabated to the point that the basis for internal coherence
gets eroded substantially. We saw working class uprisings in Iran recently and leadership
accused imperialist as rabble-rousers to find a way out.That is why we need building
SEP/IYSSE in Iran to hatch revolutionary force in Iran for Iran to join the peer in the rest
of the world. Morsi in Egypt was overthrown by Sisi with the backing of US imperialism headed
by Obama at that time. So is the imperialism and it will continue to work to weaken Iran as a
force successfully confronting imperialism in the middle east currently. Let us therefore
empower international working class to empower it to overthrow imperialism on one hand and
Stalinism on the other hand. Russia too depend largely on its arms sale to maintain its
economy. But human needs, not wepons, but basic needs including clean environment. Long live
the socialist revolution in Iran and internationally. Death to imperialism. Thank you comrade
Andre Damon.
"The strikes were called off at the last moment, amid deep divisions at the highest levels of
the White House and the Pentagon over the consequences -- military, diplomatic and political
-- of what would likely be the single most dangerous and reckless action of the entire Trump
presidency."
Economically it would be Armageddon. Although some think America does not rely on Mideast
oil, the world economy does and America is a part of that despite what nationalists dream.
Bolton is making threats from Israel and clearly some believe they stand to gain from war but
militarily too it would be Armageddon. The Pentagon would answer the sinking of a carrier by
nuking Iran to preserve American "credibility" i.e. fear. China and Russia would have to
react, China at least to keep its oil supplied. India pushed against China could add more
mushroom clouds not to mention Pakistan. Israel itself with Tel Aviv bombarded from Lebanon
and maybe invaded unable to stop this might nuke Lebanon and maybe Tehran if any of it
remains and Damascus besides. Just as ww1 started because military train timetables had to be
followed there are nukewar plans in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing that won't take long. So
world workers need to start our plan before others begin. Preemptive general strikes, antiwar
and socialist revolutionary agitation and propaganda within imperialist rank and files and
human blockades of war material networks should happen at an early date like now. Now also
WikiLeaks should put out whatever it hasn't while people exist to read it. The rich are
determined to kill Assange anyway and full wartime censorship is not far off.
Some people have speculated that if the U.S. does attack Iran then Iran will launch missiles
at Saudi Arabia's oil fields which will then send oil prices skyrocketing to $130 dollars a
barrel. The article also notes that:
"While Trump's foreign policy team -- headed by National Security Advisor John Bolton and
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo -- 'unanimously' supported the attack, General Joseph Dunford,
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 'cautioned about the possible repercussions of a
strike, warning that it could endanger American forces,' the Times wrote."
Apparently the good general cannot get too worked up at the sight of thousands and
thousands of Iranian children, women, and old men who would be slaughtered and grievously
wounded by U.S. bombs and the water supply which would be contaminated when those bombs would
land at a nuclear power plant. But these horrific actions by the United States are of no
consequence because, as Madeline Albright observed on a television a few decades ago, the
deaths of a half million Iraqi children by the U.S. was worth it. It would appear that the
lives of foreigners are of little consequence to those who are in power. Threatening to start
a war against another country for the most specious of reasons is simply another reason why a
malignant narcissist like Trump needs to be removed from office as quickly as possible. Or
perhaps Trump believes that the best way to improve his low poll numbers is to start dropping
500 lb. bombs on a country which does not in any remote way pose a threat to the United
States.
"Almost all propaganda is designed to create fear. Heads of governments and their
officials know that a frightened people is easier to govern, will forfeit rights it would
otherwise defend, is less likely to demand a better life, and will agree to millions and
millions being spent on 'Defense'."-John Boynton Priestly [1894-1984], English writer
"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill
everyone, and you are a god."-Jean Rostand [1894-1977], French philosopher and biologist
After Hezballah had booted Zionist colonizers out of Lebanon, Zionist apartheid had lost its
image of "invincibility".
Now even ghetto Gaza is fighting back.
The CIA payrolled press whores like CNN's Christiane Amanpour for example a prime warmonger
and there are countless others embedded in every western media source.
Ironically, Amanpour is Iranian background, an avowed revolution hater and a devoted Iranian
Pahlavi monarchist. She's on the record for saying that she wants to see the Shah's exiled
son back on the throne in Iran, serving US imperialism for the 'benefit of the Iranian
nation'.
The sinking of an aircraft carrier, especially one as well known as the USS Lincoln, would
have been one of the biggest PR disasters for both Trump and the military. It probably would
have sparked demands from the people to know how, despite pouring trillions of dollars into
the mouths of greedy defense contractors for decades, a supposedly inferior military could so
easily take down one of our ships.
Khrushchev once said of the Sverdlov class cruisers built in the early 1950's that their only
practical purpose was as targets for anti ship missile training because of how outdated they
where considering they where armed with guns.
Maybe the anti-ship missile now stands at the point where it can make carriers obsolete
similar to how the battleship was made obsolete by the carrier.
There are some who argue that surface navies became obsolete in the 1950's with the advent of
long range missiles. For many years now, China has been helping to build up Iranian area
defences...
Cold war weapons are unsuitable for countering Iran's asymmetric warfare doctrine. A dozen or
two highly advanced US warships are no match for a thousand missile boats and thousands of
Iranian anti-ship missiles in the narrow confines of the shallow gulf.
Minutes or hours, or Trump never signed on to them, as the accounts from different US media
outlets and Trump have differed at several points. Fog of war indeed.
That's good line of attack on Trump. People do not want yet another war and they are against
overinflated military expenditures. and Trump essentially behaves like a rabid subservant to
Israel neocon in those area. So he might share the Hillary destiny in 2020
The Dem debaters want the failed JCPOA back, except one wants a more punitive one. So it's
Obama/Trump redux with all of them, worthless people. We're less safe with Iranians . .
.under the bed!
McClatchy
Klobuchar said that Trump's strategy on Iran had "made us less safe," after debate
moderators took note of increased military tensions in the Strait of Hormuz last week.
Washington has accused Iran of targeting shipping vessels, and Tehran acknowledged it shot
down an unmanned U.S. drone on Thursday, nearly prompting Trump to order a retaliatory
military strike. The 2015 nuclear deal "was imperfect, but it was a good deal for that
moment," Klobuchar stated, characterizing the agreement's "sunset periods" – caps on
Iran's enrichment and stockpiling of fissile material set to expire five to 10 years from
the next inauguration– as a potential point of renegotiation.
The Democratic field has roundly criticized Trump for his approach to Iran. Many of the
leading candidates said last week's military confrontation spawned from a crisis of the
president's own making, precipitated by his withdrawal from that landmark accord.
But up until now, the Democratic candidates have not specified how they would salvage a
deal that continues to fray – and that may collapse completely under the weight of
steadily broadening U.S. sanctions by the time a new president could be sworn in.
Few Democrats had thus far hedged over adopting the agreement entirely should they win
the presidency even if the deal survives that long. Leading candidates have characterized
the nuclear agreement as "imperfect" and in need of "strengthening," suggesting subtle
distinctions within the field over the potential conditions of U.S. re-entry into a pact. .
. here
I've got a deal for them to salvage, get off your GD pedestals and say hello to the real
world! . . .There, I feel better now.
Iran's foreign minister has dismissed US President Donald Trump 's claim that a
war between their countries would be short-lived, as Washington sought NATO's help to build an
anti-Tehran coalition.
"'Short war' with Iran is an illusion," Mohammad Javad Zarif wrote on Twitter on Thursday, a
day after Trump said he did not want a war with Iran but warned that if fighting did
break out, it "wouldn't last very long".
Tehran has accused the United States of "economic
terrorism" and "psychological warfare" over the Trump administration's application of punishing
sanctions after the US president last year unilaterally withdrew Washington from an historic
nuclear deal with world powers. Under the 2015 agreement, Iran agreed to scale back its nuclear
programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.
In his Twitter post, Zarif said the reimposed and tightened US sanctions "aren't an
alternative to war - they are war".
"... Iran hawks want to force Iran out of the deal to give them a pretext for conflict. These waivers are their latest target because without them other governments may be leery of cooperating on the nuclear projects that give Iran an incentive to remain in the deal. Iran has very few reasons to remain in the deal at this point, and canceling the waivers would likely be the last straw. This is what Bolton and his allies have been working towards all along. When the waivers came up for renewal this spring, the administration extended them, but now there is a real danger that they won't do that again. The last time this came up, Jarrett Blanc explained why extending the waivers is the obviously correct thing to do: ..."
"... Canceling the waivers would be another escalation by the Trump administration, and it would almost certainly prompt Iranian countermoves to further reduce or end their compliance with the deal. The Iran hawks in the administration may think they want a bigger crisis with Iran, but they may not like it when they get one. ..."
Politico reports that the most rabid Iran hawks
in the Senate and inside the administration are pushing to cancel the remaining waivers that
enable international cooperation on civilian nuclear projects in Iran. Their explicit goal is
to destroy the last pieces of the deal that the U.S. hasn't directly attacked yet.
The
report has some
interesting details, but the framing of the debate is awful:
Proponents of the nuclear deal have argued that the international nuclear projects
facilitated by the waivers help give the U.S. greater visibility and intelligence into
Iranian activities; critics say they give an international stamp of approval to Iran's
illicit activities.
This is a great example of how ostensibly "neutral" reporting favors the side acting and
arguing in bad faith. What "illicit activities" are supported by these waivers? There aren't
any. The report makes it sound as if there are two equally valid, competing positions, but one
of them is completely false. The hawks' objections to them have nothing to do with opposition
to "illicit activities" and everything to do with their hatred for the deal. The activities
that the waivers facilitate are endorsed by the JCPOA and a U.N. Security Council resolution.
They cannot be illicit because they are entirely consistent with Iran's obligations and
international law. The U.S. has been providing these waivers up until now because of the
obvious nonproliferation benefits that everyone derives from the deal, and the people that want
to end the waivers are doing so because they don't care about nonproliferation.
Iran hawks want to force Iran out of the deal to give them a pretext for conflict. These
waivers are their latest target because without them other governments may be leery of
cooperating on the nuclear projects that give Iran an incentive to remain in the deal. Iran has
very few reasons to remain in the deal at this point, and canceling the waivers would likely be
the last straw. This is what Bolton and his allies have been working towards all along. When
the waivers came up for renewal this spring, the administration extended them, but now there is
a real danger that they won't do that again. The last time this came up, Jarrett Blanc
explained why extending the waivers is the obviously correct thing to do:
Failing to renew the waivers would be indefensible. The fact that there is even an
internal debate is illuminating: At least some Trump advisors want a crisis with Iran, and
the sooner the better.
Withdrawing waivers for civil nuclear cooperation may sound less aggressive than steps
like the overhyped Guard Corps designation, but it is one of the most dangerous steps the
administration has left, threatening the international nuclear cooperation that is Iran's
only remaining practical benefit from the deal.
Canceling the waivers would be another escalation by the Trump administration, and it
would almost certainly prompt Iranian countermoves to further reduce or end their compliance
with the deal. The Iran hawks in the administration may think they want a bigger crisis with
Iran, but they may not like it when they get one.
Very few Americans have any realisation at all (certainly non that I have spoken to below
the rank of Army Colonel or Navy Captain anyway) that a war with Iran will leave 100s of
thousands if not millions of Americans dead, many capital ships at the bottom of the Gulf and
the Med (think hard about how that will happen in the Med), and the US a broken 3rd world
nation, if the states even stay together to maintain a 'US'.
You need to realise that the middle east (to include Cyprus and Turkey) will be cut off to
you. No resupply, no support, no evac. There will be no troops left in the middle east to
bring home after a few days of fighting exhaust all ammp and supplies and all positions are
then overun or destroyed.
Every last troop in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan will be wiped out, and there will be no
way at all of deploying any more troops (think why).
The shock to the weak American Psyche will be amplified by assymetrical spec ops /
gorrilla warefare in every US city.
To begin with there will be gas station fires and power line cuts in every US town and
city, followed by bridge collpases, interstate highway failures, railroad failures and then
destruction, food and medical warehouse fires, forest fires, container port sabotage, cell
phone and radio tower destruction, water mains destruction, sewage mains destruction, and of
course contamination of water reservoirs - all of which are very simple and easy assymetrical
attacks that can be rolled out nationwide by only by a few hundred well trained individuals
(already well embedded).
Add these simple WW2 partisan style acts to other acts of sabotage against fire,
ambulance, and police infrastruture (again, all very simple and easy assymetrical attacks)
and the worst elements of your own society will continue and further amplify the
conflageration.
The cities will implode and feed upon themselves, and when the carnage reaches a platau,
or simply a stage that invites escalation, then the next phase begins - think MANPADS at
every airport to bring down all relief flights and national guard units, ATGMs and HMG
against military and police units, snipers against any opertunistic target - anywhere at any
time.
There are further steps which I wont describe lest it give certain people ideas, but in
the space of just 2 weeks the entire US could brought to its knees and made to realise that
every nation on the earth, except the us, hates war and tries to avoid it.
If the US people think they can nuke Iran, kill millions more muslims, and then go back to
watching the ball game they should think again.
The Iranians (and Russians and Chinese too) have been planning for a war with the US for
decades.
The Iranians know full well that their cities will be nuked, but the Iranians believe the
US is the embodyment of Satan (and they have lots of evidence to suggest this is indeed true)
so they will fight without regard to life, to pain and to massive losses.
They, and there allies will utterly wipe out ever last US military unit in the middle east
and bring the Continental US to its knees in ways few can yet imagine.
Yes, Iran will be glass, but the US will be ashes, or at least no longer a us - as much a
victim of its own complexity and ignorance as any missiles or explosives used by Iranian spec
ops.
A war with Iran will be the last war the US ever fights. It may 'win' but at what
cost.
@ Capt. Abdul Hassan 76
Thank you for that, very insighful, perhaps a little over the top, but right on.
Sunny Runny Burger , Jun 27, 2019 10:59:29 AM |
139
Don Bacon I think you're right and in addition the amendment won't matter because the
exceptions are so encompassing nearly anything goes.
I'm going to crosspost the scenario (all I posted was the scenario, not the stuff
afterwards):
1. US false flags in Iranian vicinity.
2. US military deaths due to provoked Iranian action.
3. US limited strikes.
4. US false flag Iranian dirty bomb in US city using surplus enriched material bought from
Iran.
5. US submits evidence of Iranian nuclear attack in UNSC.
6. US attacks Iran using nuclear weapons.
A few (?) didn't buy 1 but the US got stuck on 2 so far and might get stuck on 3 as
well.
How can one make 4 fail except to talk about it so people have a chance to think of it as
a possibility when it happens?
5 is for "perception" and narrative, it doesn't matter if the UNSC doesn't agree with what
the US says or the entire world ridicules the US or if the entire world starts marching like
they "magically" and "spontaneously" did before the Iraq war (what was that about? Controlled
opposition galore?).
Russia and China are repeatedly telling the US (and everybody else) what 6 will
mean.
"... The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war that deserved retaliation. ..."
"... The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views? ..."
"... Iran is preparing to breach the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more generally. ..."
"... Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting Saudi and American domination of the region. ..."
"... Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is practically excluded." ..."
"... They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right. ..."
Iran predictably claimed that the drone was within its airspace. American officials asserted
that it was in international airspace. Reported by The New York Times :
"a
senior Trump administration official said there was concern inside the United States government
about whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft, or even the P-8A manned
aircraft flown by a military aircrew, actually did violate Iranian airspace at some point. The
official said the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike."
The point is worth repeating. The military was prepared to blast away when it wasn't even
certain whether America was in the right. The episode brings to mind the 1988 shootdown of an
Iranian airliner in the Persian Gulf by the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes .
Initially the U.S. Navy justified its action, making a series of false claims about Iran Air
Flight 655, which carried 290 passengers and crew members. Eventually Washington did admit that
it had made a horrific mistake, though the Vincennes captain was later decorated.
The possibility that the United States might be committing an act of war under false
pretenses apparently did little to discourage the president's principal foreign policy
advisers, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, from
pushing a military response. Tehran's action was presented as raw aggression, an act of war
that deserved retaliation.
The president apparently complained to a close associate, "These people want to push us into
a war, and it's so disgusting." According to The Wall Street Journal , he
further opined, "We don't need any more wars." He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to
surround himself with advisers apparently so at variance with his views?
Presumably the president believes that he can control his war-happy subordinates, using them
as he sees fit. However, his overweening hubris ignores their power to set the agenda and
influence his choices. Consider the basic question of objectives regarding Iran. Trump now says
all he wants to do is keep nukes out of Tehran's hands: "Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon,"
he intoned after halting the proposed reprisal, adding that "restraint" has its limits. But the
nuclear accord was drafted to forestall an Iranian nuclear weapon. Iran is preparing to breach
the limits established by the agreement because Washington repudiated it . It is
evident that the president doesn't understand the JCPOA or the nuclear issue more
generally.
Moreover, though he is focused on nuclear issues, his appointees have been demanding far
more of Tehran, forestalling negotiations. For instance, last year, Pompeo ordered Iran to
abandon its independent foreign policy and dismantle its missile deterrent, while accepting
Saudi and American domination of the region.
These mandates were an obvious non-starter -- what
sovereign nation voluntarily accepts puppet status? In fact, Pompeo admitted that he didn't
expect Iran to surrender, but instead hoped for a popular revolution. In recently stating that
the administration would negotiate without preconditions, he added that Washington expected
Iran to act like "a normal nation," meaning behaving just as he'd demanded last year. (Notably,
there was no offer for America to act like a normal country.)
Pompeo's demands look a bit like the ultimatum to Serbia in June 1914 after a nationalist
backed by Serbian military intelligence assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne.
The Austrians set only 10, rather than 12, requirements, but they also were intended to be
rejected. Vienna explained to its ally Germany that "the possibility of its acceptance is
practically excluded."
Once it became evident that no one would willingly back down and conflict was likely,
Germany's Kaiser and Russia's Tsar tried to halt the rush to war. However, they found
themselves hemmed in by the war plans created by their nominal subordinates. With
Austria-Hungary mobilizing against Serbia, Russia had to act to protect the latter. Germany
then faced a two-front war. Thus, to aid its ally in Vienna, the Germans had to mobilize
quickly in an attempt to defeat France before Russia could put its massive army into the field.
No one had sufficient time for diplomacy.
However, cousins Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas did engage in a last minute "Willy-Nicky"
exchange of telegrams. Wilhelm warned Nicholas that general Russian mobilization would require
Germany to act, with war the result. In response, the tsar switched from general to partial
mobilization. But he was soon besieged by his top officials who insisted that the entire army
had to be called up.
Understanding that general mobilization meant war, the tsar observed: "Think of the
responsibility you are asking me to take! Think of the thousands and thousands of men who will
be sent to their deaths." But he gave in, approving mobilization on the evening of July 30.
Nicholas's concern was warranted. More than 1.7 million Russian soldiers, along with hundreds
of thousands of civilians, died in the conflict. The ensuing Russian Civil War was even more
deadly, indeed far more so for noncombatants, among them the tsar and his family.
Kaiser Wilhelm was equally at the mercy of the "France-first" Schlieffen Plan. To wait would
be to invite destruction between the French and Russians, so he approved German mobilization on
August 1. He predicted the war would lead to "endless misery," and so it did. In 1918, he was
forced to abdicate and he lived out his life in exile.
Pompeo, Bolton, and like-minded officials tried and failed to force another war last week.
Next time they may succeed in leaving the president with no practical choice but the one they
favor. In which case he will find himself starting the very conflict that he had declared
against.
Ongoing administration machinations -- exacerbated by the opportunity to manipulate a
president -- offer an important reminder as to the Founders' wisdom. Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention made clear their intention to break with monarchical practice,
minimizing the president's authority. Congress was assigned the powers to raise armies, decide
on the rules of war, issue letters of marque and reprisal, and ratify treaties. Most
importantly, the legislative branch alone could declare war.
As commander-in-chief, the president could defend against attack, but he could not even
order a retaliatory strike without congressional authority. Wrote James Madison to Thomas
Jefferson: "The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that
the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has
accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature." Delegate James
Wilson insisted that the Constitution was intended to "guard against" being hurried into war:
"It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such
distress, for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."
Most important, placing the war power with Congress ensured that the people would be heard.
Of course, even that is not enough today. Presidents have adeptly concocted "evidence" and
misled the public, such as during the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
They were living out what Hermann Goering, on trial at Nuremberg, described in a private
conversation to an American officer: "voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to
the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.
It works the same way in any country." Tragically, he's probably right.
However, the Iraq debacle has resulted in greater skepticism of presidential claims. The
Trump administration's unsupported judgment that Iran was behind attacks on oil tankers was
greeted at home and abroad with a demand for more evidence. People were conscious of having
been repeatedly played by Washington and did not want a repeat. Many found the U.S. government
no more trustworthy than Iranian authorities, a humbling equivalence. And given the doubts
apparently voiced by Pentagon officials out of public view, such skepticism was
well-founded.
Last week, Donald Trump declared, "I want to get out of these endless wars." Unlike his
predecessors, the president apparently recognizes the temptation to sacrifice lives for
political gain. However, alone he will find it nearly impossible to face down the bipartisan
War Party. The best way to get out of endless wars is to not get in them in the first place.
And that requires changing personnel and respecting the constitutional limits established by
the nation's Founders.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to
President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global
Empire
Unfortunately, the President is attempting to walk a tight-rope between peace and the most
prominent funders of the GOP. Sheldon Adelson and his ilk are bent on the destruction of any
nation that stands in the way of Israeli expansion. And of course military contractors need
constant growth in tax-payer funding to support their margins and shareholder value. Hence
the blustering to appease the aforementioned and keep the bribes flowing, while backing down
to appease the base.
It would of course be in the interests of the base to oppose the bribe-taking to begin
with, but I assume that must be beyond their intellectual capacity. Or perhaps they're simply
in favor of it for ideological reasons.
We might as well be honest about it. All politicians over simplify, shade the truth, and
occasionally lie. But Trump's falsehoods are so continuous and extensive that there is no
reason to believe anything he says - everything needs to be validated against external
authorities - which is why he is so intent on tearing down all authorities that could
contradict him.
This is another in the long line of stories we are reading here (and in other places) that
Trump really doesn't want to get involved in a war but is being manipulated by Bolton, Pompeo
and the national security apparatus. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
Trump hired Bolton and Pompeo. Even somebody as apparently dimwitted as Trump could not
possibly have failed to notice that they were warmongers. Indeed, Bolton is probably the most
extreme warmonger around: he has an extensive public record of advocating war with Iran for
about two decades now. I cannot believe that even Trump was unaware of this. And even if he
was, why hasn't he fired them? He doesn't need anybody's permission to do that. Let's get
real: Trump is every bit the warmonger as the people he hires. His statements to the contrary
are just more additions to his endless string of lies.
What's more, he has another way to avoid being cornered into starting a war. All he has to
do in that circumstance is acknowledge that the constitution doesn't grant him that authority
and toss the decision making to Congerss, where it legally belongs. But he has done nothing
that suggests he acknowledges that constitutional delegation of authority--even though it
could provide him a way out if he felt he needed one.
So, no. I don't believe for a minute that Trump wants to avoid war. Actions speak louder
than words, especially Trump's words.
You're falling for the "official" report that he called off the attack merely because 150
lives were at stake? Since when did he all of a sudden grow a conscious after the inexcusable
defense he gave for our irresponsible military and intelligence ventures? He even bypasses
Congress itself by his illegal presidential will to give weapons to the SAUDIS. The
tyrannical, radical, scourge of humanity tribal savages turned psychopathic oligarchs that is
the House of Saud.
Let's be perfectly honest with ourselves, Tucker Carson (a f*cking tv show host of all
people) convinced a US president to not commit to another illegal war. Not because lives were
at stake, heavens no. It's because going into a disastrous war with Iran would gauruntee his
chances of not getting re-elected.
The American government is a living parody with no hope of redemption.
The President's almost daily outpouring of gibberish gives one little confidence that the
notion of 'the truth' holds any importance for him or his crew. Who needs historical
precedents to establish a feeling of mistrust when even the simplest statements from the
White House are so often needlessly loaded with misapprehensions, distortions and out right
BS?
" He's right. But then why has Trump chosen to surround himself with advisers apparently so
at variance with his views?"
I get this, position. You present an incredibly tough front as you press an entirely
different goal. The problem is that the president has presented a very tough front himself.
So when it appears to to actually be tough, he comes across as "not so much". It even
provides opportunity to grand him fearful. In the scenario that I think is being played out
or made to appear to play out --- the good cop, the reasonable cop has to sound reasonable
all the time. He has to claim to be holding back the forces of evil that threaten to consume
the target. But the president has been leading the way as "bad cop" so in the mind the
targets, there are no good cops.
But in my view, all of this hoollla baaaloooey about Iran is a distraction to the real
threat
the border. And the only common ground to be had is to enforce the law. That is why I
think the president is weak. For all of the tough talk --- he folded -- again on immigration.
Pretending to get concessions that is by agreement already expected from Mexico is the such
naked weakness that launching hypersonic missiles obliterating Tehran would just give him
sandals.
Uhhhh, no. I don't regret my vote. And and I still want the wall built and the laws
enforced and the sovereignty of the US respected by guests and citizens alike,.
"... Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of ..."
"... The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now. Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in forthrightly opposing war with Iran ..."
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. This assessment is based
on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the
area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication.
This is only the latest in a series of attacks instigated by the Islamic Republic of Iran
and its surrogates against American and allied interests, and they should be understood in
the context of 40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
The secretary of state delivered this appallingly Orwellian official assessment of the US
government within hours of the five explosions on two tankers, well before any credible
investigation establishing more than minimal facts could be carried out. As is his habit, Mike
Pompeo flatly lied about whatever might be real in the Gulf of Oman, and most American media
ran with the lies as if they were or might be true. There is almost no chance that Mike Pompeo
and the US government are telling the truth about this event, as widespread domestic and
international skepticism attests.
Pompeo's official assessment was false even in its staging. For most of his four-minute
appearance, Pompeo stood framed by two pictures behind him, each showing a tanker with a fire
amidships. This was a deliberate visual lie. The two pictures showed the same tanker, the
Norwegian-owned Front Altair , from different angles. The other tanker, Japanese-owned
Kokuka Courageous , did not catch fire and was not shown.
First, what actually happened, as best we can tell five days later? In the early morning of
June 13, two unrelated tankers were heading south out of the Strait of Hormuz, sailing in open
water in the Gulf of Oman, roughly 20 miles off the south coast of Iran. The tankers were most
likely outside Iran's territorial waters, but within Iran's contiguous zone as defined by the
UN Convention on
the Law of the Sea . At different times, some 30 miles apart, the two tankers were attacked
by weapons unknown, launched by parties unknown, for reasons unknown. The first reported
distress call was 6:12 a.m. local time. No one has yet claimed responsibility for either
attack. The crew of each tanker abandoned ship soon after the explosions and were rescued by
ships in the area, including Iranian naval vessels, who took the Front Altair crew to an
Iranian port.
Even this much was not certain in the early afternoon of June 13 when Mike Pompeo came to
the lectern at the State Department to deliver his verdict:
It is the assessment of the United States Government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is
responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today.
Pompeo did not identify the unnamed intelligence entities, if any, within the government who
made this assessment. He offered no evidence to support the assessment. He did offer something
of an argument that began:
This assessment is based on intelligence .
He didn't say what intelligence. He didn't say whose intelligence. American intelligence
assets and technology are all over the region generating reams of intelligence day in, day out.
Then there are the intelligence agencies of the Arab police states bordering the Persian Gulf.
They, too, are busy collecting intelligence 24/7, although they are sometimes loath to share.
Pompeo didn't mention it, but according to CNN an unnamed US official admitted that the US had
a Reaper Drone in the air near the two tankers before they were attacked. He also claimed that
Iran had fired a missile at the drone, but missed. As CNN inanely spins it, "it is the first
claim that the US has information of Iranian movements prior to the attack." As if the US
doesn't have information on Iranian movements all the time . More accurately, this is
the first admission that the US had operational weaponry in the area prior to the attack. After
intelligence, Pompeo continued:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used .
Pompeo did not name a single weapon used. Early reporting claimed the attackers used
torpedoes or mines, a claim that became inoperative as it became clear that all the damage to
the tankers was well above the waterline. There is little reason to believe Pompeo had any
actual knowledge of what weapons were used, unless one was a Reaper Drone. He went on:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation
The "level of expertise needed" to carry out these attacks on a pair of sitting duck tankers
does not appear to be that great. Yes, the Iranian military probably has the expertise, as do
the militaries of the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, or others with a stake
in provoking a crisis in the region. And those who lack the expertise still have the money with
which to hire expert surrogates. The number of credible suspects, known and unknown, with an
interest in doing harm to Iran is easily in double figures. Leading any serious list should be
the US. That's perfectly logical, so Pompeo tried to divert attention from the obvious:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping .
There are NO confirmed "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," and even if there were,
they would prove nothing. Pompeo's embarrassingly irrelevant list that follows includes six
examples, only one of which involved a shipping attack. The one example was the May 12, 2019,
attack on four ships at anchor in the deep water port of Fujairah. Even the multinational
investigation organized by the UAE could not determine who did it. The UAE reported to the UN
Security Council that the perpetrator was likely some unnamed "state actor." The logical
suspects and their surrogates are the same as those for the most recent attack.
Instead of "recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping," Pompeo offers Iran's decades-old
threat to close the Strait of Hormuz (which it's never done), together with three attacks by
the Houthis on Saudi Arabia, an unattributed rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad, and an
unattributed car bomb in Afghanistan. Seriously, if that's all he's got, he's got nothing. But
he's not done with the disinformation exercise:
This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high
degree of sophistication.
The whole proxy group thing is redundant, covered by "the level of expertise needed"
mentioned earlier. Pompeo doesn't name any proxy group here, he doesn't explain how he could
know there's no proxy group that could carry out such an attack, and he just throws word
garbage at the wall and hopes something sticks that will make you believe – no evidence
necessary – that Iran is evil beyond redemption:
Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace
and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of
escalating tension by Iran.
The attacks in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all been provoked by the US and its
allies. The US has long been a clear threat to international peace and security, except when
the US was actually trashing peace and security, as it did in Iraq, as it seems to want to do
in Iran. There is, indeed, "an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension," but it's a
campaign by the US. The current phase began when the Trump administration pulled out of the
multinational nuclear deal with Iran. The US wages economic warfare on Iran even though Iran
continues to abide by the Trump-trashed treaty. All the other signatories and inspectors
confirm that Iran has abided by the agreement. But Iran is approaching a point of violation,
which it has been warning about for some time. The other signatories allow the US to bully them
into enforcing US sanctions at their own cost against a country in compliance with its
promises. China, Russia, France, GB, Germany, and the EU are all craven in the face of US
threats. That's what the US wants from Iran.
Lately, Trump and Pompeo and their ilk have been whining about not wanting war and claiming
they want to negotiate, while doing nothing to make negotiation more possible. Iran has
observed US actions and has rejected negotiating with an imperial power with a decades-long
record of bad faith. Lacking any serious act of good faith by the US, does Iran have any other
rational choice? Pompeo makes absolutely clear just how irrational, how dishonest, how
implacable and untrustworthy the US is when he accuses Iran of:
40 years of unprovoked aggression against freedom-loving nations.
This is Big Lie country. Forty years ago, the Iranians committed their original sin –
they overthrew one of the world's most brutal dictatorships, imposed on them by the US. Then
they took Americans hostage, and the US has been playing the victim ever since, out of all
proportion to reality or justice. But the Pompeos of this world still milk it for all it's
worth. What about "unprovoked aggression," who does that? The US list is long and criminal,
including its support of Saddam Hussein's war of aggression against Iran. Iran's list of
"unprovoked aggressions" is pretty much zero, unless you go back to the Persian Empire. No
wonder Pompeo took no question on his statement. The Big Lie is supposed to be enough.
The US is stumbling down a path toward war with no justification. Democrats should have
objected forcefully and continuously long since. Democrats in the House should have put peace
with Iran on the table as soon as they came into the majority. They should do it now.
Democratic presidential candidates should join Tulsi Gabbard and Elizabeth Warren in
forthrightly opposing war with Iran. Leading a huge public outcry may not keep the president
from lying us into war with Iran any more than it kept the president from lying us into war
with Iraq. But an absence of outcry will just make it easier for this rogue nation to commit a
whole new set of war crimes.
Intellectually, the case for normal relations with Iran is easy. There is literally no good
reason to maintain hostility, not even the possibility, remote as it is, of an Iranian nuclear
weapon (especially now that Trump is helping the Saudis go nuclear). But politically, the case
for normal relations with Iran is hard, especially because forty years of propaganda demonizing
Iran has deep roots. To make a sane case on Iran takes real courage: one has to speak truth to
a nation that believes its lies to itself.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism,
and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from
Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an
Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. This article was first
published in Reader Supported
News . Read
other articles by William .
"... The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that " the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo). ..."
"... Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy. ..."
While the United States prepared a new escalation of tension in the Middle East by accusing
Iran of attacking petrol tankers in the Gulf of Oman, Italian vice-Prime Minister Matteo
Salvini met with one of the artisans of this strategy in Washington, Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, assuring him that " Italy wants to regain its place as the major partner on the
European continent of the greatest Western democracy ". Thereby he has allied Italy with the
operation launched by Washington.
The " Gulf of Oman affair " , a casus belli against Iran, is a carbon copy of the " Gulf of
Tonkin affair " of 4 August 1964, itself used as a casus belli to bomb North Vietnam, which was
accused of having attacked a US torpedo boat (an accusation which was later proved to be
false).
Today, a video released by Washington shows the crew of an alleged Iranian patrol boat
removing an unexploded mine from the hull of a petrol tanker in order to conceal its origin
(because the mine would allegedly have borne the inscription " Made in Iran ").
With this " proof " - a veritable insult to our intelligence - Washington is attempting to
camouflage the goal of the operation. It is part of the strategy aimed at controlling the world
reserves of oil and natural gas and their energy corridors [ 1 ]. It is no coincidence if Iran and
Iraq are in US crosshairs. Their total oil reserves are greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and
five times greater than those of the United States. Iranian reserves of natural gas are
approximately 2.5 times those of the USA. Venezuela finds itself targeted by the USA for the
same reason, since it is the country which owns the greatest oil reserves in the world.
The control of the energy corridors is of capital importance. By accusing Iran of attempting
to " interrupt the flow of oil through the Straights of Hormuz ", Mike Pompeo announced that "
the United States will defend freedom of navigation ". In other words, he has announced that
the United States want to gain military control of this key area for energy supplies, including
for Europe, by preventing above all the transit of Iranian oil (to which Italy and other
European countries cannot in any case enjoy free access because of the US embargo).
Low-cost Iranian natural gas might also have reached Europe by way of a pipeline crossing
Iraq and Syria. But the project, launched in 2011, was destroyed by the USA/NATO operation to
demolish the Syrian state.
Natural gas might also have arrived directly in Italy from Russia, and from there be
distributed to other European countries with notable economical advantages, via the South
Stream route through the Black Sea. But the pipeline, already in an advanced stage of
construction, was blocked in 2014 by the pressure of the United States and European Union
itself, with heavy prejudice for Italy.
In fact it was the reproduction of North Stream which continued, making Germany the centre
of triage for Russian gas.. Then, on the basis of the " USA/EU strategic cooperation in the
energy field " agreement stipulated in July 2018, US exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to
the EU tripled. The triage centre was in Poland, from which was distributed the " Freedom Gas "
which also arrived in Ukraine.
Washington's objective is strategic – to hurt Russia by replacing Russian gas in
Europe with US gas. But we have no guarantees, neither on the price, nor on the time-scale for
US gas extracted from the bituminous shale by the technique known as fracking (hydraulic
fracturation), which is disastrous for the environment.
So what does Matteo Salvini have to say about all that? When he arrived in the " greatest
democracy in the Western world ", he proudly declared - " I am part of a government which in
Europe is no longer satisfied with breadcrumbs ".
"... Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved. ..."
"... Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world ..."
"... The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} ..."
"... Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets. ..."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system.
So the question is, if the stealth advantage of the F-35 is only good for a limited time,
is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues.
Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the
facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is
either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within
their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after
some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at
least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated
that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or
secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below).
Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial
crisis of immense proportions around the world . The financial and speculative house of
cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down.
The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and
created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200
- $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett
Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're
talking BIG MONEY!!} (See "World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion
Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked
Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at <
https://www.globalresearch.... >).
Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and
speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual
products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the
Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"... Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. ..."
"... UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still refuses to join or allow inspections. ..."
"... When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers became a festering sore. ..."
Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations
Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or
with Security Council approval.
Let's remind ourselves of earlier US aggression and dishonesty during the Iran-Iraq war,
as recorded in Wikipedia:
In the course of escorts by the US Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air
Flight 655 on 3 July 1988, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. The American
government claimed that Vincennes was in international waters at the time (which was later
proven to be untrue), that the Airbus A300 had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat,
and that Vincennes feared that she was under attack. The Iranians maintain that Vincennes
was in their own waters, and that the passenger jet was turning away and increasing
altitude after take-off. US Admiral William J. Crowe later admitted on Nightline that
Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. At the time of
the attack, Admiral Crowe claimed that the Iranian plane did not identify itself and sent
no response to warning signals he had sent. In 1996, the United States expressed their
regret for the event and the civilian deaths it caused.
Trump now wants to impose further crippling sanctions on Iran and her people while the
UK's Foreign Office minister Andrew Murrison has just been to Tehran calling for "urgent
de-escalation" and cheekily criticising Iran's "regional conduct" and its threat to stop
complying with the nuclear deal, which the US recklessly abandoned but the UK remains
committed to.
Good news about Murrison, though. A medical man, he voted against the Iraq war but as a
Navy reservist was called up to do a 6 month tour of duty there. Perhaps Murrison should go
see Trump and ask:
Why is he not more concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal and the mental state of the
Israeli regime, which are the real threat to the region and beyond?
Why isn't he slapping sanctions on Israel for its refusal to sign up to the NPT or
engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other WMD programmes, not to mention
its repeated defiance of international and humanitarian laws in the Holy Land?
Trump meanwhile has signed an executive order targeting Iran's leadership with
hard-hitting new sanctions supposedly needed to deny their development of nuclear weapons.
"Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon," Trump has decreed. He added: "We will continue to
increased pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
asperations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement and support for terrorism, fuelling of foreign
conflicts and belligerent acts...." Achingly funny. Who else could all that apply to, I
wonder? Exactly. The Bully-Boy-in-chief himself and his best buddies in Tel Aviv.
Sowing the seeds of hatred
We have conveniently short memories when it comes to our abominable conduct towards the
Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed
out Iran's fledgling democracy and reinstated a cruel dictator, the Shah. This eventually
brought about the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and created the deep distrust between Iran and
the West. Is it not shameful that the present Conservative government is spoiling for another
fight? Shouldn't the Foreign Office now focus on exerting influence through trade and
co-operation?
The Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to our liking but nor was Dr
Mossadeq's democracy 65 years ago. Besides, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why are we
allowing ourselves to be driven by America's mindless hatred?
When new recruits join British Petroleum (BP) they are fed romantic tales about how the
company came into being. William Knox D'Arcy, a Devon man, studied law and made a fortune
from the Mount Morgan gold-mining operations in 1880s Australia. Returning to England he
agreed to fund a search for oil and minerals in Persia and began negotiations with the
Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar in 1901. A sixty year concession gave D'Arcy the oil rights to the
entire country except for five provinces in the north. The Persian government would receive
16% of the oil company's annual profits.
Mozzafar ad-Din was naive in business matters and unprepared for kingship when the time
came. He borrowed heavily from the Russians and in order to pay off the debt he signed away
control of many Persian industries and markets to foreigners. The deal D'Arcy cut was too
sharp by far and would eventually lead to trouble.
He sent an exploration team headed by geologist George B Reynolds. In 1903 a company was
formed and D'Arcy had to spend much of his fortune to cover the costs. Further financial
support came from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil in return for a large share of the stock.
Drilling in southern Persia at Shardin continued until 1907 when the search was switched
to Masjid-i-Souleiman. By 1908 D'Arcy was almost bankrupt. Reynolds received a last-chance
instruction: "Drill to 1,600 feet and give up". On 26 May at 1,180 feet he struck oil.
It was indeed a triumph of guts and determination. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was soon
up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at
Abadan. But the company was in trouble again by 1914. The golden age of motoring hadn't yet
arrived and the industrial oil markets were sewn up by American and European interests. The
sulphurous stench of the Persian oil, even after refining, ruled it out for domestic use, so
D'Arcy had a marketing problem.
Luckily Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was an enthusiast for oil and
wanted to convert the British fleet from coal especially now that a reliable oil source was
secured. He famously told Parliament: "Look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of
the world!" Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British
interests. His resolution passed and the British Government took a major shareholding in the
company just in time, for World War One began a few weeks later.
During the war the British government seized the assets of a German company calling itself
British Petroleum for the purpose of marketing its products in Britain. Anglo-Persian
acquired the assets from the Public Trustee complete with a ready-made distribution network
and an abundance of depots, railway tank wagons, road vehicles, barges and so forth. This
enabled Anglo-Persian to rapidly expand sales in petroleum-hungry Britain and Europe after
the war.
In the inter-war years Anglo-Persian profited handsomely from paying the Iranians a
miserly 16%, and an increasingly angry Persia tried to renegotiate terms. Getting nowhere,
they cancelled the D'Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International
Justice at The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year
concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement for the Persians but still
didn't amount to a square deal.
In 1935 Iran formally replaced Persia as the country's official name internationally and
Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil
refinery in the world and Britain, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of
southern Iran.
Iran's small share of the profits became a big issue and so did the treatment of its oil
workers. 6,000 withdrew their labour in 1946 and the strike was violently put down with 200
dead or injured. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax but handed
Iran only £7 million. Meanwhile Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the
Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Calls for nationalisation were mounting.
As a result of the Persian Constitutional Revolution the first Majlis (parliament) was
established in 1906 and the country became a constitutional monarchy with high hopes. By
mid-century Iran not unreasonably wanted economic and political independence and an end to
poverty. In March 1951 its Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had
controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913 under terms disadvantageous to Iran. Respected
social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister the following month by a 79 to
12 majority. On 1 May Mossadeq carried out his government's wishes, cancelling
Anglo-Iranian's oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriating its assets.
His explanation, given in a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran
, p. 525), ran as follows...
"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results this far.
With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and
backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of
the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means
of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has
ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
"The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company
should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization
law provides that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate
claims of the company for compensation It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel
the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is
this allegation absurd; it is utter invention "
For this he would eventually be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3
years then put under house arrest until his death.
Britain, with regime change in mind, orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil,
froze Iran's sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil
produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. It even considered invading. The
Iranian economy was soon in ruins.... sounds familiar, doesn't it? Attempts by the Shah to
replace Mossadeq failed and he returned with more power, but his coalition was slowly
crumbling under the hardships imposed by the British blockade.
At first America was reluctant to join Britain's destructive game but Churchill let it be
known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia's arms at a time when
Cold War anxiety was high. It was enough to bring America's new president, Eisenhower, on
board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.
Chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, arrived to play the
leading role in an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception. An elaborate campaign of
disinformation began, and the Shah signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other
nominating the CIA's choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were
written as dictated by Donald Wilbur the CIA architect of the plan
The Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned on 22 August 1953.
Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court.
He remarked
"My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran's oil industry and discarded the system of
political and economic exploitation by the world's greatest empire With God's blessing and
the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage
and colonialism.
"I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle
East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests ."
His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi's new government
soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow
of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion's share - 40% going to
Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but, tricky
as ever, refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the
board.
A grateful US massively funded the Shah's government, including his army and secret police
force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5
March 1967.
Apologise? Hell no Let's demonise Iran!
But the West's fun came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and a great
British enterprise that started heroically and turned nasty ended in tears.
The US is still hated today for reimposing the Shah and his thugs and demolishing the
Iranians' democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn't restore.
The US is widely known by Iranians as Big Satan and its regional handmaiden Israel
rejoices in the name Little Satan . Britain, as the instigator and junior partner in
the sordid affair, is similarly despised.
Moreover, Iran harbours great resentment at the way the West, especially the US, helped
Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal, and how the international
community failed to punish Iraq for its use of those weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq
war. The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the
alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological
weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.
"The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into
the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and
biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against
the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass
destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill
his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information
to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did
not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England,
France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology."
While Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological
war crimes Trump was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump
Castle , his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan and was
refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess . What does he know, understand or care about
Iran?
On the British side Foreign Secretary Jaremy Hunt was messing about at Oxford University;
and the front-runner to fill our Prime Minister vacancy, Boris Johnson, former Foreign
Secretary, was similarly at Oxford carousing with fellow Old Etonians at the Bullingdon Club.
What do they know or care?
Which brings us to today Why are we hearing nonstop sabre-rattling against Iran when we
should be extending the hand of reconciliation and friendship? And why are these clueless
leaders demonising Iran instead of righting the wrongs? Because the political establishment
is still smarting. And they are the new-generation imperialists, the political spawn of those
Dr Mossadeq and many others struggled against. They haven't learned from the past, and they
won't lift their eyes to a better future.
It's so depressing.
Economic sanctions: are they moral, or even legal?
The US and UK have led the charge on oil sanctions and other measures to make life hell
for Iranians. But are they on safe legal ground?
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in a statement on 26 November
2011, said they were deeply concerned about the threats against Iran by Israel, the United
States, and the United Kingdom. Referring to a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, IADL stated that those threats were unacceptable and dangerous not only for all the
region but for the whole of humanity, and that Article 2.4 of the UN Charter forbids not only
use of force but also the threat of force in international relations. The right of defence
does not include pre-emptive strikes.
The IADL also pointed out that while Israel was quick to denounce the possible possession
of nuclear weapons by others, it had illegally possessed nuclear weapons for many years. The
danger to world peace was so great as to require the global eradication of all nuclear
weapons, and to immediately declare the Middle East a nuclear free zone and a zone free of
all weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN Security Council resolution 687.
Furthermore, Article 33 states that "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which
is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of
all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means..." Economic
'terror' tactics such as the vicious sanctions deployed by the US, UK and their allies
– and the similar measures used by Britain and America in the 1950s to bring down the
government of Dr Mossadeq and reinstate the Shah – are simply not part of the approved
toolkit.
Remember the context
UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear
facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years.
In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear
facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still
refuses to join or allow inspections.
The Zionist regime is reckoned by some to have up to 400 nuclear warheads at its disposal.
It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran
is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards
biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In early 2012 the US intelligence community was saying that Iran hadn't got an active
nuclear weapons programme, and Israeli intelligence agreed. The Director of the National
Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, reported: "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to
develop nuclear weapons We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build
nuclear weapons..."
So the continual focus on Iran has been a deliberate distraction. We repaid Iranian
co-operation in D'Arcy's oil venture with corporate greed and diplomatic double-cross.
America and Britain are still smarting from the time when Iran democratically elected Dr.
Mossadeq, who sensibly nationalized her vast oil resources. Up till then the grasping British
were raking in far more profit from Iranian oil than the Iranians themselves.
Back in the 1920s the US State Department had described the oil deposits in the Middle
East as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in
world history". Ever since, its designs on Iraq and Iran have been plain to see and it is
still ready to pounce on every opportunity.
When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret
police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The
British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic
Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a
tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers
became a festering sore.
The quest for the energy prize is not over. But it is no longer just about oil. Zionist
stooges in controlling positions in the West's corridors of power are pledged to ensure
Israel remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East and continues to dominate the region
militarily. And they are willing to spill Christian blood and spend Christian treasure in
that cause.
US National Security Adviser John Bolton, recipient of the Defender of Israel Award last
year and the Guardian of Zion Award the year before, is one such super-stooge. His stupefying
remark: "No-one has granted Iran a hunting licence in the Middle East" typifies the arrogance
of his ilk.
Stuart
Littlewood worked on jet fighters in the RAF. Various sales and marketing management
positions in manufacturing, oil and electronics. Senior associate with several industrial
marketing consultancies. Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (MInstM). BA
Hons Psychology, University of Exeter.
"... I'm going to go against the grain of the belt and road initiative theory above, and I admit the US is often hostile to Chinese relations with Europe, especially infrastructure. That might be so because the US hopes to compete in that market, just as to control eurasian access would give it a hegemonic position in new trade through the region. So I think that it is not aimed at stopping that initiative, it is about finding ways to control it. ..."
"... I think that the amplification of differences between Iran and US is an antagonism not viewable by the US public as other than part of either longstanding differences or due to US policy error, but I think that it should be considered that this confrontation is actually being framed up to place the US frontline, something the US itself maybe unwittingly invites by its own rhetoric and posturing of dominance. ..."
"... If the above is the true scenario, then I see little room for de-escalation left. ..."
"... Mental retarded is one form of mental disability. This isn't quite the whopper as "wiping Israel off the map " was. I do expect to see limited strikes against Iran within the next week. Predictions are usually wrong though as events are increasingly unpredictable. I sometimes think that the simple act of predicting something which is actually planned can cause the plan to change. Kind of like Quantum physics where observation of a quantum wave can change its quantum state. Observation alters reality. ..."
"... Trump needs Adelson's continued financial support to get reelected, and he wants a ROI, so I think something happens. Big or small? I expect a limited strike, at least I hope so. Something Iran can ignore at least cause only a token retaliation to save face and not cause escalation. ..."
"... TEHRAN – The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that U.S. officials' claims seeking negotiations with Tehran is an act of "deception," saying such an offer is merely aimed at disarming the Iranian nation of its "elements of power." ..."
"... "Having failed to achieve its goal through pressure, the enemy is coming forward with an offer of talks, while assuming the Iranian nation is simple-minded," the Leader said, according to a Press TV report of his statements. ..."
"... Thanks for posting that link to the ProPublica investigation of the 2016 incident when Iran captured the US sailors in its waters. The whole story is quite large and I haven't finished it yet, but already it paints a very disturbing picture of the US Navy. ..."
Language isn't a problem as Pepe Escobar reports on The
Big Picture on the cusp of the G-20, which revolves round what appears to be the sold
front posed by RIC--Russia, India, China. A tidbit:
"What matters is that the Xi-Modi bilateral at the SCO was so auspicious that Foreign
Secretary Vijay Gokhale was led to describe it as "the beginning of a process, after the
formation of government in India, to now deal with India-China relations from both sides in a
larger context of the 21st century and of our role in the Asia-Pacific region." There will be
an informal Xi-Modi summit in India in October. And they meet again at the BRICS summit in
Brazil in November."
Clearly when the Big Picture's considered--as it ought to always--Iran's seen as the
weak-link in BRI/Eurasian integration by Outlaw US Empire planners, which is the actual
target beyond Iran. Given the number of nations climbing onboard the BRI Train, Trump won't
get many nations aboard his coalition. Aside from Saudi, UAE, Occupied Palestine, and UK, how
many nations have swallowed TrumpCo's lie that Iran's responsible for the current crisis?
Canada, Ukraine, Poland, Albania, Brazil, Netherlands, The Baltic States?
I'm going to go against the grain of the belt and road initiative theory above, and I admit
the US is often hostile to Chinese relations with Europe, especially infrastructure. That
might be so because the US hopes to compete in that market, just as to control eurasian
access would give it a hegemonic position in new trade through the region. So I think that it
is not aimed at stopping that initiative, it is about finding ways to control it.
This rubs off on Syria, which is the Mediterranean access point. To control Syria gives
control of that access point, it would remove direct Russian Mediterranean access also, as
well as buffer Israel. I think EU is more interested in securing the Mediterranean than any
new Eurasian trade route, except for similar reasons to US in terms of control and profit. As
stands I don't see EU achieving any great new trade by that route. So that ties Europe more
closely with US in my opinion. If you look at relations towards Russia, say Cyprus or Ukraine
or sanctions, they do not demonstrate a great friendship or trust, just a balance of power
and certain understandings.
I think that the amplification of differences between Iran and US is an antagonism not
viewable by the US public as other than part of either longstanding differences or due to US
policy error, but I think that it should be considered that this confrontation is actually
being framed up to place the US frontline, something the US itself maybe unwittingly invites
by its own rhetoric and posturing of dominance.
If the above is the true scenario, then I see little room for de-escalation left. To cede at this point by US
would be tantamount to giving Russia, China and Iran hegemony of the region, and I just don't think that is on the books, I
don't think China or Russia will be able to provide the reassurance western or US allied nations or states would accept. For
the US the main state it would not abandon would be Israel, but I don't think the US would just give up the hegemony that it
still has in the region just like that either.
"... [F]inding ways to control it" differs little from "stopping that initiative,"
particularly within the context of the stated #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire--Full
Spectrum Domination. (Oh, and welcome to the forum.)
Pardon me for asking a few questions. First, have you read the White Paper (doc format)
issued by China's Politburo explaining to the Outlaw US Empire why it ceased trade
negotiations and set forth its conditions for their resumption? Second, Have you read Michael
Hudson's short
appraisal of that paper as it integrates with his analysis of the overall Outlaw US
Empire project?
Lastly, please elaborate on what you mean here: "... I don't think China or Russia will be
able to provide the reassurance western or US allied nations or states would accept." I look
forward to your reply.
Mental retarded is one form of mental disability. This isn't quite the whopper as "wiping
Israel off the map " was. I do expect to see limited strikes against Iran within the next week. Predictions are
usually wrong though as events are increasingly unpredictable. I sometimes think that the
simple act of predicting something which is actually planned can cause the plan to change.
Kind of like Quantum physics where observation of a quantum wave can change its quantum
state. Observation alters reality.
Anyways, assuming the strikes happen what happens afterward should be interesting. As
Trump said this wont include boots on the ground so it will be an air show. There is the law
of unintended consequences that applies, so who can say for sure.
But Trump needs Adelson's continued financial support to get reelected, and he wants a
ROI, so I think something happens. Big or small? I expect a limited strike, at least I hope
so. Something Iran can ignore at least cause only a token retaliation to save face and not
cause escalation.
"The Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei has reminded Iranian officials of what Imam Khomeini
said during the US-Iran crisis in the 80s. He said: "The behaviour of the US can be compared
to the story of a lion in Persian stories. Carter most probably didn't know about this story.
Although it pains me to compare Carter to a lion, the story fits him perfectly. When a Lion
faces his enemy, it roars and breaks wind to scare his enemy. The lion ends by shaking his
tail, hoping for a mediator. Today the US is mimicking the lion's behaviour: the shouting and
the threats (roaring) don't scare us, and the US's continual announcement of new sanctions is
to us just like the lion breaking wind"."
TEHRAN – The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday
that U.S. officials' claims seeking negotiations with Tehran is an act of "deception," saying
such an offer is merely aimed at disarming the Iranian nation of its "elements of power."
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei made the remarks in response to numerous offers of negotiations
recently put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo amid a
campaign of "maximum pressure" against Tehran.
"Having failed to achieve its goal through pressure, the enemy is coming forward with an
offer of talks, while assuming the Iranian nation is simple-minded," the Leader said,
according to a Press TV report of his statements.
"The Iranian nation will definitely make progress, but without you and on the condition that
you don't approach it," he said to U.S. officials.. .
here
Thanks for posting that link to the ProPublica investigation of the 2016 incident when
Iran captured the US sailors in its waters. The whole story is quite large and I haven't
finished it yet, but already it paints a very disturbing picture of the US Navy.
The dysfunctions and failures in the hierarchies read more like an old and rigid
institution than like anything one thinks of as military characteristics. I guess, then, the
truth is that the US Navy is such an institution - antiquated, privileged, and beyond
accountability.
I am not a fan of the US military but it still feels strangely sad to read of such decay.
One hates to see degradation in anything. It explains why warships run into things as if
blind, and why sailors seem impossibly incompetent. I have no doubt that the generals and
admirals of the world make their appraisals of US incompetence accordingly, and probably, as
professionals themselves, equally sadly.
It's off-topic but a very important article that I hope we see more discussion of in an
open thread or one relating to US military. That link again, this one to the source:
In 2016, 10 sailors were captured by Iran. Trump is making it a political issue. Our
investigation shows that it was a Navy failure, and the problems run deep.
by Megan Rose, Robert Faturechi, and T. Christian Miller June 24, 2:15 p.m. EDT
@ Grieved 102 I am not a fan of the US military but it still feels strangely sad to read of such
decay.
The Navy doesn't hit moving ships any longer, they've shifted to stationary ones -- alliding.
Jun 25, 2019
US warship allides with moored bulker in Montreal
A US Navy Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS) struck a moored commercial vessel in
Montreal as it was about to sail out for its new homeport of Mayport, Florida, on Friday,
June 21.
Eyewitnesses reportedly saw USS Billings, which is scheduled to be commissioned in August,
allide with the moored bulk carrier Rosaire A. Desgagnes as the former departed the wharf
at Montreal with an escort of tugs.
The warship was said to have lost control and ended up hitting the bulk carrier after its
mooring lines were let go. . .Billings' starboard side bridge wing suffered visible minor
damage. .
here
Save you the trouble, allide: To impact a stationary object.
Thank you Don Bacon #79 I have noticed that it is almost always the Navy that f#ucks up or
hoists the false flag, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Vincennes, playing chicken with enormous container
carriers in the sea of Japan, perhaps even the Japanese oil tanker in early June. The list is
much longer than this small excerpt.
Only last week another of USA great new destroyers clips a moored container vessel in
Canada. They are a maritime menace.
Is it a psychosis or a deliberate mission by narcissistic ships commanders? Something is
seriously out of control in the US Navy.
Navy Times, Jan 13 Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesn't want you to
read
A scathing internal Navy probe into the 2017 collision that drowned seven sailors on the
guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald details a far longer list of problems plaguing the
vessel, its crew and superior commands than the service has publicly admitted.
Obtained by Navy Times, the "dual-purpose investigation" was overseen by Rear Adm. Brian
Fort and submitted 41 days after the June 17, 2017, tragedy.
. . .Their report documents the routine, almost casual, violations of standing orders on a
Fitz bridge that often lacked skippers and executive officers, even during potentially
dangerous voyages at night through busy waterways.
When Fort walked into the trash-strewn CIC in the wake of the disaster, he was hit with the
acrid smell of urine. He saw kettlebells on the deck and bottles filled with pee. Some
radar controls didn't work and he soon discovered crew members who didn't know how to use
them anyway.
Fort found a Voyage Management System that generated more "trouble calls" than any other
key piece of electronic navigational equipment. Designed to help watchstanders navigate
without paper charts, the VMS station in the skipper's quarters was broken so sailors
cannibalized it for parts to help keep the rickety system working.. .
here
The US attempt to destroy the Iranian economy by bringing its oil exports to zero, thereby
causing untold suffering and death, is an act of war, and should be treated as such, think
sanctions on Iraq causing the deaths of 500,000 children. It is impossible to expect any self
respecting nation to even engage in a conversation when the US holds a gun to Iran's head. So
much for the hubris of the US hegemon that they feel insulted whenever a weaker country says
no, that they feel their credibility is at stake, then they double down on the threats.The US
only wants vassals, such an attitude can only result in war.
The US attempt to destroy the Iranian economy by bringing its oil exports to zero, thereby
causing untold suffering and death, is an act of war, and should be treated as such, think
sanctions on Iraq causing the deaths of 500,000 children. It is impossible to expect any self
respecting nation to even engage in a conversation when the US holds a gun to Iran's head. So
much for the hubris of the US hegemon that they feel insulted whenever a weaker country says
no, that they feel their credibility is at stake, then they double down on the threats.The US
only wants vassals, such an attitude can only result in war.
There is nothing natural about money. There is no link to some scarce essential form of money that sets a limit to its creation.
It can be composed of base metal, paper or electronic data – none of which is in short supply. Similarly – despite what you may have
heard about the need for austerity and a lack of certain cash-generating trees – there is no "natural" level of public expenditure.
The size and reach of the public sector is a matter of political choice.
Which puts austerity, the culling of expenditure in the public economy, under some question. For some countries, such as
Greece , the impact of austerity has been devastating. Austerity policies still persist despite numerous
studies arguing that they were entirely misconceived,
based on political choice rather than economic logic. But the economic case for austerity is equally mistaken: it is based on what
can best be described as fairytale economics.
So what were the justifications? Britain, for example, has lived under an austerity regime since 2010, when the incoming Tory-Liberal
Democrat government reversed the Labour policy of raising the level of public expenditure in response to the 2007-8 financial crisis.
The crisis had created a perfect storm: bank rescue required high levels of public spending while economic contraction reduced tax
income. The case for austerity was that the higher level of public expenditure could not be afforded by the taxpayer. This was supported
by "
handbag economics ", which adopts the analogy of states as being like households, dependent on a (private sector) breadwinner.
Under handbag economics, states are required to restrict their expenditure to what the taxpayer is deemed to be able to afford.
States must not try to increase their spending by borrowing from the (private) financial sector or by "printing money" (although
the banks were rescued by doing so by another name – quantitative
easing , the creation of electronic money).
The ideology of handbag economics claims that money is to be generated only through market activity and that it is always in short
supply. Request for increased public expenditure is almost invariably met with the response "where's the money to come from?" When
confronted by low pay in the NHS, the British prime minister, Theresa May, famously declared, "there is no magic money tree".
So where does money come from? And what is money
anyway? What is money?
Until the last 50 years or so the answer seemed to be obvious: money was represented by cash (notes and coin). When money was
tangible, there seemed no question about its origin, or its value. Coins were minted, banknotes were printed. Both were authorised
by governments or central banks. But what is money today? In richer economies the use of cash is
declining rapidly . Most monetary transactions are based on transfers between accounts: no physical money is involved.
In the run up to the financial crisis, the state's role in relation to money held in bank accounts was ambiguous. Banking was
a monitored and licensed activity with some level of state guarantee of bank deposits, but the actual act of creating bank accounts
was, and is, seen as a private matter. There may be regulations and limitations, but there is
no detailed scrutiny of bank accounts and bank lending.
Yet, as the 2007-8 financial crisis showed, when bank accounts came under threat as banks teetered on the edge of bankruptcy,
states and central banks had to step in and
guarantee the security
of all deposit accounts. The viability of money in non-investment bank accounts was demonstrated to be as much a public responsibility
as cash.
This raises fundamental questions about money as a social institution. Is it right that money can be generated by a private choice
to take on debt, which then becomes a liability of the state to guarantee in a crisis?
But far from seeing money as a public resource, under neoliberal handbag economics, money creation and circulation has increasingly
been seen as a function of the market. Money is "made" solely in the private sector. Public spending is seen as a drain on that money,
justifying austerity to make the public sector as small as possible.
This stance, however, is based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of money, sustained by a series of deeply embedded
myths.
Myths about money
Neoliberal handbag economics is derived from two key myths about the origin and nature of money. The first is that money emerged
from a previous market economy based on barter. The second is that money was originally made from precious metal.
It is claimed that bartering proved to be very inefficient as each buyer-seller needed to find another person who exactly matched
their requirements. A hat maker might barter a hat for some shoes she needs – but what if the shoe maker is in no need of a hat?
The solution to this problem, so the story goes, was to choose one commodity that everyone desired, to act as a medium of exchange.
Precious metal (gold and silver) was the obvious
choice because it had its own value and could be easily divided and carried. This view of the origin of money goes back to at
least the 18th century: the time of economist
Adam Smith .
The 'father of capitalism' Adam Smith, 1723-1790. Matt Ledwinka/Shutterstock.com
These myths led to two assumptions about money that are still current today. First, that money is essentially connected to, and
generated by, the marketplace. Second that modern money, like its original and ideal form, is always in short supply. Hence the
neoliberal
claim that public spending is a drain on the wealth-creating capacity of the market and that public spending must always be as
limited as possible. Money is seen as a commercial instrument, serving a basic, market, technical, transactional function with no
social or political force.
But the real story of money is very different. Evidence from anthropology and history shows that there was no widespread barter
before markets based on money developed, and precious metal coinage emerged long before market economies. There are also many forms
of money other than precious metal coins.
Money as custom
Something that acts as money has existed in most, if not all, human societies. Stones, shells, beads, cloths, brass rods and many
other forms have been the means of comparing and acknowledging comparative value. But this was rarely used in a market context. Most
early human communities lived directly off the land – hunting, fishing, gathering and gardening. The customary money in such communities
was used mainly to celebrate auspicious social events or serve as a way of resolving social conflict.
For example, the Lele people, who lived in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1950s, calculated value in
woven raffia
cloths . The number of cloths required for different occasions was fixed by custom. Twenty cloths should be given to a father
by a son on achieving adulthood and a similar amount given to a wife on the birth of a child. The anthropologist Mary Douglas, who
studied the Lele, found
they were resistant to using the cloths in transactions with outsiders, indicating that the cloths had a specific cultural relevance.
Even stranger is the large stone money of the Yap people of Micronesia. Huge circular discs of stone could weigh up to
four metric tons . Not something to put in your
pocket for a trip to the shops.
Try lugging that to the market. Evenfh/Shutterstock.com
There is plenty of other anthropological evidence such as this all over the world, all pointing to the fact that money, in its
earliest form, served a social rather than market-based purpose.
Money as power
For most traditional societies, the origin of the particular money form has been lost in the mist of time. But the origin and
adoption of money as an institution became much more obvious with the emergence of states. Money did not originate as precious metal
coinage with the development of markets. In fact, the new invention of precious metal coinage in around
600BC was adopted
and controlled by imperial rulers to build their empires by waging war.
Most notable was Alexander the Great, who ruled from 336–323BC. He is said to have used
half a ton of silver a day
to fund his largely mercenary army rather than a share of the spoils (the traditional payment). He had more than 20 mints producing
coins, which had images of gods and heroes and the word Alexandrou (of Alexander). From that time, new ruling regimes have
tended to herald their arrival by a new coinage.
Alexandrou. Alex Coan/Shutterstock.com
More than a thousand years after the invention of coinage, the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (742-814), who ruled most of western
and central Europe, developed what became the basis of the British pre-decimal money system: pounds, shillings and pence. Charlemagne
set up a currency system based on 240 pennies minted from a pound of silver. The pennies became established as the denier in France,
the pfennig in Germany, the dinero in Spain, the denari in Italy and the penny in Britain.
So the real story of money as coinage was not one of barterers and traders: it emerged instead from a long history of politics,
war and conflict. Money was an active agent in state and empire building, not a passive representation of price in the market. Control
of the money supply was a major power of rulers: a sovereign power. Money was created and spent into circulation by rulers either
directly, like Alexander, or through taxation or seizure of private holdings of precious metal.
Nor was early money necessarily based on precious metal. In fact, precious metal was relatively useless for building empires,
because it was in short supply. Even in the Roman era, base metal was used, and Charlemagne's new money eventually became debased.
In China, gold and silver did not feature and paper money was being used as early as the 9th century.
A coin from the time of Charlemagne, 768-814 AD. Classical Numismatic Group, CC BY-SA
What the market economy did introduce was a new form of money: money as debt.
Money as debt
If you look at a Ł20 banknote you will see it says: "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of twenty pounds." This is
a promise originally made by the Bank of England to exchange notes for the sovereign currency. The banknote was a new form of money.
Unlike sovereign money it was not a statement of value, but a promise of value. A coin, even if made of base metal, was exchangeable
in its own right: it did not represent another, superior, form of money. But when banknotes were first invented, they did.
The new invention of promissory notes emerged through the needs of trade in the 16th and 17th centuries. Promissory notes were
used to acknowledge receipt of loans or investments and the obligation to repay them through the fruits of future transactions. A
major task of the emerging profession of banking was to periodically set all these promises against each other and see who owed what
to whom. This process of "clearing" meant that a great amount of paper commitments was reduced to relatively less actual transfer
of money. Final settlement was either by payment with sovereign money (coins) or another promissory note (banknote).
Eventually, the banknotes became so trusted that they were treated as money in their own right. In Britain they became equivalent
to the coinage, particularly when they were united under the banner of the Bank of England. Today, if you took a banknote to the
Bank of England, it would merely exchange your note for one that is exactly the same. Banknotes are no longer promises, they are
the currency. There is no other "real" money behind them.
What promissory notes became. Wara1982/Shutterstock.com
What modern money does retain is its association with debt. Unlike sovereign money, which was created and spent directly into
circulation, modern money is largely borrowed into circulation through the banking system. This process shelters behind another myth,
that banks merely act as a link between savers and borrowers. In fact, banks create money. And it is only in the last decade that
this powerful myth has been finally put to rest by banking and monetary authorities.
It is now
acknowledged
by monetary authorities such as the IMF, the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, that banks are creating new money when
they make loans. They don't lend the money of other account holders to those who want to borrow.
Bank loans consist of money conjured out of thin air, whereby new money is credited to the borrowers account with the agreement
that the amount will eventually be repaid with interest.
The policy implications of the public currency being created out of nowhere and lent to borrowers on a purely commercial basis
have still not been taken on board. Nor has basing a public currency on debt as opposed to the sovereign power to create and directly
circulate money free of debt.
The result is that rather than using their own sovereign power over money creation, as Alexander the Great did, states have become
borrowers from the private sector. Where there are public spending deficits or the need for large scale future expenditure, there
is an expectation that the state will borrow the money or increase taxation, rather than create the money itself.
Creators of cash. Creative Lab/Shutterstock.com
Dilemmas of debt
But basing a money supply on debt is ecologically, socially and economically problematic.
Ecologically, there is a problem because the need to pay off debt could drive potentially
damaging
growth : money creation based on repaying debt with interest must imply constant growth in the money supply. If this is achieved
through increasing productive capacity, there will inevitably be pressure on natural resources.
Basing the money supply on debt is also socially discriminatory because not all citizens are in a position to take on debt. The
pattern of the money supply will tend to favour the already rich or the most speculative risk-taker. Recent decades, for example,
have seen a
huge amount of borrowing by the financial sector to enhance their investments.
The economic problem is that the money supply depends on the capacity of the various elements of the economy (public and private)
to take on more debt. And so as countries have become more dependent upon bank-created money, debt bubbles and credit crunches have
become more frequent.
This is because handbag economics creates an impossible task for the private sector. It has to create all new money through bank-issued
debt and repay it all with interest. It has to completely fund the public sector and generate a profit for investors.
But when the privatised bank-led money supply flounders, the money creating powers of the state come back into clear focus. This
was particularly plain in the 2007-8 crisis, when central banks created new money in the process known as quantitative easing. Central
banks used the sovereign power to create money free of debt to spend directly into the economy (by buying up existing government
debt and other financial assets, for example).
The question then becomes: if the state as represented by the central bank can create money out of thin air to save the banks
– why can't it create money to save the people?
It's a mistake to think of the state as a piggybank or handbag. ColorMaker/Shutterstock.com
Money for the people
The myths about money have led us to look at public spending and taxation the wrong way around. Taxation and spending, like bank
lending and repayment, is in a constant flow. Handbag economics assumes that it is taxation (of the private sector) that is raising
the money to fund the public sector. That taxation takes money out of the taxpayer's pocket.
But the long political history of sovereign power over money would indicate that the flow of money can be in the opposite direction.
In the same way that banks can conjure money out of thin air to make loans, states can conjure money out of thin air to fund public
spending. Banks create money by setting up bank accounts, states create money by allocating budgets.
When governments set budgets they do not see how much money they have in a pre-existing taxation piggybank. The budget allocates
spending commitments that may, or may not, match the amount of money coming in through taxation. Through its accounts in the treasury
and the central bank, the state is constantly spending out and taking in money. If it spends more money than it takes in, it leaves
more money in people's pockets. This creates a budget deficit and what is effectively an overdraft at the central bank.
Is this a problem? Yes, if the state is treated as if it was any other bank account holder – the dependent household of handbag
economics. No, if it is seen as an independent source of money. States do not need to wait for handouts from the commercial sector.
States are the authority behind the money system. The power exercised by the banks to create the public currency out of thin air
is a sovereign power.
It is no longer necessary to mint coins like Alexander, money can be created by keystrokes. There is no reason why this should
be monopolised by the banking sector to create new public money as debt. Deeming public spending as being equivalent to bank borrowing
denies the public, the sovereign people in a democracy, the right to access its own money free of debt.
Money should be designed for the many, not the few. Varavin88/Shutterstock.com
Redefining money
This foray into the historical and anthropological stories about money shows that long-held conceptions – that money emerged from
a previous market economy based on barter, and that it was originally made from precious metal – are fairytales. We need to recognise
this. And we need to capitalise on the public ability to create money.
But it is also important to recognise that the sovereign power to create money is not a solution in itself. Both the state and
bank capacity to create money have advantages and disadvantages. Both can be abused. The reckless lending of the banking sector,
for example, led to the near meltdown of the American and European monetary and financial system. On the other hand, where countries
do not have a developed banking sector, the money supply remains in the hands of the state, with massive room for corruption and
mismanagement.
The answer must be to subject both forms of money creation – bank and state – to democratic accountability. Far from being a technical,
commercial instrument, money can be seen as a social and political construct that has immense radical potential. Our ability to harness
this is hampered if we do not understand what money is
and how it works . Money must become our servant, rather than our master.
theconversation.com The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.
Tags: Capitalism Neoliberalism
Print this article June
24, 2019 | Editor's Сhoice Neoliberalism Has Tricked Us Into Believing a Fairytale About Where Money Comes From Mary MELLOR
There is nothing natural about money. There is no link to some scarce essential form of money that sets a limit to its creation.
It can be composed of base metal, paper or electronic data – none of which is in short supply. Similarly – despite what you may have
heard about the need for austerity and a lack of certain cash-generating trees – there is no "natural" level of public expenditure.
The size and reach of the public sector is a matter of political choice.
Which puts austerity, the culling of expenditure in the public economy, under some question. For some countries, such as
Greece , the impact of austerity has been devastating. Austerity policies still persist despite numerous
studies arguing that they were entirely misconceived,
based on political choice rather than economic logic. But the economic case for austerity is equally mistaken: it is based on what
can best be described as fairytale economics.
So what were the justifications? Britain, for example, has lived under an austerity regime since 2010, when the incoming Tory-Liberal
Democrat government reversed the Labour policy of raising the level of public expenditure in response to the 2007-8 financial crisis.
The crisis had created a perfect storm: bank rescue required high levels of public spending while economic contraction reduced tax
income. The case for austerity was that the higher level of public expenditure could not be afforded by the taxpayer. This was supported
by "
handbag economics ", which adopts the analogy of states as being like households, dependent on a (private sector) breadwinner.
Under handbag economics, states are required to restrict their expenditure to what the taxpayer is deemed to be able to afford.
States must not try to increase their spending by borrowing from the (private) financial sector or by "printing money" (although
the banks were rescued by doing so by another name – quantitative
easing , the creation of electronic money).
The ideology of handbag economics claims that money is to be generated only through market activity and that it is always in short
supply. Request for increased public expenditure is almost invariably met with the response "where's the money to come from?" When
confronted by low pay in the NHS, the British prime minister, Theresa May, famously declared, "there is no magic money tree".
So where does money come from? And what is money
anyway? What is money?
Until the last 50 years or so the answer seemed to be obvious: money was represented by cash (notes and coin). When money was
tangible, there seemed no question about its origin, or its value. Coins were minted, banknotes were printed. Both were authorised
by governments or central banks. But what is money today? In richer economies the use of cash is
declining rapidly . Most monetary transactions are based on transfers between accounts: no physical money is involved.
In the run up to the financial crisis, the state's role in relation to money held in bank accounts was ambiguous. Banking was
a monitored and licensed activity with some level of state guarantee of bank deposits, but the actual act of creating bank accounts
was, and is, seen as a private matter. There may be regulations and limitations, but there is
no detailed scrutiny of bank accounts and bank lending.
Yet, as the 2007-8 financial crisis showed, when bank accounts came under threat as banks teetered on the edge of bankruptcy,
states and central banks had to step in and
guarantee the security
of all deposit accounts. The viability of money in non-investment bank accounts was demonstrated to be as much a public responsibility
as cash.
This raises fundamental questions about money as a social institution. Is it right that money can be generated by a private choice
to take on debt, which then becomes a liability of the state to guarantee in a crisis?
But far from seeing money as a public resource, under neoliberal handbag economics, money creation and circulation has increasingly
been seen as a function of the market. Money is "made" solely in the private sector. Public spending is seen as a drain on that money,
justifying austerity to make the public sector as small as possible.
This stance, however, is based on a complete misunderstanding of the nature of money, sustained by a series of deeply embedded
myths.
Myths about money
Neoliberal handbag economics is derived from two key myths about the origin and nature of money. The first is that money emerged
from a previous market economy based on barter. The second is that money was originally made from precious metal.
It is claimed that bartering proved to be very inefficient as each buyer-seller needed to find another person who exactly matched
their requirements. A hat maker might barter a hat for some shoes she needs – but what if the shoe maker is in no need of a hat?
The solution to this problem, so the story goes, was to choose one commodity that everyone desired, to act as a medium of exchange.
Precious metal (gold and silver) was the obvious
choice because it had its own value and could be easily divided and carried. This view of the origin of money goes back to at
least the 18th century: the time of economist
Adam Smith .
The 'father of capitalism' Adam Smith, 1723-1790. Matt Ledwinka/Shutterstock.com
These myths led to two assumptions about money that are still current today. First, that money is essentially connected to, and
generated by, the marketplace. Second that modern money, like its original and ideal form, is always in short supply. Hence the
neoliberal
claim that public spending is a drain on the wealth-creating capacity of the market and that public spending must always be as
limited as possible. Money is seen as a commercial instrument, serving a basic, market, technical, transactional function with no
social or political force.
But the real story of money is very different. Evidence from anthropology and history shows that there was no widespread barter
before markets based on money developed, and precious metal coinage emerged long before market economies. There are also many forms
of money other than precious metal coins.
Money as custom
Something that acts as money has existed in most, if not all, human societies. Stones, shells, beads, cloths, brass rods and many
other forms have been the means of comparing and acknowledging comparative value. But this was rarely used in a market context. Most
early human communities lived directly off the land – hunting, fishing, gathering and gardening. The customary money in such communities
was used mainly to celebrate auspicious social events or serve as a way of resolving social conflict.
For example, the Lele people, who lived in what is now the Democratic Republic of Congo in the 1950s, calculated value in
woven raffia
cloths . The number of cloths required for different occasions was fixed by custom. Twenty cloths should be given to a father
by a son on achieving adulthood and a similar amount given to a wife on the birth of a child. The anthropologist Mary Douglas, who
studied the Lele, found
they were resistant to using the cloths in transactions with outsiders, indicating that the cloths had a specific cultural relevance.
Even stranger is the large stone money of the Yap people of Micronesia. Huge circular discs of stone could weigh up to
four metric tons . Not something to put in your
pocket for a trip to the shops.
Try lugging that to the market. Evenfh/Shutterstock.com
There is plenty of other anthropological evidence such as this all over the world, all pointing to the fact that money, in its
earliest form, served a social rather than market-based purpose.
Money as power
For most traditional societies, the origin of the particular money form has been lost in the mist of time. But the origin and
adoption of money as an institution became much more obvious with the emergence of states. Money did not originate as precious metal
coinage with the development of markets. In fact, the new invention of precious metal coinage in around
600BC was adopted
and controlled by imperial rulers to build their empires by waging war.
Most notable was Alexander the Great, who ruled from 336–323BC. He is said to have used
half a ton of silver a day
to fund his largely mercenary army rather than a share of the spoils (the traditional payment). He had more than 20 mints producing
coins, which had images of gods and heroes and the word Alexandrou (of Alexander). From that time, new ruling regimes have
tended to herald their arrival by a new coinage.
Alexandrou. Alex Coan/Shutterstock.com
More than a thousand years after the invention of coinage, the Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (742-814), who ruled most of western
and central Europe, developed what became the basis of the British pre-decimal money system: pounds, shillings and pence. Charlemagne
set up a currency system based on 240 pennies minted from a pound of silver. The pennies became established as the denier in France,
the pfennig in Germany, the dinero in Spain, the denari in Italy and the penny in Britain.
So the real story of money as coinage was not one of barterers and traders: it emerged instead from a long history of politics,
war and conflict. Money was an active agent in state and empire building, not a passive representation of price in the market. Control
of the money supply was a major power of rulers: a sovereign power. Money was created and spent into circulation by rulers either
directly, like Alexander, or through taxation or seizure of private holdings of precious metal.
Nor was early money necessarily based on precious metal. In fact, precious metal was relatively useless for building empires,
because it was in short supply. Even in the Roman era, base metal was used, and Charlemagne's new money eventually became debased.
In China, gold and silver did not feature and paper money was being used as early as the 9th century.
A coin from the time of Charlemagne, 768-814 AD. Classical Numismatic Group, CC BY-SA
What the market economy did introduce was a new form of money: money as debt.
Money as debt
If you look at a Ł20 banknote you will see it says: "I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of twenty pounds." This is
a promise originally made by the Bank of England to exchange notes for the sovereign currency. The banknote was a new form of money.
Unlike sovereign money it was not a statement of value, but a promise of value. A coin, even if made of base metal, was exchangeable
in its own right: it did not represent another, superior, form of money. But when banknotes were first invented, they did.
The new invention of promissory notes emerged through the needs of trade in the 16th and 17th centuries. Promissory notes were
used to acknowledge receipt of loans or investments and the obligation to repay them through the fruits of future transactions. A
major task of the emerging profession of banking was to periodically set all these promises against each other and see who owed what
to whom. This process of "clearing" meant that a great amount of paper commitments was reduced to relatively less actual transfer
of money. Final settlement was either by payment with sovereign money (coins) or another promissory note (banknote).
Eventually, the banknotes became so trusted that they were treated as money in their own right. In Britain they became equivalent
to the coinage, particularly when they were united under the banner of the Bank of England. Today, if you took a banknote to the
Bank of England, it would merely exchange your note for one that is exactly the same. Banknotes are no longer promises, they are
the currency. There is no other "real" money behind them.
What promissory notes became. Wara1982/Shutterstock.com
What modern money does retain is its association with debt. Unlike sovereign money, which was created and spent directly into
circulation, modern money is largely borrowed into circulation through the banking system. This process shelters behind another myth,
that banks merely act as a link between savers and borrowers. In fact, banks create money. And it is only in the last decade that
this powerful myth has been finally put to rest by banking and monetary authorities.
It is now
acknowledged
by monetary authorities such as the IMF, the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, that banks are creating new money when
they make loans. They don't lend the money of other account holders to those who want to borrow.
Bank loans consist of money conjured out of thin air, whereby new money is credited to the borrowers account with the agreement
that the amount will eventually be repaid with interest.
The policy implications of the public currency being created out of nowhere and lent to borrowers on a purely commercial basis
have still not been taken on board. Nor has basing a public currency on debt as opposed to the sovereign power to create and directly
circulate money free of debt.
The result is that rather than using their own sovereign power over money creation, as Alexander the Great did, states have become
borrowers from the private sector. Where there are public spending deficits or the need for large scale future expenditure, there
is an expectation that the state will borrow the money or increase taxation, rather than create the money itself.
Creators of cash. Creative Lab/Shutterstock.com
Dilemmas of debt
But basing a money supply on debt is ecologically, socially and economically problematic.
Ecologically, there is a problem because the need to pay off debt could drive potentially
damaging
growth : money creation based on repaying debt with interest must imply constant growth in the money supply. If this is achieved
through increasing productive capacity, there will inevitably be pressure on natural resources.
Basing the money supply on debt is also socially discriminatory because not all citizens are in a position to take on debt. The
pattern of the money supply will tend to favour the already rich or the most speculative risk-taker. Recent decades, for example,
have seen a
huge amount of borrowing by the financial sector to enhance their investments.
The economic problem is that the money supply depends on the capacity of the various elements of the economy (public and private)
to take on more debt. And so as countries have become more dependent upon bank-created money, debt bubbles and credit crunches have
become more frequent.
This is because handbag economics creates an impossible task for the private sector. It has to create all new money through bank-issued
debt and repay it all with interest. It has to completely fund the public sector and generate a profit for investors.
But when the privatised bank-led money supply flounders, the money creating powers of the state come back into clear focus. This
was particularly plain in the 2007-8 crisis, when central banks created new money in the process known as quantitative easing. Central
banks used the sovereign power to create money free of debt to spend directly into the economy (by buying up existing government
debt and other financial assets, for example).
The question then becomes: if the state as represented by the central bank can create money out of thin air to save the banks
– why can't it create money to save the people?
It's a mistake to think of the state as a piggybank or handbag. ColorMaker/Shutterstock.com
Money for the people
The myths about money have led us to look at public spending and taxation the wrong way around. Taxation and spending, like bank
lending and repayment, is in a constant flow. Handbag economics assumes that it is taxation (of the private sector) that is raising
the money to fund the public sector. That taxation takes money out of the taxpayer's pocket.
But the long political history of sovereign power over money would indicate that the flow of money can be in the opposite direction.
In the same way that banks can conjure money out of thin air to make loans, states can conjure money out of thin air to fund public
spending. Banks create money by setting up bank accounts, states create money by allocating budgets.
When governments set budgets they do not see how much money they have in a pre-existing taxation piggybank. The budget allocates
spending commitments that may, or may not, match the amount of money coming in through taxation. Through its accounts in the treasury
and the central bank, the state is constantly spending out and taking in money. If it spends more money than it takes in, it leaves
more money in people's pockets. This creates a budget deficit and what is effectively an overdraft at the central bank.
Is this a problem? Yes, if the state is treated as if it was any other bank account holder – the dependent household of handbag
economics. No, if it is seen as an independent source of money. States do not need to wait for handouts from the commercial sector.
States are the authority behind the money system. The power exercised by the banks to create the public currency out of thin air
is a sovereign power.
It is no longer necessary to mint coins like Alexander, money can be created by keystrokes. There is no reason why this should
be monopolised by the banking sector to create new public money as debt. Deeming public spending as being equivalent to bank borrowing
denies the public, the sovereign people in a democracy, the right to access its own money free of debt.
Money should be designed for the many, not the few. Varavin88/Shutterstock.com
Redefining money
This foray into the historical and anthropological stories about money shows that long-held conceptions – that money emerged from
a previous market economy based on barter, and that it was originally made from precious metal – are fairytales. We need to recognise
this. And we need to capitalise on the public ability to create money.
But it is also important to recognise that the sovereign power to create money is not a solution in itself. Both the state and
bank capacity to create money have advantages and disadvantages. Both can be abused. The reckless lending of the banking sector,
for example, led to the near meltdown of the American and European monetary and financial system. On the other hand, where countries
do not have a developed banking sector, the money supply remains in the hands of the state, with massive room for corruption and
mismanagement.
The answer must be to subject both forms of money creation – bank and state – to democratic accountability. Far from being a technical,
commercial instrument, money can be seen as a social and political construct that has immense radical potential. Our ability to harness
this is hampered if we do not understand what money is
and how it works . Money must become our servant, rather than our master.
"... Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs. ..."
"... even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation. ..."
"... On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure. ..."
"... To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time. ..."
Iran's downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another
flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a
potential conflict between the two nations? Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the
New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran,
but then changed his mind.
Let's start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which
is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by
a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could
possibly occur by definition.
Now, let's take a look at some of the details. The difference between a 'strike' and an
'operation' is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and
equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an
entire air operation.
Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning
to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It's worth
pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military
personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.
Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as
possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of
any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a
minimum, but for the US it's more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.
The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to
avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air
defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of
the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.
Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small
capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn't
end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a
very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.
There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran's
military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely
destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.
To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have
the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and
Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb
Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country's economy and infrastructure step by step.
However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn
out to be too high.
For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range
ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait,
and the UAE.
Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to
assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive
fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence
agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered.
Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot
down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.
On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the
antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their
hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.
If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and
would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that's the lowest
estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.
To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale
ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both
regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership
of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping
tight control over the entire country at the same time.
For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller
than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the
US has achieved next to nothing.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
GREG WILPERT It's not clear what impact these new sanctions will have on Iran, but the sanctions
that have already been imposed since the US withdrew from the JCPOA last year have had a
serious effect on Iran's economy. According to oil industry analysts, Iranian oil exports have
dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day in April 2013, to about 300,000 barrels per day
currently. The latest sanctions come on the heels of heightened tensions. Last week, Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Then
later that week, Iran downed an expensive US drone over the same strait saying that it had
entered Iranian airspace. President Trump later revealed that the US was about to retaliate
over the weekend with an airstrike against Iran, but Trump changed his mind in the last minute
and launched a cyber-attack against Iranian military facilities instead. Joining me now to
discuss the latest in the confrontation between the US and Iran is Colonel Larry Wilkerson. He
is former Chief of staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now a Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary. Thanks
for joining us again, Larry.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be with you.
GREG WILPERT So let's start with the sanctions. As I said, it's far from clear whether these
latest sanctions mean anything, but the earlier sanctions are certainly having an effect on
Iran, shrinking its economy and causing shortages. Now Trump argued that he called off the
airstrike on Iran because he had been told that up to 150 people could have been killed, and
that this would have been a disproportionate response to shooting down their drone, but there
are reports that Iranians are having trouble accessing lifesaving medicines, such as for cancer
treatment. Now, what do you make of this rationale for calling off the airstrike but then at
the same time intensifying sanctions?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON There is no question that the sanctions we have on Iran -- and for
that matter on North Korea, and on Venezuela, perhaps even still do on Venezuela -- constitute
economic warfare. That's the reality that the world doesn't seem to want to address because the
United States is so powerful and that their economies and financial networks are so wrapped up
with us. That said, it's not like -- And the crassness of the United States with regard to
these sanctions was about saved by none other than Madeleine Albright best when she was
confronted with a number of Iraqi children who were dying as a result of the sanctions we had
on Saddam Hussein. And she simply said, well I thought it was worth it. Worth it -- to kill all
those children? The sanctions regimes we execute though, are a little bit more sophisticated, a
little bit more well-aimed, more precisely aimed these days.
I was very much associated with the ones on North Korea, ones on Iraq, the way we tried to
smarten them up and so forth. The ones on Iran I think are having a very meaningful impact in
terms of cutting down on Iran's ability to do everything that it does, including as you pointed
out to sell oil. But that said, if Saddam Hussein could evade the sanctions that were on him to
the extent that we now know he did, and we know from past experience how well the Kims evaded
sanctions in North Korea and invented ways to get around them -- criminal activity like
counterfeiting American hundred-dollar bills, for example. And other things that I know about
sanctions, I would say the Iranians would be able to survive these no matter how tight we think
we've made them. By and large, the Iranian government -- the Majlis, the judiciary, the
Ayatollahs, the Guardian Council, the IRGC, the Quds Force -- they don't care about the Iranian
people. That's one thing we ought to say more often and more frequently because it's true.
Corruption is so rife in Iran and all sanctions do is increase the money in the hands of
those who are corrupt, like the IRGC and the Quds Force. So despite all these statistics and
everything -- Look at oil, for example. ISIS, we now know, survived quite richly off its oil
sales and we know that Turkey was behind most of the facilitation of those oil sales. The same
thing is going to happen with Iran, so official statistics are really meaningless. That said,
the sanctions are biting, but I don't think they're ever going to bite to the extent that
someone's going to come forward like our Mr. Zarif and say, okay John. Okay Mike. Okay Donald.
We're ready to talk. It is just not gonna happen.
Even a so-called "surgical strike" on targets within Iran risks the Iranians closing the
straight of Hormuz and blocking all oil shipments– somewhere between 20%- 30% or
world's oil exports. World oil prices would skyrocket and the entire world's economy would be
in chaos. Trillion$ in derivatives would instantly be at risk. There is no way the US
military, or the Saudis can prevent this. I believe this is the real reason Trump supposedly
cancelled the planned retaliatory strike for Iran's shoot-down of our drone.
Iran knows that sanctions on Iraq during the 90's killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Even
though Col. Wilkerson says Iran's leadership doesn't care about its people, they certainly
care more than the US does and won't be willing to sit on their hands and watch this happen.
They will resist with force if necessary and make the US and its subservient allies pay the
price.
"... If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit down and talk. ..."
"... Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald. ..."
"... That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in flames. ..."
"how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of its asymmetric
regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia and the Straits
of Hormuz"
Oh, about 12 hours, there or thereabouts. That is Iran's "Trump card". If the reports are true then Trump made an offer to the Iranians: let me bomb a few token
sites - heck, I'll even let you nominate them - and then I'll declare victory and we can sit
down and talk.
Nope, said the Iranians. If you launch even a token attack then we will reply with
everything we have got, and so will Hezbollah and so will Syria. Your call, Donald.
That's the reality, apparently. One spark from Trump and the entire region goes up in
flames.
This is about gas, but most info probably can be extrapolated on oil well too...
Notable quotes:
"... " While hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits have accrued to hundreds of millions of people, the amount of shareholder value destruction registers in the hundreds of billions of dollars," he said. "The industry is self-destructive." ..."
"... Schlotterbeck's remarks, delivered to petrochemical and gas industry executives at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, come from an individual uniquely positioned to understand how major Marcellus drillers make financial decisions -- because he so recently ran a major shale gas drilling firm. Schlotterbeck now serves as a member of the board of directors at the Energy Innovation Center Institute, a nonprofit that offers energy industry training programs. ..."
"... Since 2015, there's been 172 E&P company bankruptcies involving nearly a hundred billion dollars of debt." ..."
"... At the Friday conference, he displayed a slide showing the stock prices of eight major Marcellus shale gas drillers: Antero, Range Resources, Cabot Oil and Gas, Southwestern Energy, CNX Gas, Gulfport, Chesapeake Energy, and EQT , the company that Schlotterbeck ran until he resigned in March 2018. Seven of the eight companies saw their stock prices fall between 40 percent and 95 percent since 2008, the slide showed. ..."
"... " Excluding capital, the big eight basin producers have destroyed on average 80 percent of the value of their companies since the beginning of the shale revolution," Schlotterbeck said. "This is not the fall from the peak price during the shale decade, this is the drop in their share price from before the shale revolution began." ..."
"... " Nearly every American has benefited from shale gas, with one big exception," he said, "the shale gas investors." ..."
"... " The fact is that every time they put the drill bit to the ground, they erode the value of the billions of dollars of previous investments they have made," he said. "It's frankly no wonder that their equity valuations continue to fall dramatically." ..."
"... " As a result of investor pressure, all these companies have committed to lower growth rates and to live within cash flow," said Schlotterbeck. He noted that the drillers had slashed their gas production growth forecasts from over 20 percent down to 11 percent this year. "Yet both the gas commodity market and the equities market are saying this is not nearly enough of a cut." ..."
"... " And at $2 even the mighty Marcellus does not make economic sense," he said, later clarifying that that included both "dry" gas wells, which produce mostly methane, and "wet" gas wells, which also produce the natural gas liquids ( NGL s) that can be used by the petrochemical industry as raw materials for making plastic and chemicals. "Wet gas is better, but nobody's making money at $2 gas." ..."
"... " I tell you this because the current gas commodity price environment is not sustainable and higher gas prices are required for the shale revolution to continue," Schlotterbeck said. "Exactly what prices are required for the industry to become reasonably healthy is hard to predict." ..."
By Sharon Kelly, an attorney and freelance writer based in Philadelphia. She has reported
for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, National Wildlife, Earth Island Journal, and
a variety of other
publications. Prior to beginning freelance writing, she worked as a law clerk for the ACLU of
Delaware.
Originally published at DeSmogBlog .
Steve Schlotterbeck, who led drilling company EQT as it expanded to become the nation's
largest
producer of natural gas
in 2017 , arrived at a petrochemical industry conference in Pittsburgh Friday morning with
a blunt message about shale gas drilling and fracking.
" The shale gas revolution has frankly been an unmitigated disaster for any buy-and-hold
investor in the shale gas industry with very few limited exceptions," Schlotterbeck, who left
the helm of EQT last year, continued. "In fact, I'm not aware of another case of a disruptive
technological change that has done so much harm to the industry that created the change."
" While hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits have accrued to hundreds of millions of
people, the amount of shareholder value destruction registers in the hundreds of billions of
dollars," he said. "The industry is self-destructive."
Schlotterbeck is not the first industry insider to ring alarm bells about the shale
industry's record of producing vast amounts of gas while burning through far more cash than it
can earn by selling that gas. And drillers' own numbers speak for themselves. Reported spending
outweighed income for a group of 29 large public shale gas companies by $6.7 billion in 2018,
bringing the group's 2010 to 2018 cash flow to a total of negative $181 billion, according to a
March 2019
report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
But Schlotterbeck's remarks, delivered to petrochemical and gas industry executives at the
David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, come from an individual uniquely positioned
to understand how major Marcellus drillers make financial decisions -- because he so recently
ran a major shale gas drilling firm. Schlotterbeck now serves as a member of the board of
directors at the Energy Innovation Center Institute, a nonprofit that offers energy industry training programs.
His warnings on Friday were also offered in unusually stark terms.
'Destroyed on
Average 80 Percent of the Value of Their Companies'
" The technological advancements developed by the industry have been the weapon of its own
suicide," Schlotterbeck added, referring to the financial impacts of shale gas drilling on
shale gas drillers. "And unfortunately, the industry still has not fully realized how it's
killing itself. Since 2015, there's been 172 E&P company bankruptcies involving nearly a
hundred billion dollars of debt."
" In a little more than a decade, most of these companies just destroyed a very large
percentage of their companies' value that they had at the beginning of the shale revolution,"
he said. "It's frankly hard to imagine the scope of the value destruction that has occurred.
And it continues."
At the Friday conference, he displayed a slide showing the stock prices of eight major
Marcellus shale gas drillers: Antero, Range Resources, Cabot Oil and Gas, Southwestern Energy,
CNX Gas, Gulfport, Chesapeake Energy, and EQT , the company that Schlotterbeck ran until he
resigned in March 2018. Seven of the eight companies saw their stock prices fall between 40
percent and 95 percent since 2008, the slide showed.
" Excluding capital, the big eight basin producers have destroyed on average 80 percent of
the value of their companies since the beginning of the shale revolution," Schlotterbeck said.
"This is not the fall from the peak price during the shale decade, this is the drop in their
share price from before the shale revolution began."
Mr. Schlotterbeck credited the shale rush with lowering power and natural gas bills
nationwide and offering significant economic benefits since 2008, when he said the shale
revolution began.
" Nearly every American has benefited from shale gas, with one big exception," he said, "the
shale gas investors."
Residents of communities where shale gas drilling and fracking have caused disruptions and
health issues might take exception to Mr. Schlotterbeck's categorical description of the
beneficiaries of shale gas, as might climate scientists who have warned that the shale
industry's greenhouse gas emissions are so severe that burning gas for power may be worse for
the global climate than burning coal.
Only Cabot Oil and Gas, which owns the rights to drill gas from roughly 174,000 acres , mostly in one county
in the northeastern corner of Pennsylvania, saw its stock price rise since 2008, according to
Schlotterbeck's presentation.
Cabot remains at the center of disputes
tied to water contamination, a gas well blow-out, and other problems in Dimock, PA . One major
lawsuit in that dispute was filed against Cabot back in November 2009 and legal battles
have continued since. The company has denied liability and settled on undisclosed terms with landowners along Carter
Road in Dimock.
Schlotterbeck made no mention of Dimock, focusing his remarks on the economic decisions made
by the shale gas industry's corporate management and boards of directors -- not just in the
past, but also in the present.
" The fact is that every time they put the drill bit to the ground, they erode the value of
the billions of dollars of previous investments they have made," he said. "It's frankly no
wonder that their equity valuations continue to fall dramatically."
Slowing the Flow?
More recently, shale gas producers have begun to feel the heat from investors who are
pushing to see signs that the gas can be produced not just in high volume, but also at a
profit.
" As a result of investor pressure, all these companies have committed to lower growth rates
and to live within cash flow," said Schlotterbeck. He noted that the drillers had slashed their
gas production growth forecasts from over 20 percent down to 11 percent this year. "Yet both
the gas commodity market and the equities market are saying this is not nearly enough of a
cut."
He noted that the at-the-wellhead price of natural gas in the Marcellus region was around
$8/ MMB tu back in 2008, and had plunged to less than $2/ MMB tu today. That price plunge was caused by a massive glut of shale gas production as drillers raced
first to hold acreage by producing gas, then competed to see who could make individual wells
produce at higher rates by using tactics like drilling longer horizontal well bores and
experimenting with the proppants used during fracking.
" And at $2 even the mighty Marcellus does not make economic sense," he said, later
clarifying that that included both "dry" gas wells, which produce mostly methane, and "wet" gas
wells, which also produce the natural gas liquids ( NGL s) that can be used by the
petrochemical industry as raw materials for making plastic and chemicals. "Wet gas is better,
but nobody's making money at $2 gas."
" Over the past year or so, most of the producers have shifted away from the phenomenal
growth rates of the past to more moderate growth projections," Schlotterbeck said. "The market
is clearly telling them that they haven't slowed down enough."
" Now I tell you all this because I think it has long-term implications for the end users of
natural gas. This situation cannot continue indefinitely," Schlotterbeck continued. "There will
be a reckoning and the only questions is whether it happens in a controlled manner or whether
it comes as an unexpected shock to the system."
Schlotterbeck's presentation separately
described additional challenges facing shale gas producers. Credit: Sharon Kelly
Frackers Projected Returns 'Should Not Exist' -- and Don't
He pointed to profit predictions in a "current investor presentation" by a shale driller he
did not name but described as one of the eight largest in the Marcellus. That driller, he said,
presently predicts it can make a 46 percent internal rate of return by drilling their dry gas
wells at current gas prices, and 61 percent internal returns from the same wells if gas prices
rise 36 percent.
" Economics and common sense will tell you that in a world of abundant similar
opportunities, rates of return at that level should not exist," Schlotterbeck said. "And they
don't."
" Really indicates to me that there's a lot of these companies that still don't get it," he
said. "They still think they're gonna earn 40, 50, 60 percent returns on their investment, even
after six years now of saying that and getting negative returns."
Schlotterbeck said there was a reason he made his presentation to the petrochemical industry
in Pittsburgh, where industry plans a massive construction spree to build plastics and chemical
factories in large part because gas prices have fallen so sharply. In December, the Department
of Energy cited the "tremendous low-cost resource from the Marcellus and Utica shales" as it
announced publication of a report touting benefits from building new petrochemical
infrastructure in Appalachia.
Drillers' financial troubles could have significant implications for the petrochemical
build-out in the Ohio River Valley.
" I tell you this because the current gas commodity price environment is not sustainable and
higher gas prices are required for the shale revolution to continue," Schlotterbeck said.
"Exactly what prices are required for the industry to become reasonably healthy is hard to
predict."
His own personal prediction, he added, was that prices would rise 60 to 80 percent, reaching
$3.50 or $4 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). And production growth will have to slow.
In response to an audience question about the impact of demand from new petrochemical plants
currently planned for the region, Schlotterbeck said that for drillers, those plans were "great
news on the demand side."
" But when producers are growing 11 percent per year, I don't think demand can keep up at
that pace," he added.
" The large gas producers will need to make further reductions in their drilling activity,"
he said. "Whether they do it on their own accord or if shareholders and bondholders revolt and
force them to, I think remains to be seen."
Shale Crescent USA , a petrochemical industry group pushing to transform the Ohio River
Valley and Appalachia into a plastics and chemical manufacturing center to rival the one on the
Gulf Coast -- known locally as "cancer alley" -- offered their projections, which predict
production will continue to grow rapidly, in a presentation following Schlotterbeck's.
Shale Crescent USA 's Wally Kandel and Jerry James presented at the Northeast Petrochemical
Exhibition and Conference in Pittsburgh on Friday. Credit: Sharon Kelly, DeSmog
Shale Crescent USA 's pitch to policy-makers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and
Kentucky and to plastics and chemical manufacturers has heavily emphasized the low cost of
shale gas and NGL s in the region.
On Friday, Wally Kandel, a Solvay Specialty Polymers vice president, and Jerry James,
president of Artex Oil Co., played back a video segment about Shale Crescent USA
aired by Bloomberg in June 2018.
" In Shale Crescent USA , you have the most abundant natural gas, the cheapest natural gas
in the developed world," Kandel told Bloomberg in the clip.
" It was that rapid increase in production that got us to start Shale Crescent USA ," James
told the conference in Pittsburgh Friday.
James didn't take issue with Schlotterbeck's conclusions about the shale revolution. "It's
profoundly changed the market," said James. "It's just absolutely amazing what we've been able
to do."
" We've achieved everything but big profits -- and I agree with him," James continued,
referring to Schlotterbeck, "but for people on the downstream side [i.e. industrial consumers
of shale gas and NGL s], this is revolutionary."
In brief comments following Schlotterbeck's remarks, Charles Schliebs of Stone Pier Capital
Advisors recalled an earlier -- but failed -- plan to drive demand for shale gas, one heavily
pushed by former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon, who died in a car crash a day after
being indicted
by federal prosecutors with the Department of Justice over alleged bid-rigging.
McClendon, Schliebs recalled, had urged car makers to start building cars that would run on
compressed natural gas, or CNG . "Aubrey had amazing plans and was spending a lot of money and
doing things to push CNG in cars and in light trucks," Schliebs recalled.
These days, CNG passenger vehicles seem more like a passing fad, overshadowed by the rise of
electric vehicles. Schliebs noted that just two or three weeks before the petrochemical
conference, EQT 's CNG fueling station in Pittsburgh's strip district closed permanently and
quietly, adding that he'd been told its owners had no plans to open a replacement.
"... But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the Gulf. ..."
"... Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq. The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in 1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq. ..."
But the dilemma for Trump is at a deeper level. His sanctions against Iran, reimposed after
he withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, are devastating the Iranian economy. The
US Treasury is a more lethal international power than the Pentagon. The EU and other countries
have stuck with the deal, but they have in practice come to tolerate the economic blockade of
Iran.
Iran was left with no choice but to escalate the conflict. It wants to make sure that the
US, the European and Asian powers, and US regional allies Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates,
feel some pain. Tehran never expected much from the EU states, which are still signed up to the
2015 nuclear deal, and has found its low expectations are being fulfilled.
A fundamental misunderstanding of the US-Iran confrontation is shared by many commentators.
It may seem self-evident that the US has an interest in using its vast military superiority
over Iran to get what it wants. But after the failure of the US ground forces to win in Iraq
and Afghanistan, not to mention Somalia, no US leader can start a land war in the Middle East
without endangering their political survival at home.
Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition. The Democrats and much of the US media have portrayed
Trump as a warmonger, though he has yet to start a war. His national security adviser John
Bolton and secretary of state Mike Pompeo issue bloodcurdling threats against Iran, but Trump
evidently views such bellicose rhetoric as simply one more way of ramping up the pressure on
Iran.
But if a ground war is ruled out, then Iran is engaged in the sort of limited conflict in
which it has long experience. A senior Iraqi official once said to me that the Iranians "have a
PhD" in this type of part political, part military warfare. They are tactics that have worked
well for Tehran in Lebanon, Iraq and Syria over the past 40 years. The Iranians have many
pressure points against the US, and above all against its Saudi and Emirati allies in the
Gulf.
The Iranians could overplay their hand: Trump is an isolationist, but he is also a populist
national leader who claims in his first campaign rallies for the next presidential election to
"have made America great again". Such boasts make it difficult to not retaliate against Iran, a
country he has demonised as the source of all the troubles in the Middle East.
One US military option looks superficially attractive but conceals many pitfalls. This is to
try to carry out operations along the lines of the limited military conflict between the US and
Iran called the "tanker war". This was part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s and the US came
out the winner.
Saddam Hussein sought to throttle Iran's oil exports and Iran tried to do the same to Iraq.
The US and its allies weighed in openly on Saddam Hussein's side – an episode swiftly
forgotten by them after the Iraqi leader invaded Kuwait in 1990. From 1987 on, re-registered
Kuwaiti tankers were being escorted through the Gulf by US warships. There were US airstrikes
against Iranian ships and shore facilities, culminating in the accidental but very avoidable
shooting down of an Iranian civil airliner with 290 passengers on board by the USS Vincennes in
1988. Iran was forced to sue for peace in its war with Iraq.
Some retired American generals speak about staging a repeat of the tanker war today but
circumstances have changed. Iran's main opponent in 1988 was Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Iran was
well on its way to losing the war, in which there was only one front
"Trump took this lesson to heart long before he became president. He is a genuine
isolationist in the American tradition."
Mr. Cockburn does not understand the meaning of isolationist. Trump has been pro-empire
since the day he took office.
I have better stuff in my blog:
June 22, 2019 – Iran
People familiar with US military history know what just happened off Iran. American
aircraft and drones have violated Iranian airspace every week for years, either by accident
or because American officers like to screw with them, especially when lots of high-level
American officials want war with Iran. Complaints were filed and ignored, so the Iranians
shot one down. Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs
to Iran and the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the
right to transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations.
The American people are clueless about this stuff since most only know what our
warmongering media tells them, as Jimmy Dore explains in this video. I was shocked and
pleased that President Trump saw through this ruse and bravely did nothing. If we bomb Iran
they will hit back, maybe openly with a missile barrage, or covertly using Shia militias in
Iraq, Bahrain, and Afghanistan. The USA has tens of thousands of soldiers and contractors all
over the Arab world. I'm sure local teams have spent years scouting targets and preparing to
attack after a green light from Tehran. Trump wisely cancelled this chaos, at least until
after his reelection.
"He is a genuine isolationist" Oh please; Mr. Cockburn, you're old enough to have heard of
projection. There is nothing genuine about Trump's public persona, except for his
greed and egotism. He's a world-class grifter and charlatan–i.e., still not to be
underestimated. His calculation will probably be "Can I get re-elected without jumping into
the breach? Then that's fine too. If the polls look awful, I'll roll the dice and be a
War-Time President like Dubya."
At least, Mr. Cockburn understands that the "crippling sanctions" (the way Americans are
always proud of those show that they're just knee-capping mafiosi) are leaving Iran no choice
but to fight back. So the decision may not be in Donald's hands; he may be smarter than his
media caricature, and yet not as smart as he thought.
Once American servicemen start dying for this rather nebulous cause, it will be the
reaction of American voters that will ultimately determine the extent and duration of yet
another Middle East military, nation re-engineering "adventure".
"Note there is no international airspace in the Strait of Hormuz. Half belongs to Iran and
the other to UAE and Oman. It is an international waterway, so all ships have the right to
transit, but aircraft require permission from one of these nations."
You might want to examine the UNCLOS agreement. It's created some sticky issues in the
South China Seas and in the straight in question, Iran and Oman are leaning very heavily on
that the policy. In their view it is for use exclusively for noncombatant enterprise as part
of their claim as territorial waters, they have a say in its use.
Pakistan is nuclear, pal.
Israel is nuclear, pal.
India is nuclear, pal.
North Korea is nuclear, pal.
Nobody attacks their territory these days, pal.
But Iran chose a long time ago not to go nuclear, pal.
The American Mullahs want their oil money back and so have issued yet another fatwah through
their Supreme Leader.
KiwiAntz , June 24, 2019 at 04:08
Old Geezer are you familiar with the term"Mutual Assured Destruction"? Any Nuclear attack
will be met with a Nuclear response by the Country attacked! This isn't 1945 where America
could nuke Japan & get away with it? It's 2019 & alot of Nations have the Nukes to
deter US Nuclear attacks? That's MAD in a nutshell!
Zhu , June 24, 2019 at 06:03
Who says Iran is going nuclear, Gezzer? If he usual liars.
AnneR , June 24, 2019 at 09:31
So *what* if the Iranians developed nuclear weapons? (Not that they are going to –
as they have stated over and over again. But then they are not as bloodthirsty as
Anglo-Americans always seem to be.)
Frankly, if they had done so, the US-IS-UK would be a lot less eager to bomb their country
into smithereens – all for the benefit of their more westerly neighbor (the middle
country above). NK understands this. Unfortunately, Qaddafi didn't.
And again – I repeat: which nation state is it that *has* used such weapons: twice?
Only one. (Not to mention that same country's eager use of depleted uranium – far from
its shores, of course – in bullets and shells.) Charming.
heathroi , June 24, 2019 at 09:45
is that you, John?
Steve in DC , June 24, 2019 at 09:47
Iran should go nuclear. The US doesn't f#%* with countries that have the bomb. The sooner
Iran can thwart Washington the better off the world will be. Washington will have to get
another hobbyhorse.
Tick Tock , June 24, 2019 at 11:45
How many generations has your family been inbreeding? Was it part of the US Guvment plan
to create the race of morons? Without a doubt it has been a success in making you, make
Forrest Gump look like an Einstein. Keep posting at least it might keep you off the
streets.
Ol' Hippy , June 24, 2019 at 11:58
They won't need to. All they have to do is barricade the Strait of Hormuz and collapse the
world economy that relies on oil from the Gulf States. Never mentioned in the corporate(MSM)
media circles that want war. The ensuing depression would be like no other, ever.
My friend, you've been getting too much of your news from Israel-influenced mainstream
media. Iran has not had a nuclear weapons program since 2003 (if it had one even then, which
is doubtful). That is the consensus position of all U.S. intelligence agencies, Mossad, and
several european intelligence agencies. See the reference links in my article at
https://relativelyfreepress.blogspot.com/2015/09/a-question-about-ron-wydens-intelligence.html
Moreover, as Don Bacon summarizes, Iran doesn't need nukes to hold the U.S. at bay.
Finally, Iran's unquestionable ability to close all shipping of oil through the Hormuz
Strait (30 percent of the world's supply) means that Iran has the ability to bring the
western economic system to its knees. Who needs nukes?
DH Fabian , June 24, 2019 at 13:08
Are China and Russia nuclear-armed countries, in a world that has largely come to see the
US as an unpredictable and dictatorial threat? Possibly too great of a threat to allow it to
continue?
Linda Furr , June 24, 2019 at 13:12
Who's the 'they'? US officials have already talked of nuclear attacks on areas of Iran.
The great 'democracy' of USA just ain't so. Its criminal psychopathy comes straight from
Israel – against most Americans' desires. Washington DC is sick.
Not to in any way absolve Trump, but as long as Bolton and Pompeo are on the scene there will
be blood. Bolton in particular should be in jail for crimes against humanity. He is a madman.
Scary times.
This recent 19 May piece from Ha'aretz documents precisely the manipulation of
American policy by Israeli charlatans and their agents of influence in the US. The title
says it all just by itself: "Netanyahu's Iran Dilemma: Getting Trump to Act Without
Putting Israel on the Front Line." It goes on to assess that:
"In this conflict, Israel is hoping to have its cake and eat it too. Ever since Trump
was elected president two and a half years ago, Netanyahu has been urging him to take a
more aggressive line toward Iran, in order to force it to make additional concessions on
its nuclear program and disrupt its support for militant organizations.
"Trump acceded to this urging a year ago when he withdrew America from the nuclear
agreement with Iran. That was followed by tighter sanctions on Iran, as well as
publication of a plan by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo detailing 12 steps Tehran
must take to satisfy Washington.
"But Israel isn't interested in being part of the front. That is why Jerusalem has
issued so few official statements on the Iranian issue, and why Netanyahu has urged
ministers to be cautious in what they say."
I'd say that passage captures the situation perfectly, and it just goes to show that
when you want to know about what chicanery Israel and its lobby are up to in the US, you
have to go and look at what Israelis are saying when they aren't particularly careful about
who's observing. That sort of truth is sanitized from any MSM accounts in the US.
@ OP 2
Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part, and not
the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has intended to
be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become second fiddle
to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of military gear in
the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia Crescent. That must be
reversed!
In Danielle Ryan’s article in RT's Op-ed “US will not ‘stumble into’
war with Iran by mistake. If it happens, it will be by design” she notes the prevalence
of “strange terminology” used by mainstream media to describe how the US gets
into wars. I have added to her list and checked that all have been used in the current
US-Iran scenario. The US is in danger of being: “dragged into, sucked into, sliding
into, stumbling into, slouching towards, lured into, bumbling into, blundering into and
sleepwalking into” war with Iran.
Who are they trying to kid when they have already declared economic war on Iran,
asphyxiating the Iranian economy, knowing full well that Iran has to respond.
John Bolton “sleepwalking” into war with Iran? He’ll be wide awake and
so excited he’ll probably have to relieve himself.
NemesisCalling , Jun 23, 2019 11:23:57 AM |
12Oscar Peterson , Jun 23, 2019 11:25:56 AM |
13
@Don Bacon #4
"Israel is an important part of Middle East US policy decisions but not the only part,
and not the most important one. Going back to the Carter Doctrine, and before, the US has
intended to be the top dog in the Middle East but instead, through its mistakes, has become
second fiddle to Iran. The US and its allies have tens of thousands of troops with tons of
military gear in the area and are still losing influence, replaced by Iran and its Shia
Crescent. That must be reversed!"
Have to disagree with a good deal of this.
Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on
US Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now.
The Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing
power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik
expressions are able to impose on our policy.
Neither big oil, nor Saudi Arabia, nor anything that could objectively be called US
strategic considerations wields anything like the heft of political Jewry. And even
metastasizing Christian Zionism is only an ideological adjunct to Zionism proper, primarily a
function of the cultural damage stemming from Jewry's march through the institutions since WW
II.
That said, I must also disagree that Iran has become "the top dog" in the Middle East.
They are nowhere close, though, with their cultural and technological attainments, backed by
oil and gas deposits, their long-term strategic position has a lot of promise. A "top dog"
would not be in Iran's current underdog position vis-a-vis Israel and its US golem and having
to fight back with the stratagems we are currently seeing.
The Shia crescent is essentially a myth, and Iran's ability to exercise dominating
influence on Shia Arabs is largely a function of the hostility of Sunni Arabs to the Shia
Arab empowerment of recent years. Yes, the US is losing influence, but that is mostly a
function of our own policy dysfunction induced by dual-loyalist political Jewry and the
Israel-Über-Alles strategic preferences it imposes.
@Don Bacon
That clarifies.
I do agree that Israel is one of the 2 important factors in US calculation in south-west
Asia, the other being strategic leverage over big-league competitors. And, it is true that US
military presence in the Persian Gulf has been the Carter doctrine's making - although one
might argue the doctrine itself was created to fill the vacuum created with the departure of
the British and the subsequent independence given to the southern Sheikhdoms. The issue with
the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with such an obstinance
that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this obstinance is well known to
everyone.
NJDuke , Jun 23, 2019 11:45:09 AM |
18Don Bacon , Jun 23, 2019 11:52:24 AM |
19
Israel or no, failure is not an option for the US in the Middle East, especially Syria which
was Hillary's Job-One during her SecState tenure.
AP, Dec 14, 2011-- US: Assad's Syria a 'dead man walking'
The State Department official, Frederic Hof, told Congress on Wednesday that Assad's
repression may allow him to hang on to power but only for a short time. And, he urged the
Syrian opposition to prepare for the day when it takes control of the state in order to
prevent chaos and sectarian conflict.
"Our view is that this regime is the equivalent of dead man walking," said Hof, the State
Department's pointman on Syria, which he said was turning into "Pyongyang in the Levant," a
reference to the North Korean capital. He said it was difficult to determine how much time
Assad has left in power but stressed "I do not see this regime surviving.". . .
here
And Syria is only the most important US target country in the ME, the Iraq challenge still
exists, Lebanon is important (receives some US military aid) and of course the old bugaboo
Iran has become more vital than ever. Iran has a heavy political influence in Iraq and Syria,
and that highway from Tehran to Beirut is a problem especially considering Iran ally (and
"terrorist") Hezbollah. So. . .that's why 50,000+ US troops, an air force, and the Navy's
Fifth fleet are there.
The main point is that the US world hegemon has to be strong everywhere, especially in
Asia, and if it's forced out of anywhere it would set a bad example, going back to 'losing
China.'
"The issue with the current US strategy in the region is that it defies the reality with
such an obstinance that it completely undermines its own goals. The origin of this
obstinance is well known to everyone."
Yes, I think that's the issue exactly, and Israel is at the heart of it all. We are
undermining our own goals (and scoring own goals.) Your point here captures the current
bottom line of US "strategy" in the region.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what
it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is
conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." . ."I wouldn't go to
war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two
things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of
Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.". . .General Smedley Butler, USMC, two
Congressional Medals of Honor, veteran of wars in Central America, Europe and China
Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and Somalia?
Eighteen years in Afghanistan?
No. In the US, to quote Randolph Bourne (1918), war is the health of the state.
. . .With the shock of war, however, the State comes into its own again. The Government,
with no mandate from the people, without consultation of the people, conducts all the
negotiations, the backing and filling, the menaces and explanations, which slowly bring it
into collision with some other Government, and gently and irresistibly slides the country
into war. For the benefit of proud and haughty citizens, it is fortified with a list of the
intolerable insults which have been hurled toward us by the other nations; for the benefit
of the liberal and beneficent, it has a convincing set of moral purposes which our going to
war will achieve; for the ambitious and aggressive classes, it can gently whisper of a
bigger role in the destiny of the world. The result is that, even in those countries where
the business of declaring war is theoretically in the hands of representatives of the
people, no legislature has ever been known to decline the request of an Executive, which
has conducted all foreign affairs in utter privacy and irresponsibility, that it order the
nation into battle. Good democrats are wont to feel the crucial difference between a State
in which the popular Parliament or Congress declares war, and the State in which an
absolute monarch or ruling class declares war. But, put to the stern pragmatic test, the
difference is not striking. In the freest of republics as well as in the most tyrannical of
empires, all foreign policy, the diplomatic negotiations which produce or forestall war,
are equally the private property of the Executive part of the Government, and are equally
exposed to no check whatever from popular bodies, or the people voting as a mass
themselves.
"Is Israel responsible for the US enmity toward North Korea? the bombing of Libya and
Somalia? Eighteen years in Afghanistan?"
First, I did not claim that every move the US makes is Israel-induced. I said that Israel
is at the heart of our overall strategic dysfunction in the Middle East. Libya and Somalia
are peripheral, and Afghanistan is not truly in the region at all.
But let's be clear that the rise of both al Quaeda and, as a follow-on, the Islamic State
have been greatly facilitated by the resentment generated by the imposition of Jewish state
on the region at the expense of the local Arabs. Both bin Laden and Zawahiri have mentioned
the Zionist conquest and its wars as formative experiences.
And the rise of IS was a direct result of the US invasion of Iraq, itself induced by the
overlapping strains of Jewish neoconservatism and Likudnik hyper-Zionism. The overthrow of
Saddam created the political and strategic space for IS to emerge and thrive, and the
concerted attempt to overthrow Assad--another Israeli strategic preference--weakened the
Syrian state so much that it permitted the establishment of a "caliphate" which then invaded
Iraq. This expanding dynamic played a role in Libya as well.
With regard to Saudi Arabia, we have to ask why the US put its weight behind the
replacement of Muhammed bin Naif (MbN) with Muhammed bin Salman (MbS) when almost all the USG
wanted to tell Salman that we preferred staying with the known and trusted MbN. Almost
certainly, Trump's ignorant support of MbS originated with the pro-Israel Jews who dominate
his thinking. MbS has been a bonanza for Israel but a disaster for us (and the region.)
And with regard to Afghanistan, the denuding of that theater to resource the
Iraq-Iran-Syria invasion/regime change scheme demanded by Israel and its operatives in the US
had a definitively negative outcome on US policy in Afghanistan from which, it is now clear,
it will never recover.
In East Asia, the negative impact of US Israel-centric Middle East policy can be seen as
well. The neocon/Likudnik-induced morass of Iraq into which we marched distracted us from the
Asia-Pacific and particularly China's move into the South China Sea, which might have been
deterred, if we weren't expending the overwhelming majority of our energy, attention and
resources in the Middle East.
And since you bring up North Korea, the Israeli influence on US policy there is certainly
secondary but definitely not zero. Israel and its lobby seek an ultra-hard line on any US
negotiations with North Korea because they see it as an extension of Iran policy, so in their
view, any concession to North Korea is a bad example for Iran. This contributes to impeding
any possible negotiated solution to the complex of issues on the Korean Peninsula.
It is truly amazing how far the insidious reach of Israel, its nefarious lobby and the
"Is-it-good-for-the-Jews?" obsessions of political Jewry extends into US foreign policy. Our
current strategy is, as ATH noted, self-undermining. There really is no historical precedent
for it.
After all, this is what our elected, alleged representatives posit when they state
collectively, in unison, loudly, repeatedly, on their knees, that "the USA maintains an
irrevocable bond with Israel".
That statement should bring the condescension and the wrath of the USA public.
For what reason would the USA maintain an "irrevocable bond" with ANY other nation?
Regardless of the fact that ISrael is an apartheid state by its own definition as "The
Jewish State of ISrael".
You both have valid points, but I've always believed it's the dog that wags its tail.
Sure, if it was simply Palestine, one could expect different nuances of US policy. But any
qualitative difference? I don't see it.
The US would still back undemocractic strong men who would treat American interests as
paramount in return for US backing of their regime and turning a blind eye to their
enrichment at the expense of the general population. The US would be hellbent against any
pan-Arab nationalism or anything resembling socialism or sovereignty.
The proof? Well take a look at how the US treats the rest of the world.
The US and Israel have overlapping interests as it relates to the Middle East with the added
accelerator of the many dual nationals in seats of power.
lysias , Jun 23, 2019 2:21:16 PM |
57bevin , Jun 23, 2019 2:22:35 PM |
58
"Israel's strategic preferences have indeed become the most important single influence on US
Middle East policy. Up to a certain point in the past, that was not true, but it is now. The
Carter Doctrine has, in effect, been undermined by the distortions that the ever-growing
power of pro-Israel political Jewry in the US in both its neoconservative and Likudnik
expressions are able to impose on our policy."
Oscar Peterson is correct not because Israel's interests are of such importance-they
really are not- but because US Foreign policy has become totally incoherent.
This is because it is entirely aimed at fund raisers and influencers of the electorate. It is
founded on the theory that the United States can do whatever it pleases, and need never care
about consolidating its power or defending its positions because it is far more powerful than
all its potential rivals added together. This being the case its Foreign Policy becomes a
saleable commodity, just as its armed forces-which can never be defeated- are at the disposal
of the highest bidders.
Note to Psychohistorian: the open democracy website has an article on Costa Rica's public
banking today.
with regard to iran, the usa is tied at the hip to israel.. that is a fact... now, maybe it
can change, but i think phil at mondoweiss lays it out pretty clearly for anyone interested..
as i see it, this is just temporary... israel is gunning hard for war on iran.. anyone who
can't see that is in fact very blind..
meanwhile - Trump: “I have some hawks. John Bolton is absolutely a hawk. If it was
up to him he'd take on the whole world at one time.“
bolton is in this position due the fact trump owed sheldon adelson one... at least trump
can see it, but i don't know that he can avoid where this is going... that would be putting
too much faith in a con artist - grifter..
I suggest you download Douglas Reed's comprehensive review of Zionism's activities in "The
Controversy of Zion" over the period you describe from a singular perspective and read it
thoroughly. IN fact I commend that book to everyone on this site. Reed was a correspondent
through WW2 and before and his work is detailed and readable, with extensive references.
"CBS News Analyst And Iran "War Mongering Maniac" Also Raytheon Board Member: Dore"
"How do you know the MSM is nothing more than the media wing of the
military-industrial-complex? A Raytheon board member masquerading as an objective analyst is
a good start."
"On Friday, CBS News analyst and retired Navy Admiral James Winnefeld Jr. slammed
President Trump for calling off retaliatory strikes on Iran over a downed US drone, while
insisting we must strike Iran or else the United States will "lose a lot of credibility."
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin also said financial restrictions would be imposed on
Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif later this week. ............... Zarif, viewed as
Iran's most skilled diplomat, was lead negotiator in the multi-party nuclear accord reached
in 2015 under the Obama administration that Trump has since rejected.
If this was about a real estate deal in New York, Trump's bully-boy tactics might seem
reasonable. Deliberately pissing off the real leader of Iran, and sanctioning their head
diplomat means he doesn't want "negotiations". Only total surrender is permissible in light
of his foolishness.
I've got a bad feeling about all of this. Time is running out for the apartheid Jewish
state, and they're going to be mighty tempted to arrange for a bunch of US military men or
women to be brought home in body bags. That's because they can't be absolutely positive one
of the neocon Democrats will be in the White House soon.
"Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the
world's reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to
the real causes of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to
prolong the post-crisis economic agony of 2008....
"As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all
power groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the
world economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a
result, would lose any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off
possible strikes as he did after the US drone was shot out of the sky."
The author echoes my words from yesterday:
"I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt
it."
Regarding what I wrote about Sanders in my reply to Stever, here we have the Chancellery
of the People's Republic of China spokesman, Hua Chun Ying:
"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has
come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their
hegemony.
"The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself
extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding
transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United
States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue
are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits."
No, I didn't cite everything in the article. There's much more of importance there to
read!
After a somewhat quiet weekend the Trump administration today engaged in another push against
Iran.
Today the Treasury Department sanctioned the leaders of
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). It also sanctioned Iran's Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Khamenei and his office! There will be no more Disney Land visits for them.
Mnuchin: "The president has instructed me that we will be designating [Iran's foreign
minister Javad] Zarif later this week." cc: @JZarif
The Treasury Secretary will designate Javad Zarif as what? A terrorist? Zarif is quite
effective in communicating the Iranian standpoint on Twitter and other social media. Those
accounts will now be shut down.
The Trump administration's special envoy for Iran, Brian Hook, said today that Iran should
respond to U.S. diplomacy with diplomacy. Sanctioning Iran's chief diplomat is probably not
the way to get there.
All those who get sanctioned by the U.S. will gain in popularity in Iran. These U.S.
measures will only unite the people of Iran and strengthen their resolve.
Iran will respond to this new onslaught by asymmetric means of which it has plenty.
On Saturday Trump said that all he wants is that Iran never gets nuclear weapons. But the
State Department wants much more. Hook today said that the U.S. would only
lift sanctions if a comprehensive deal is made that includes ballistic missile and human
rights issues. Iran can not agree to that. But this is not the first time that Pompeo
demanded more than Trump himself. Is it Pompeo, not Trump, who is pressing this expanded
version to make any deal impossible?
Brian Hook is by the way a loon who does not even understand the meaning of what he
himself says:
US Hook says Iran knew what getting into when struck deal with president who had 1 1/2
yr left in office. "They knew what they were getting into...They knew that there was a
great possibility that the next president could come in & leave the deal." Note: US
elections 17 months away
Those are two good arguments for Iran to never again agree to any deal with the
'non-agreement-capable' United States.
It seems obvious from the above that the Trump administration has
no real interest in reasonable negotiations with Iran:
"The administration is not really interested in negotiations now," said Robert Einhorn, a
former senior State Department official who was involved in negotiations with Iranian
officials during the Obama administration. "It wants to give sanctions more time to make
the Iranians truly desperate, at which point it hopes the negotiations will be about the
terms of surrender."
That is part of the strategy. But the real issue is deeper:
Pro tip: Sanctions against #Iran aren't to retaliate for the downed drone or to punish
tanker attacks or to improve the nuclear deal or to help the Iranian people but to foment
revolution against the regime. The strategy is regime change with velvet gloves.
... ... ...
Pompeo was hastily sent to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Brian Hook is now in Oman and Bolton
is in Israel. The U.S. will also pressure Europe and NATO to join a new 'coalition of the
willing'. The UK will likely follow any U.S. call as it needs a trade deal to survive after
Brexit.
Other countries are best advised to stay out.
Posted by b at
02:05 PM |
Comments (183) Our leaders have gone out of their tiny minds, first Trump confirms our
suspicions that the deal he wants must include those legal ballistic missiles, then that
nutcase Hunt pledged to stand by the US in the event of conflict with Iran, you could not
make it up.
Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is running against Boris Johnson for the Conservatives'
leadership, has pledged to stand by the US even if its confrontation with Iran leads to a
military conflict, according to The Daily Mail.
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201906241076032533-uk-foreign-secretary-hunt-admits-britain-could-follow-us-into-war-with-iran/
Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime
minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear
weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear
weapons."
This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic
missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the
region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure
into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.
The US faced empire is the largest state sponsor of terror
The big lie technique works when all levels of communication are controlled. Otherwise it
makes you the laughing stock, which Trump will be at the G20 before he leaves
In dealing with Iran Pompeo & Bolton are following the infantile pattern that Israel uses
with Palestinians and Hezbollah: Make them suffer so they turn against their leaders and
provoke a regime change
It never worked because the middle easterners do not think like the Jews or Westerners. They
are resilient and have little to loose. The more hardship they get from foreign and hostile
powers the more they unite and resist. Despite the overwhelming persecution of the
Palestinians by Israel and its western allies for 50 years they are still resisting. Iran is
not different.
They are under siege for 30 years and still defiant.
Many US presidents and Boltons have passed and disappeared in oblivion after attempting and
failing regime changes in the middle east. Trump is not different.
Well, the end is most certainly nigh. Figure the US or Israel will resort to using nuclear
weapons which will result in Russia and China unleashing theirs. At least we can expect Wash
DC to be obliterated. May solve one of our problems.
Expect all nuclear facilities, military bases, and major airports to be targeted. Hopefully,
major population centers would be spared but doubt the US will reciprocate so expect all
major metropolitan areas to also be targeted.
Here is the double down on stupid which should have been expected.
Double sanctions, double demands, double threats, double censorship and the assemblage of
a fake posse - aka the coalition of the lapdogs.
Who will join the coalition of dumbfuckery? Here are the coalition members from Dubya's
Iraqi invasion in 2003:
Of the 48 countries on the list, three contributed troops to the invasion force (the
United Kingdom, Australia and Poland). An additional 37 countries provided some number of
troops to support military operations after the invasion was complete.
The list of coalition members provided by the White House included several nations that
did not intend to participate in actual military operations. Some of them, such as Marshall
Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, did not have standing armies. However,
through the Compact of Free Association, citizens of the Marshall Islands, Palau and the
Federated States of Micronesia are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to
serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined
Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and Samoan reserve units. They have been
deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the
White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and
promptly denied it.[5] According to a 2010 study, the Federal States of Micronesia, the
Marshall Islands and Palau (and Tonga and the Solomon Islands to a lesser extent) were all
economically dependent on economic aid from the United States, and thus had an economic
incentive to join the Coalition of the Willing.[6]
In December 2008, University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had
learned that the White House was editing and back-dating revisions to the list of countries
in the coalition.[7][8] Althaus found that some versions of the list had been entirely
removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another, as opposed to the
procedure of archiving original documents and supplementing them with later revisions and
updates.[3]
By August 2009, all non-U.S./UK coalition members had withdrawn from Iraq.[9] As a result,
the Multinational Force – Iraq was renamed and reorganized to United States Forces
– Iraq as of January 1, 2010. Thus the Coalition of the Willing came to an official
end.
Thanks to fastfreddy with the Iraq related Coalition of the Willing history
Over on another thread it was noted that today Trump is trying to build another Coalition
of the Willing to "protect" the shipping lanes.
My response was
@ Don Bacon and SRB with the comments about the crybaby defense over "protecting" shipping
lanes
I think China will tell empire like I tell the guy in front of the Post Office wanting to
protect my bicycle while I go in....."Why should I give you money to protect me from you?
100% Gangsterism. The Outlaw US Empire learned it cannot defeat Iran militarily, so it
invites other nations to become outlaws too. The G-20's in 4 days. I'll wager Trump leaves
before it's over having accomplished nothing other than absorbing abuse from most attendees.
And just what will Trump do when this move fails as it will? IMO, he just dealt Sanders a
great set of cards. The crowd expecting a repeat of Shock & Awe will grow smaller as they
slowly realize the truth of my second sentence. Instead of climbing down the tree, Trump
climbs higher onto thinner branches. What's more, Trump opens himself up to being challenged
within the Republican Party for POTUS nominee as the Current Oligarchy cannot like this
choice.
"realDonaldTrump is 100% right that the US military has no business in the Persian Gulf.
Removal of its forces is fully in line with interests of US and the world. But it's now clear
that the #B_Team is not concerned with US interests -- they despise diplomacy, and thirst for
war."
It appears Zarif concedes policy isn't made by Trump. The ignorance displayed in the
thread's comments is astounding.
The only times I can think of when a country switched sides, ie: overthrew their leaders, was
when they were caught in a squeeze between two other powers and decided to go with the
winner. Example: Italy in 1943. External pressures causing people to overthrow their leaders?
Essentially Nada.
So, what happens to derivatives if a shooting war ends up with the Straits closed? Escobar's
recent piece on the derivatives implosion that would result from a shooting war suggests that
the US/Saudi/Bibi axis is like a boys playing with matches around a can of gasoline or that
they believe they have a work-around for the derivatives problem. I would like to know
whether the BIS-types are on board with this fiasco or are trying to apply the brakes.
Bernie Sanders suggested that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was "the worst foreign policy
blunder in the history of the country." Bernie you ain't seen nothing yet, if those slavering
imbeciles have anything to do with it. The costs [including long term costs] of the
Iraq/Afghan wars [still ongoing] are estimated at 6 Trillion dollars. Here is what just one
Trillion dollars looks like http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
"Yet the nation's longest and most expensive war is the one that is still going on. In
addition to nearly 7,000 troops killed, the 16-year conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan will
cost an estimated US$6 trillion due to its prolonged length, rapidly increasing veterans
health care and disability costs and interest on war borrowing. On this Memorial Day, we
should begin to confront the staggering cost and the challenge of paying for this war".
http://theconversation.com/iraq-and-afghanistan-the-us-6-trillion-bill-for-americas-longest-war-is-unpaid-78241
I've replied to numerous people lacking knowledge that they must listen to Nasrallah when it
comes to what will occur if the Outlaw US Empire or any other entity attacks Iran. This short clip
is one of several I'm referring to. I'd say it's very likely Trump needs to be included on
the list of those needing to hear Nasrallah.
Iranian TV just announced that Russia has stated that the drone was in Iranian airspace
according to its own intelligence. Not that that will make any difference to the madmen
telling the Donald the Chump what to do...
"... karlof1 thinks, if I get him right, that the US underestimated the defensive radar capabilities of Iran, and that they got aware of their lack of knowledge right through the incidence. Which might have had a big impact on them, especially Trump. ..."
I am a little puzzled that there is not more discussion about the plane that was flying close
to the recently shot down drone in Iran. To me there is no doubt that the plane was a the
real target that the US and it's owner Israel wanted to be shot down. I am completely sure of
it.
All of the hocus pocus and bullshit statements about Iran being a nice guy for not
shooting it down instead of the drone are just part of the coverup but this baffon Trump and
company. I am sure that they were completely expecting that the sophistication of the Iranian
missles would not be able to distinguish which object to target and therefore go for the
larger object. I am sure that this was the game ....and it failed! There is no question that
the Iranians are aware of it and will be even more careful in the future.
Imagine the supposed 30 or so people on board the P8 or whatever it is called .....they were
Guinea Pigs and sacrificial offerings to Empire in order to start a real war with Iran
.....for me no question about this.
Surprised that more able people than myself are not picking up on it ......
For me the P-8 is the most intriguing puzzle of the affair. Your suggestion is reasonable,
but I need more proof to take it as a given. The fact that Trump - as the only American -
sided with the Iranians (if it was only for the existence of the plane and the crew size) is
amazing. I guess the hours before and especially after the shoot down have been far more
dramatic, for both sides, than what has emerged so far.
karlof1 thinks, if I get him right, that the US underestimated the defensive radar
capabilities of Iran, and that they got aware of their lack of knowledge right through the
incidence. Which might have had a big impact on them, especially Trump.
Anon , Jun 25, 2019 8:37:37 AM |
171Peter AU 1 , Jun 25, 2019 8:40:23 AM |
172
mk 163
The Iranians stated a P-8 was also present which most took to be the Poseidon version.
I did a little research on the versions and posted some info on the open thread.
The P-8 Poseidon is a dedicated maritime surveillance aircraft, whereas a P-8 AGS would be
the best the US has for the likes of tracking shoot and scoot SAM systems.
in the open thread, Paveway put up the thought that the number 35 could refer to an F-35 -
that rather than a P-8 the other aircraft was an F-35. karlof1 speculated the 35 was a third
plane. That would make it - drone as decoy, P-8 AGS to track SAM launchers and targeting
radar when they launched at the decoy, and the F-35, as well as its own surveillance
capabilities could also attack the SAM systems. An F-35 is pure speculation at the moment,
but the incident does seem to involve the US creating an incident using the drone to give the
excuse and information for fast strikes at least on some coastal SAM systems. Perhaps coming
unstuck when the Iranians fired only one missile and did not use targeting radar.
Approved by Trump - or a plan hatched by his dogs of war - is anybodies guess.
It is clear for everyone that Iran was not behind the tankers attack.
1) American video evidence was fake, fabricated, they could not produce sequences before the
event and after the event.
2) American military services is on auction in Persian Gulf: " ...So why are we protecting
the shipping lanes for other countries (many years) for zero compensation"
it means:
My sales man and agent are in Suadia Barbaria and Oman for sales, please contact them for
price ASAP.
3) Fortunately MoA and Elijah theory was not true.
Even CNN had a headline at one point that it suited Iran fine to be blamed
...
"Even CNN ..." LMFAO
b will no doubt be pleased./sarc
... until proven these acts will remain enough of an unknown around which unfinished
narratives will turn ...
Knowledgeable people have more reason to suspect an CIA-Mossad false flag than Iranian
stealth attacks because:
>> it's US+Israel+Saudi that are the protagonists that are driving toward a result
AND;
>> it makes no sense for Iran to play into the hands of their enemies by foolishly
thinking that they can conducts attacks that will not be attributed to them. Those
Iran-attributed attacks can be conveniently used as:
1) an excuse for a military build-up and;
2) justification for the undertaking of provocative actions (like sending more
drones into Iranian airspace) .
Utimately, it's a prelude to a war that USA-Israel-Saudis want.
Furthermore, the reason so many Westerners are so willing to accept the unfounded
notion that Iran is conducting a campaign of stealth attacks because Western propaganda
has relentlessly called Iran a terrorist nation.
Given the above, it's not surprising that Iranian military leadership has essentially
denounced the notion of "stealth attacks" as I noted
in this comment on the earlier thread .
The idea that Iran can sit this out till whenever is not exactly true
...
They are not "sitting it out." You slyly present a false dichotomy, implicitly proposing
that they must become the terrorists that the West claim they are or sit on their hands and
accept their fate.
Meanwhile, Brent crude price dropped just a bit while futures remain steady in the low $60s.
So no panic was induced by Trump's idiocy. Gold however jumped over $20 again to just under
$1420 as China continues to dump T-Bills and buy gold. It may seem like a Mexican Standoff,
but it looks pretty one-sided to me.
"... What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the lessons. ..."
"... The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons. ..."
"... Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East." ..."
"... The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'. ..."
Iran forces will attack the US in peripheral areas including especially Iraq. ..news
reports...
U.S. officials are concerned that Iran has given the green light to Iranian-backed
militias in Iraq to attack the more than 5,200 U.S. forces helping Iraqi Security Forces. And
reflecting the unique situation in Iraq, some of those security forces are Iranian-backed
militias that fall under the control of the Iraqi government.
For three days in a row this week, rockets have been fired at areas where U.S. forces or
U.S. interests are located in Iraq. On Monday, rockets targeted Camp Taji, where the U.S.-led
coalition against ISIS is training Iraqi security forces. On Tuesday, more rockets were fired
at a compound in Mosul where U.S. troops are based. Then, another attack on Wednesday struck
an oil facility near where ExxonMobil has employees.
Rocket attacks Wednesday on American and Turkish oil facilities in southern Iraq, which
may have been carried out by Iranian-backed militias, are the latest example of how Iraq
finds itself squarely in the middle of increasing tensions between its two closest partners,
the United States and Iran.
Security measures were increased at one of Iraq's largest air bases that houses American
trainers following an attack last week, a top Iraqi air force commander said Saturday. The
U.S. military said operations at the base were going on as usual and there were currently no
plans to evacuate personnel. The stepped-up Iraqi security measures at Balad air base, just
north of the capital, Baghdad.
In Iran's immediate vicinity the US Navy is especially vulnerable. Iran has thousands of
rockets and missiles, and knows how to use them, plus 34 submarines wirh 533mm torpedoes.
There's the potential of over sixty torpedoes in the water in one salvo.
from USNI:
On Sunday, the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group with embarked 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit
entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility, joining the Abraham Lincoln Carrier
Strike Group already on station in 5th Fleet.
As a result, the Navy now has 28,000 personnel deployed to the region. In comparison, the
Navy currently has 24,000 personnel deployed to the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans,
according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News.
"All of our training and our transit to 5th Fleet have made us prepared to respond to any
crises across the range of military operations," Capt. Brad Arthur, commander of Amphibious
Squadron 5 and the Boxer ARG/11th MEU team, said in a statement. . .
here
Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:35:55 AM |
179somebody , Jun 25, 2019 9:39:52 AM |
180
@Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 9:06:21 AM | 175
What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the
lessons.
- no conscripts
- as few dead soldiers as possibele - see Iraq or
Afghanistan never mind the death of foreign civilians
So either others have to do the fighting (Syria) or the US bomb the country extensively to
make it safe for their soldiers. They miscalculated on this in Iraq.
This here is John Helmer's take - who I assume, gets his information
from the Russian military
The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200
kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US
warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air
and naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold.
Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and
target location.
This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's
air-defense sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will
launch its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other
oil production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in
the Gulf.
"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have
air defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the
Global Hawk series can fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air
defence are both foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in
particular, the old Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300.
Recently, Iran
transported some S-300's to the south, but that happened after the drone was shot down
[June 20]. Russian specialists are working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's
are also for protection of Bushehr."
... ... ...
The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and
Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in
intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership
with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after
the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the
movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are
wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was
intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.
Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint
operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of
every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle
East."
... ... ...
In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the
Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defenses may prove to be under
prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to
counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack
commences; that's to say, at launch, not in-flight nor at impact.
The US cannot sustain any prolonged war with Iran (see elections, dead soldiers), nor can
they risk an escalation of small attacks. Nor can they isolate Iran diplomatically.
The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and
Iranian military staffs.
from Mehr News today
Heading a high delegation of Iran's Defense Ministry and the Army, Iranian Deputy Defense
Minister Brigadier General Ghasem Taghizadeh traveled to Moscow at the invitation of
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu on Tuesday morning.
He will hold talks with Russian Defense Minister and officials, as well as visit
International Military-Technical Forum (ARMY-2019). . . here
@imo@142 - Your remark about MMT and my reply have magically gelled (in my simian brain) for a
grand unified conspiracy theory that explains a lot of oddities everyone has pointed out
previously.
The plan for last Thurs/Fri:
The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion
about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just
before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake
in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'.
Worry, but not
panic in the markets on Friday. Oil prices would still have jumped, but derivatives don't
implode. War doesn't seem imminent. The public would have been admonished by Trump and the
MSM to 'wait for the facts' before rushing to judgement (also calming the markets). Iran
would have said nothing on Friday fearing the worse. It really couldn't have been planned
better - plenty of time to start the buzz before the weekend but avert derivative Armageddon
on Quad witching day.
Saturday is hate Iran a lot day:
The U.S. would hold off on any kind of confirmation until the weekend. CNN would
immediately roll out videos of weeping children and widows of 'our brave heros' and document
the impromptu memorials: pictures of the sailors, flowers, Teddy bears in camo, candles.
Outraged politicians would call for Iranian blood. And, of course, oil prices would have
skyrocketed.
The U.S. either conduct an attack on Iran this week or announce an impending one after
sufficient grief was milked from the 38 deaths. Trump would be shown solemly saluting the
flag-draped coffins in the C-5s arriving at Dover. If it *had* occurred in 'international
waters', the U.S. Nave would have recovered everything and kept the Iran Navy away from the
area. Casus belli - only a monster or traitor would dare question 'the facts'. Bibi would be
shrieking nonstop about how he told us so and encourage us to hurry up and destroy Iran for
them.
No sailors would have been hurt in this ruse:
I'm not making light of the thought of 38 dead U.S. sailors - none would have really died
in this scenario. The P-8A would certianly have been stripped of it's radars and advanced
electronics 'just in case'. Now there's plenty of extra room for those 38 frozen corpses
dressed in the appropriate Navy flight uniforms. Load 'em up! A USN P-8A pilot somewhere
safely ashore would be flying it via satellite just like regular drone pilots. Thanks, secret
Honeywell mystery box in the electronics bay!
Iran would have been screwed:
Video of USN ships recovering those broken (and now unthawed) bodies from the Straits
would have been required for the propaganda value. What could Iran say then? "We were
targeting the drone in our airspace, not the P-8. Honest!" Too late of course. WAR:ON.
Nobody would believe evil Iran.
Why even use a drone?
The drone would have to have been used for bait because Iran wouldn't intentionally shoot
at a P-8A (stuffed with frozen bodies or not) flying the same non-threating routes in the
middle of the Strait that they usually fly. The drone would also have been stripped but all
it's remaining cameras to capture the horrible, intentinal massacre by Iran. The plan would
have put that in Iranian airspace without explaining anything to Iran. It was suppose to draw
SAM fire.
What could have gone wrong?
The U.S. must have had enough EW on both aircraft to ensure the MQ-4A became invisible to
an approaching missile, which would eventually only seen the P-8A on it's terminal guidance
radar, not the drone. Except the Iraqis fired a SAM that used IR for terminal guidance, not
radar, ignoring whatever trick the U.S. used. The Iranian SAM may have also used a proximity
fuse, detonating it near the drone anyway. "Damn you, sneaky Iranians and your primative
IR-seeking SAMs with secret proximity fuses! Do you realize how much time and effort we put
in with our F-35s to figuring out the required radar tricks for this elaborate
scheme?"
Opening salvo:
This could also explain the bizzare 150 dead Iranian people figure Trump claimed.
There would have been a pre-planned retalitory strike on the Iranian SAM sites, but only
after market closed on Friday or on Saturday. An opening salvo only - total war would surely
follow. The U.S. would offer some fake deal. Iran would be spared destruction if they got on
their knees to their U.S. and Israeli masters. That just wouldn't ever happen, so WAR:ON. If
the U.S. went ahead with the retaliory strike based only on the drone alone, then we would
have looked like the bad guys.
How much might Iran have known?
Odd that the P-8A track wasn't also published by Iran. I wonder how they knew about the 35
frozen bodies or if they really thought there were 35 live crew? Guess we'll never know, and
nobody would believe such a nutty claim by Iran now. Frozen bodies? Remote controlled P-8As?
'Bait drone'? Hah - sounds like somethig that crackhead Paveway would dream up! Things may
have been differnt than this, but I think most people (here, anyway) were surprised by the
initial bewilderment of the Trump administration and DoD.
"What? They actually shot the drone down, not the P-8? *%^&! Why did they do
that? Get rid of the plane and dump those damn frozen bodies somewhere really deep. If you
suspect anybody on our team might be the whistleblowoing type, report them our CIA cleaner
pals to be disappeared. Hell, what do I care? My broker just called. I'm rich! F*ck the
navy - I'm retireing. See ya!"
And where the hell do you get frozen bodies today that can pass for U.S. military? Does
the Pentagon have a freezer of them somewhere for emergency use?
Some folks probably made some money [sigh...]
All I can say now is glad nothing happened as planned. I would give anything to know how
many commanding elite in the U.S. military and in-the-know congress things were buying oil
call options through proxies last week. Netanyahu and MbS were sure to have loaded up - they
LOVE money.
Thanks to somebody above with the Russia is behind Iran facts that show that attacks on
Iran are not possible but for show.
Thanks to PavewayIV with the curious scenario and confirmation that for some it is all
about MONEY
I think the EU leaders are a bit conflicted in anticipation of the G20, eh? Are they going
to join the Coalition of he Willing like their money boys tell them or do something else?
What a way to fight a war.......lets hope the fighting does not go stupider.
Existence of financial derivatives on oil (aka "paper oil") and the size of trade involving
them in world markets changes the whole situation. The USA can shoot themselves in a foot even if
the US armed forces would be able to completely destroy the Iraq army air defenses and bomb
strategic targets.
There seems to be a common theme in many articles that 'shock and awe' military strikes
will force Iran's leaders into unconditional surrender. While the US has the capability to
do this on its own, for political reasons the US is actively seeking coalition partners.
The reality is it doesn't matter how many partners the US can convince to attack Iran. No
matter how sophisticated Iran's cyber, missile or air defenses are, based on simple
logistics Iran will eventually lose a shooting war against the US and any coalition
partners. Iran knows this.
The real question when the bombing starts, is not the number of casualties that Iran can
inflict on her enemies but how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of
its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia
and the Straits of Hormuz.
Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time that its forces
can disrupt oil shipments to China, India, Japan, South Korean and Europe to break the
supply chains to the US. Currently the US imports/exports over 5T dollars per year, even
impacting this by only 20% should cause the trillions in derivatives to crush the world
economy. Given that war should always be the option of last resort is there still the
possibility for negotiations?
Iran has too many examples of the promises of US and West not matching our actions. The
current sanctions are crippling the economy and backing Iran into a corner. No matter what
Iran does what guarantees can be provided that sanctions won't be reapplied. Absolutely
none. The criteria constantly change. There is an old saying in martial arts, in a fight an
opponent with no way out is far more formable than an opponent who can walk away.
Even a wide scale nuclear attack that wipes out a third of Iran's citizens in the ten
major cities and a majority of the armed forces probably won't succeed. Once nuclear
weapons are used, Iran's leaders are no longer constrained to any regional targets. If
Russia and China jump in to the fray then it could get real, as in WWIII awfully quickly.
Even without Russia and China getting involved, Iran's leaders just might consider 30M or
more deaths acceptable if her enemies are crushed. There is precedent for this. Estimates
put Russia's losses due to all causes in WWII at 25-30M people, and Russia called it a
win.
So all the babble that Iran will fold in the face of 'shock and awe' is naïve. Iran
can't win a shooting war but if can lose with style. To think that Iran can be defeated
like Iraq is folly. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a local power, Iran is a regional one. Iran
is too large to be attacked by ground forces. That leaves airpower. Once the bombs start to
drop, all Iranian combat units have a minimum of 72 hours of war supplies. If the US and
the coalition partners don't achieve, 'unconditional surrender' in the initial strikes then
all bets are off for keeping the conflict local.
Many articles claim the tanker and pipeline attacks of the past two weeks are 'false
flags'. Hopefully they were, because if they were not, then Iran has just proven it's ready
and has the capability to strike anywhere in the region. Iran is quickly running out of
options and has no choice but to continue escalating regional tensions until something
gives. We are indeed living in interesting times.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 4:58:26 PM | 59
Just to add on my recent visit to Iran. They are nearly western, much more so than
neighbouring Arab countries. But there are curiosities which keep them apart, like the hijri
solar calendar, which puts them in 1398, and the 1st of the year on 21st March. Impossible to
calculate the western date without mechanical aid.
Most that I met were anti-regime. but then they were middle class. It's not the middle
class which is voting for the regime. Rather it is a populist regime, like Trump's.
As a follower of Christ, and seasoned "fruit inspector"* I can confidently state the there
is more godly wisdom & compassion for humanity displayed by Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria
& Palestine than ALL of the West & especially not by the likes of Pompeo, Pence,
Robertson, etc
* "By their fruits you shall know them" NOT by words alone
This may be totally naive, but how about this... Iran gets a couple nukes from somewhere,
ie. NK, Russia, Pakistan, India, Walmart... and announce it & put an end to this drawn
out dance... and force Israel, US, etc to come to terms with it. This is a war after all, and
Iran has been bullied long enough (as have we all)
I admit I have never been to Iran though I've met people who have visited the country as
tourists. I have done some reading on the country's history.
Being an Islamic theocracy, the fact that Iran uses the hijri calendar is no surprise. The
calendar is actually a lunar calendar of 12 months that is at least a week or a fortnight
shorter than the Gregorian calendar we normally use. (This explains why every year Ramadan
starts earlier than it did the previous year.) 21st March on the other hand is Nowruz
(Persian New Year) which among other things celebrates the spring equinox and is an
inheritance from pre-Islamic Persia.
I have read some information about the bonyads (charitable foundations) owned / managed by
the IRGC and other government organisations. These trusts (non-profit so they are exempt from
taxation) invest huge amounts in Iran's industries. Just the other day I was commenting at
another blog about a senior military guy in the Iranian armed forces, General Hossein Salami,
who works with a huge
IRGC-associated engineering firm that controls over 800 firms and employs over 25,000 mostly
technical and engineering staff . The income that bonyads obtain from a firm like
Salami's firm and others, which in Western countries would be considered "profit", is
distributed among IRGC members (or members of the other government agencies that run them) in
the form of subsidies for education up to and including college / university level,
healthcare and other social services.
My understanding is that most people who are members of the IRGC come from working class
families and especially families who lost breadwinners or other men of draft age during the
Iraq-Iran war (1980 - 1988).
Middle class and upper middle class layers would be the hardest hit by US sanctions on
Iran (they are the ones importing and buying overseas goods, and have the most contacts with
the Iranian diaspora) and won't have the protection of subsidies provided by bonyads or other
government organisations.
I have to say I find this talk of "the mullahs" disturbing.
I never see any collateral to demonstrate that the religious layer of Iran is actually
harmful to the people in any way. And on the contrary, everything I read about how the
religious layer is part of the governing system and the culture and welfare of the nation
seems pretty reasonable to me.
I keep coming back to the thought that this is after all the religion of the people of
this country. It is the particular way in which they approach the sacredness of the universe.
I'm not persuaded that it's more intelligent to regard the universe as being not-sacred.
To accept the benignity of religious people in positions of power and influence within a
state, you have to accept the positive aspects of religion, as well as the negative aspects.
This is where a lot of potential acceptance fails, of course.
~~
We keep hearing that it is the middle and upper classes that are disaffected with the
government (although typically the term "regime" is used). But in this cold-hearted,
neoliberal economic wasteland, surely the fact that the poor and the unprivileged are in
support of their government is not a study in "populism" but rather a study in successful
socialist principles at work?
And the link provided in the previous thread regarding Iran's leadership in the war on
drugs stated that over 8,000 Iranian police have died fighting the flow of opium from
Afghanistan. The position of the US in this trade is clear to everyone, and the reason to
sanction Iran - precisely to shackle the Iranian interdiction of the drug flow - is also
clear.
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit
are greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a
socialist, revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue
actions purely from moral concern.
I like Khamenei. I envy a country that has a moral anchor such as he, a force that acts
not as its captain but as its pilot.
~~
No particular point to make. Just some words in support of devotion to the sacred, and the
moral strength to live a life, and direct a country, along moral lines, rather than
criminal.
The Shah came to power with USA + UK coup on 1953, he lacked legitimacy, that was his main
problem, he was not an indepdendt legimtimate ruler.
Understanding Iran revolution and the long historical march is too complicated. On the
surface and apperance it seems on political, ideoligical/ theoligical levels, but the
movement is deeply in cultural and social level. Otherwise it would not be able to survive,
resist and grow for 40 years. It may take another 40-50 years the movement bear fruits.
The Shah was a tragic figure in many ways. You are correct about being the servant of his
masters until he outgrew that and started having Persian Empire ambitions. Perhaps too soon
for the politics of the era. The west of the 1970's preferred a King Hussein of Jordan.
Quiet, unpretentious and cooperative.
The Shah was a super intelligent, extremely well informed and well-read, and a great
debater. No journalist was a match for him, not even the crass and arrogant Mike Wallace. But
inherently, he was a weak man with a character that did not match his ambitions. That
weakness did not allow him to follow through with his plans and he had great plans for his
country.
Having said that, IMHO, the Seven Sisters' decision to remove him, and him capitulating so
easy, was one the biggest mistakes in modern geopolitics. Look what has happened since then.
Furthermore, Dynasties and kings are in Persian DNA. I often laugh at the talk of democracy
in Iran, as you cannot have 4-5 Iranians sit together and agree to disagree. One idea always
has to come on top and the rest be damned.
Obviously, there are so many other factors and it would a lengthy discussion best to have
over a nice Cuban cigar and a single Malt.
@ C I eh? who wrote
"
Iran can pursue the strategy of Russia, patience and double dealing, indefinitely or till the
cows come home.
"
Totally agree.
In the case of bullies the best offense is a good defense and Iran showed it has good
defense to shoot down the spy plane and not the one with cannon fodder nearby
How many more bully nations other than Israel and the US are currently "active"?
None.
This is why the G20 will be interesting to see how much the global finance power struggle
shows itself.....the cows are coming home perhaps....
As alluded to by several and directly pointed to by me, Iran's defensive capabilities have
placed the Outlaw US Empire's King in check and have forced it to move into hiding on the
board behind what amounts to nothing of substance. I think it an amazing admission that the
self-proclaimed most powerful military EVER on Earth must ask for assistance to overthrow
what is a popular Iranian government--a government and people in a strategic location within
Eurasia on the cusp of initiating an geoeconomic/geopolitical system capable of upending the
Empire's #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance. What nation other than the
usual co-outlaws will join in an action that is totally against its interests--what nation
wants, desires, to be dominated by another?
As I see it, the next move on the global chess board will occur at the G-20, and the King
will be placed in check again. However, the move required to get away from the check
situation won't be as simple as was just done today. It will require complex finesse of a
sort TrumpCo has yet to exhibit. It seems likely Trump will try to
redirect attention away from his Iranian failure, but that won't alter the fact that he
must move his King.
There has been much recent speculation about the restoration of monarchy in Iran in Western
news media which would suggest this is something currently occupying the minds of the, uh,
"best" and "brightest" brains over at Langley, Foggy Bottom and the bizarre ziggurat building at Vauxhall
Cross in London.
One little problem that our Western news media and their feeders may have overlooked is
that traditionally only men inherit the throne in Iran.
The current Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has only three daughters. His younger brother Ali
Reza (committed suicide in January 2011) left behind one daughter.
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit are
greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a socialist,
revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue actions
purely from moral concern.
Posted by: Grieved | Jun 24, 2019 7:59:24 PM | 98
How does Iran strike you in this way? You have traveled in Iran? You have lived in
Iran?
Do actually you give a fuck about Iran and Iranians? (Be honest. I mean care they way you
care about your FAMILY.)
Iran has been kept artificaly retarded and its development plans halted. A million
Iranians perished in a needless war. Iranians are forced to accept outrageous intrusions on
Iran's sovereignty. Our best minds continue to leave. And now we're being threatened with
nuclear bombardment.
"Winning"?
Why don't you wish that on your own people. Hah?
One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of Iran
announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar. Can you imagine a developed Iran, in good
international standing, with a thriving modern port right on the Ohormozd [Hormoz] Strait? Do
recent events jingle a bell somewhere there, Grieved?
"Socialist"
A welfare state is not the same thing as a "socialist" system.
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely
corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.
The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of that
species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical
snakes.
[Obviously mature readers recognize that in any gross characterization we omit stating the
obvious fact that "in most every grouping of people there are exceptional and principled
members." We state this here for those who are not.]
I highly doubt that Khamenei has even $0.01 worth of assets in the US, however the real
purpose of sanctioning Khamenei and other Iranian government officials (supposedly including
the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif) is not to seize their assets but to make
international diplomacy more difficult. For example, if Khamenei were to travel to Iraq to
face to face discussions with the Iraqi Prime Minister the US would now have the legal
framework to sanction any company involved in the travel arrangements, accommodations,
insurance, etc... Sanctioning Javad Zarif is an especially dick move as he is one of the
leading Iranian moderates and was in favor of the original JCPOA agreement. I suspect that
when Javad Zarif tries to attend the next UN summit in New York the US will attempt to
sabotage his travel based on these sanctions.
This is also more proof that the US wants a war with Iran as they are trying to crush the
moderates within Iran in the hopes that 1) the hardliners will become ascendant within Iran
and that they will pursue policies that will make it easier for the US to justify their
eventual attack on Iran and 2) making it more difficult for senior government officials to
travel aboard will make Iran's international diplomacy less effective in developing a
international coalition in opposition to the war. China and Russia acting as proxies and
advocates for Iran will be vital for future discussions
(1) "Iran has been kept artifically retarded and its development plans halted. A million
Iranians perished in a needless war."
Do you realize that Iran was attacked by Saddam who was supported by the US and that the US
provided Saddam with vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
(2) "One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of
Iran announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar."
Did you know that the Shah was installed on 19 August 1953 following the overthrow of
democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax by the US and the
United Kingdom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
(3) "IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side."
Sounds like the US system where the two wings of the bird of prey are the Democrats and
the Republicans (Upton Sinclair, 1904). Please read up on US Neofeudal Oligarchy before
throwing stones at regimes that do not meet your ideological viewpoint. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune19/lessons-rome6-19.html
Yes I understand why the US would want to rape Iran and Venezuela for their energy
resources. Without these pools of liquid energy the US Empire will collapse on itself. I
suggest you read 1Pathfinding Our Destiny for a reality check on the US system. https://www.oftwominds.com/Pathfinding-Our-Destiny-sample2.pdf
I suggest that you worry about the US Zionist "christian" endtimers seeking the rapture
than the Iranian Mullahs.
/div> Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate?
Or Brazil's? Or El Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian
issue. I live in a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and
maiming them but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and
I and my fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have?
What advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the
power, as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here
is not particularly enlightning for anyone.
Posted by: the pessimist , Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM |
132
Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate? Or Brazil's? Or El
Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian issue. I live in
a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and maiming them
but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and I and my
fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have? What
advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the power,
as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here is
not particularly enlightning for anyone.
Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM |
132
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely
corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.
The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of
that species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical
snakes.
I have had quite a few Iranians describe that situation to me. It is amazing how the
Christian religious leadership gets bashed, mostly rightly so, and the Mullahs get a pass. I
am sure they do get the job done shaking down the flock. Probably not as mullaevangelists on
TV but there are other ways. I bet one could amass quite a flock of daughters to your
harem.
A quick question: if there really were 35/38 American servicemen jammed into a P-8 and
dangled before the Iranians like a juicy bait on a hook then how, exactly, are they going to
view that display of casual recklessness w.r.t. their lives?
Wouldn't they be more than a little pissed off with the revelation that the Iranian
military cared more about their mortal souls than did their own superiors in the US chain of
command?
I was listening to a recent interview of Liberty survivors. One survivor just joined the
group after retiring from the intelligence establishment. He was on the fantail after the
ship got hit and described the whole thing including the Israeli torpedo boats flying their
flags firing at the Liberty. Later at port he had to retrieve the dead. He was threatened by
the naval brass to be silent and went on to work for them for the rest of his life.
DC is full of these guys "afraid for their careers and pension". Do not expect to much out
of them.
Grieved
I agree with you summation of the Governance of Iran. The supreme Leader has a fatwa on the
creating/ion of Nuclear weapons which he says is immoral. Well their you have it, a gaggle of
US presidents who only live to breathe the threaten use of nuclear weapons upon 'their
enemies', against a leader who wishers not the power of such a immoral weapon..
Oscar Peterson@48 - "...Targeting Saudi or UAE oil infrastructure is possible, but that
will be hard (and risky) if deniability is a goal..."
The second Iran is forced to resort to hitting Saudi or UAE oil infrastructure, we'll see
the Pepe
Escobar-described $1.2 quadrillion global financial Ponzi of fake money (derivatives)
implode and financial markets everywhere will be locked shut. In a matter of hours, not
days.
Now the Swiss banker's claim may be off by a few hundred trillion either way, but it
really doesn't matter. That's way too much money for some kind of secretive global financial
bailout - in fact, there isn't that much REAL money available in the whole world. The guy
that bought oil futures for pennies at $1000/bbl will now be a trillionaire. Except there
won't be anyone that can or will pay him. "But it's a futures contract - someone has to
buy his $1000/bbl oil. That's the rulez!" Yeah, he may as well have bought a stack of
Zimbabwe $10 trillion dollar notes instead and been a hundred trillionaire, for what that's
worth.
Pepe uses extremes to make his point, but oil doesn't really need to go to $1000/bbl. or
even $500/bbl. - $200/bbl oil will lock the oil derivative markets. Which will keep all
linked financial derivative markets (virtually all of them) locked or wiped out. The big
banks will be herding cats at that point and imploding themselves, and nobody will care about
fighting anyone in the Persian Gulf. Besides, all CENTCOM and USSOCOM personnel will be
needed back here in the United States to protect the government from the people.
Iran won't be affected much because the U.S. and Israel made sure they were never
allowed in the global financial sandbox. Poor countries with massive IMF loans? Yeah, they
won't care - the little people never saw a dime of that, anyway. Russia is as prepared as
possible and will do fine. China? Sorry. They're going down with everyone else. I'll let
everyone know how the food riots in the U.S. turn out. That's if I survive until 2025 when
the internet comes back up and if the planet isn't ruled by talking apes. Wait... that last
part already happened. Forget it.
I guess I'll just head north to steal a few barrels of tar sands from Canada. James: how
do I get there from Minnesota on foot? I won't have Google Maps. Nobody will. Do you have any
spare barrels?
"... That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard ..."
"... Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad. ..."
"... Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing). ..."
"... But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks. ..."
Re the Boeing and the drone. With both planes apparently close together for the flight, they
were not there for maritime surveillance. Iranians most likely only picked up floating debris
initially and electronic hardware may be rovered later, but there is a possibility the drone
was stripped of hardware for its job as decoy. 35 to 38 people on the Boeing are too many for
a simple photoshoot.
The decoy entering Iranian airspace the beginnings of a US strike... it draws fire from
multiple SAM sites, the Boeing P-8 videoing the shootdown to justify the strike while
locating launch positions and directing immediate strikes onto these positions. Comes unstuck
when Iran launches a single missile. Trump cancels the strike.
Re the Boeing - if the strike was planned in advance, as the pentagon does with its
contingency plans the aircraft would have been equipped for detecting SAM sites.
To add to my post @80, the US captured the missile strike on video. One of the pics put out
by the Pentagon was of the drone exploding. This means they were videoing the drone at the
moment the missile struck. The only reason for having a video camera filming the drone that I
can see, is that the US expected it to be hit.
Why have 35 (or, according to Trump 38) people on a spy plane that is normally crewed by
9?
Because you need double-digit numbers of American casualties to get Americans'
attention.
As PavewayIV pointed out in a previous thread, the P-8 spy plane was to the east of
the drone. That means it was between the missile launcher and the drone. The P-8 has a
hundred times or more the radar cross section of the drone, despite them both being about the
same size, so electronic countermeasures or not it stands out like a sore thumb relative to
the drone to Iran's radar. It is impossible that these issues were overlooked by the people
who put this mission together.
The Navy has a bunch of P-8s. They only had one RQ-4.
The conclusion is obvious:
The drone was there to collect evidence of the destruction of the P-8.
I had noticed the directions in the in the video pics but had forgotten about that.
Makes it more complex as the crewed aircraft was to the east of the drone (closest to Iran),
yet videoing the drone expecting it to be hit...
The video also had coordinates of the aircraft taking the video and the target aircraft (in
this case the drone) I have not cross checked this with the Iranian coordinates and bringing
them up on google maps did not show the positions in relation to Iranian airspace. That the
US includes the coordinates in the pics makes me wonder if the information in the video shots
has been changed - possibly by resetting the video recorder prior to the op.
J Swift | Jun 23, 2019 7:42:55 PM | 152
A couple of random thoughts on the drone/P8. Firstly, there was earlier a fair amount of debate on the stealthiness of the
drone. I would just mention that the Iranians did not say it was a stealth drone they were tracking...they said it was in
"stealth mode." I originally thought that was just an offhand reference to the craft turning off its transponder, making it
somewhat less obvious although hardly a true stealth craft. But perhaps they meant that it was noted to be in fully passive
mode with respect to its surveillance equipment.
That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course
could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard
Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want
to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad.
Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive
and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump
even used it to partly save face on the whole thing).
As Paveway IV commented, it could have technically been an empty, remotely controlled plane, in which case the Iranian
reference to a highly unusual number of crewmen may have been a tongue-in-cheek jab at the Yanks--or there may have been an
unusually high number of crewlambs, which might also have alerted the Iranian intelligence that a set-up was unfolding.
But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree
that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks.
karlof1 | Jun 23, 2019 7:52:23 PM | 154
Jen @143--
As myself and others noted, the usual crew for P-8 is 7: two on the flight deck and 5 distributed at the 5 work stations.
The plane's equipped with a bomb/torpedo/sonobouy bay as it's primary mission's ASW. Jamming in an additional 28-30 people
would be rather difficult at best. IMO, the only way would be to remove all ordinance to make room for what could only be 3
Special Forces squads and their gear--they would paradive into Iran to do their thing, presumably. Otherwise, the plane
wasn't a P-8. I don't recall the Iranians providing the plane type, although it's clear they could have since they readily
identified the drone. That leaves us with the following:
Iran's incorrect about the # of people they "saw" on other plane.
USA's playing along with Iranian mistake, but added 3 more.
Iran's correct. USA's lying about plane type.
Iran's correct. USA correct, but altered mission and added troops.
Iran's correct. USA correct; but if shadowing drone, why so many people--trial run?
Iran's correct. Both US planes deliberately entered Iranian airspace to provoke a response that wasn't obtained
earlier in the week as Zarif just informed. If so, why so many on non-drone?
There're probably more that could be obtained, but the above seem to be the most logical. It's also possible that Iran
toppled the planes into its airspace using EW; although that possibility surprised PavewayIV, I'm not in the least.
Regardless if there were 7, 35 or 38 people on the second plane, they all probably needed new trousers upon landing. I also
wonder if the Iranian system actuates the radar-lock warning alarm giving the pilot a chance to evade? If I'm correct in my
evaluation of Iran's system, it won't and the air crew won't have time to say a final prayer.
"... This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen. ..."
Trump is such a con man... He said he told Shinzō Abe, before the Japanese prime
minister visited Tehran on 12 June: "Send the following message: you can't have nuclear
weapons. And other than that, we can sit down and make a deal. But you cannot have nuclear
weapons."
On further questioning he added the demand that Tehran should not have a ballistic missile
programme, and suggested he wanted a tougher inspection regime.
This whole saga is not about nuclear weapons, it is about those conventional ballistic
missiles which Iran is manufacturing perfectly legally and changing the equation in the
region. These are precision missiles and could turn Tel Aviv and Saudi oil infrastructure
into rubble, US/Israel want to make Iran defenseless. It is not going to happen.
"... Trump and the Trump administration have no credibility; lying is simply the nature of this administration. ..."
"... Nobody is going to believe anything put out by the US government for a long time. And yes, it's really sad when Iran or North Korea are deemed more credible than my own government. ..."
"... This whole affair is about nothing except smashing yet another nation because the apartheid Jewish state wants that to happen. ..."
Laying aside political and nationalistic biases, both the United States and Iran have credibility issues. While Iran is not
known for its honesty, Trump and the Trump administration have no credibility; lying is simply the nature of this administration.
As such, the matter cannot be settled by an appeal to credibility -- although, sadly, Iran seems to be less inclined to
relentless lying than Trump.
Nobody is going to believe anything put out by the US government for a long time. And yes, it's really sad when Iran or
North Korea are deemed more credible than my own government.
The author does miss the point here:
If the United States removes the existing ruling class, it is not clear that we would be able to build a functional government
in the new Iran -- even if we airdropped billions upon billions of dollars onto the country.
This whole affair is about nothing except smashing yet another nation because the apartheid Jewish state wants that to
happen.
"... "Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it's manipulations, but yeah," Merry replied. "America's warmaking history indicates that there's been significant instances of that kind of maneuvering, manipulations, and in some instances lying–Vietnam is a great example–to get us into wars that the American people weren't clamoring for." ..."
Carlson's first guest, The American Conservative 's Robert Merry, plainly stated
the likely reason for Bolton's deceitful manipulations, saying that Americans are typically
reluctant to go to war and citing a few of the historical instances in which they were
tricked into consenting to it by those who desire mass military violence.
"So, you're saying that there is a long, almost unbroken history of lying our way into
war?" Carlson asked his guest rhetorically.
"Lying sometimes, not always lying, sometimes it's manipulations, but yeah," Merry
replied. "America's warmaking history indicates that there's been significant instances of
that kind of maneuvering, manipulations, and in some instances lying–Vietnam is a great
example–to get us into wars that the American people weren't clamoring for."
Both men are correct. The US empire does indeed have an extensive and well-documented history of using
lies, manipulations and distortions to manufacture consent for war from a populace that would
otherwise choose peace, and a Reuters poll released last month found that only 12 percent of Americans favor
attacking Iranian military interests without having been attacked first.
<...>
What we are watching with Iran is a war propaganda narrative failing to get airborne. It
was all set up and ready to go, they had the whole marketing team working on it, and then it
faceplanted right on the linoleum. This is what a failed narrative management campaign looks
like. It is possible for us to see this more and more.
Today I have a lot more hope. It's becoming clear that the manipulations of the US war
machine are becoming more and more obvious to more and more people and that everyday, regular
Americans are reacting with a healthy amount of horror and revulsion. There was always the
risk that the US population would already be sufficiently paced ahead of these revelations
and there would be little to no reaction, but that didn't happen. Americans are seeing what
they're doing, and they don't like it, and they don't want it.
And that makes me so happy. Come on Captain America. Save the day. The world is counting
on you.
Our leaders seem interested in toppling Iran's theocracy. But do they want a new U.S. military draft? Because make no mistake,
that's what it will take.
<...>
Any serious effort to end the Iranian theocracy will not only require American troops, but will also almost certainly break
our vaunted All-Volunteer Force If you like the idea of regime change in Iran, you had better love the idea of a new American
draft.
We have seen for decades that American air power alone is insufficient to topple a government, [...]. Our Sunni Arab allies
are stalemated in Yemen and distinctly averse to sending troops to Syria. The idea that they would invade or occupy Iran is risible.
The Washington regime change crowd's preferred Iranian proxy is a hated cult called Mujahideen-e Khalq.
But if the mullahs are to be overthrown, it will be by American soldiers and Marines. Even if the Islamic Republic were to
somehow collapse on its own, concerns about radiological material, the security of the Strait of Hormuz or another massive wave
of refugees would probably drive the U.S.to intervene with ground troops.
U.S. politicians and generals sometimes like to point out that the volunteer military has successfully endured a decade and
a half of sustained combat and a ceaseless cycle of deployments. This is not the whole story.
Despite the enormous amount of money expended there, Iraq was by historical measures a low-intensity war. Total combat deaths
for American forces over eight years were about the size of a brigade, and losses in Afghanistan roughly half that. Yet a modest
increase in force structure required the military to greatly lower its standards, doubling felony waivers for Army recruits from
2003 to 2006, for instance.
A massive increase in the use of civilian contractors (more than 50 times the ratio in Vietnam) also hid the volunteer system's
cracks. The All-Volunteer Force was barely able to sustain two large, but low-casualty, campaigns -- neither of which has resulted
in anything resembling a U.S. strategic victory.
Occupying Iran would be a challenge of an entirely different magnitude than Iraq or Afghanistan.
<...>
The force with which we would occupy Iran is also not as resilient as most Americans probably think. Even now, in a time when
most troops are not seeing direct combat, the the volunteer force is struggling just to maintain numbers and standards. The Air
Force, Marine Corps, and Navy are each short of a full quarter of their required fighter pilots. The Army recently announced that
it is already 12,000 recruits behind on its recruiting goal for 2018 and will not make mission.
The Pentagon stated last year that 71% of Americans between the ages of 17 and 24 are ineligible to serve in the U.S. military,
most for reasons of health, physical fitness, education, or criminality. The propensity of this age group to serve is even lower.
The likely demands and casualties of a war in Iran would spell the end of the All-Volunteer Force, requiring the conscription
of Americans for the first time since 1973.
There is ample evidence that American foreign policy elites haven't learned much from Iraq or Afghanistan; one need only look
at the latest headlines from Libya or Syria. But perhaps even our modern Bourbons in Washington can grasp one simple lesson from
the post-9/11 campaigns: Wars have an uncanny tendency to take on a life of their own.
Regime change in Iran would bring a host of consequences, many of them unknowable, but almost all of them negative for America
and the region. There is one outcome we can be sure of, however: Occupying Iran would be the death of America's all-volunteer
military and necessitate a return to a draft.
"... The Supreme Court Treason related to the 2000 election penned by the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, and his The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, provoke similar ire. ..."
"The UNSC veto doesn't make the UN Charter null and void. Actions that violate it are
still illegal/unconstitutional and able to be challenged in domestic courts". I agree it does
not make the charter null and void, the question is how can aggressors be brought to book,
Tony Blair was accused of the crime of aggression but the Judges said he could not be
prosecuted see below. Thanks for the link to the Uniting for Peace resolution, I will read it
tomorrow.
"Tony Blair should not face prosecution for his role in the 2003 Iraq war, the high court has
ruled.
The lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and another senior judge, Mr Justice
Ouseley, said on Monday that there was no crime of aggression in English law under which the
former prime minister could be charged.
Thanks for your reply! I recall what an absolutely incensed Craig Murray wrote about that decision about Tony Blair--well
beyond a travesty as it's a Capital Crime and not subject to statutes of limitation. The Supreme Court Treason related to
the 2000 election penned by the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the
Constitution and Chose Our President, and his The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, provoke similar ire.
Going on 3 decades now, one of my primary questions is How to contain the Outlaw US Empire and make it into a law-abiding
nation without blowing up the world. I've always recognized that it would take a global coalition to arrive at a genuine
confrontation.
IMO, we're very close to that point; the G-20 will indicate just how close.
But even more importantly than the global coalition is the requirement for a political force within the Empire asking and
acting on my question. The Maximum Pressure must come from internal and external sources for any positive outcome to be
achieved. Since 2012, I've seen 2020 as THE inflection point. It seems I'm not alone.
"... That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard ..."
"... Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad. ..."
"... Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump even used it to partly save face on the whole thing). ..."
"... But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks. ..."
Re the Boeing and the drone. With both planes apparently close together for the flight, they
were not there for maritime surveillance. Iranians most likely only picked up floating debris
initially and electronic hardware may be rovered later, but there is a possibility the drone
was stripped of hardware for its job as decoy. 35 to 38 people on the Boeing are too many for
a simple photoshoot.
The decoy entering Iranian airspace the beginnings of a US strike... it draws fire from
multiple SAM sites, the Boeing P-8 videoing the shootdown to justify the strike while
locating launch positions and directing immediate strikes onto these positions. Comes unstuck
when Iran launches a single missile. Trump cancels the strike.
Re the Boeing - if the strike was planned in advance, as the pentagon does with its
contingency plans the aircraft would have been equipped for detecting SAM sites.
To add to my post @80, the US captured the missile strike on video. One of the pics put out
by the Pentagon was of the drone exploding. This means they were videoing the drone at the
moment the missile struck. The only reason for having a video camera filming the drone that I
can see, is that the US expected it to be hit.
Why have 35 (or, according to Trump 38) people on a spy plane that is normally crewed by
9?
Because you need double-digit numbers of American casualties to get Americans'
attention.
As PavewayIV pointed out in a previous thread, the P-8 spy plane was to the east of
the drone. That means it was between the missile launcher and the drone. The P-8 has a
hundred times or more the radar cross section of the drone, despite them both being about the
same size, so electronic countermeasures or not it stands out like a sore thumb relative to
the drone to Iran's radar. It is impossible that these issues were overlooked by the people
who put this mission together.
The Navy has a bunch of P-8s. They only had one RQ-4.
The conclusion is obvious:
The drone was there to collect evidence of the destruction of the P-8.
I had noticed the directions in the in the video pics but had forgotten about that.
Makes it more complex as the crewed aircraft was to the east of the drone (closest to Iran),
yet videoing the drone expecting it to be hit...
The video also had coordinates of the aircraft taking the video and the target aircraft (in
this case the drone) I have not cross checked this with the Iranian coordinates and bringing
them up on google maps did not show the positions in relation to Iranian airspace. That the
US includes the coordinates in the pics makes me wonder if the information in the video shots
has been changed - possibly by resetting the video recorder prior to the op.
J Swift | Jun 23, 2019 7:42:55 PM | 152
A couple of random thoughts on the drone/P8. Firstly, there was earlier a fair amount of debate on the stealthiness of the
drone. I would just mention that the Iranians did not say it was a stealth drone they were tracking...they said it was in
"stealth mode." I originally thought that was just an offhand reference to the craft turning off its transponder, making it
somewhat less obvious although hardly a true stealth craft. But perhaps they meant that it was noted to be in fully passive
mode with respect to its surveillance equipment.
That could mean that it was there specifically for observation (of the P8, as much as Iranian defenses); and of course
could mean that much of the equipment, particularly the active equipment, was no longer aboard
Wouldn't be needed, after all, if the job was just to record what was hoped to be an Iranian reaction, and would want
to minimize the amount of equipment potentially falling into enemy hands if things went bad.
Secondly, the 35 souls on board the P8 comment by Iran was brilliant. For one thing, it put the US on the defensive
and once again called world attention to the fact that the Iranians have striven to avoid loss of life (so much so that Trump
even used it to partly save face on the whole thing).
As Paveway IV commented, it could have technically been an empty, remotely controlled plane, in which case the Iranian
reference to a highly unusual number of crewmen may have been a tongue-in-cheek jab at the Yanks--or there may have been an
unusually high number of crewlambs, which might also have alerted the Iranian intelligence that a set-up was unfolding.
But either way, it is unquestionable that Iranian intelligence has penetrated the base, or operations, to a degree
that must be causing all sorts of trepidation amongst the US hawks.
"... The tanker attacks were not done by Iran. The US has the smoking gun, but that was planted in their hands by Israel, who were the most probable culprits behind the attacks. Netanyahoo is waiting for new elections, with criminal indictments hot on his tail. His only motivation for the tanker attacks is ultimately to save his skin from the criminal pursuit. ..."
"... Now comes the sting: Iran has top class humint on Israel, and would have known about their plans for the tanker attacks in advance, probably in detail. Being 10 steps ahead of everybody else, the Iranians decided to use the tanker attacks to their own advantage - which is exactly what we are seeing now (although I think we see only the smallest tip of the iceberg). ..."
"... Iran's emphasis on going it alone rather than their ever closer partnership with Russia and China was just part of the deception - probably Russia and China are briefed on the Iranian strategy in detail -- that partnership is as solid as the strongest rock. Frankly, I think some of the things Khamenei said were wildly implausible and rather stupid to fully believe (like the implied fragility of the Iran-Russia-China relationships!!!) - but even that was an intrinsic part of their game, because the deception is aimed at stupid people blinded by hubris, and once the targets have fallen into the trap they will be seen to be even more stupid for having fallen for it. ..."
I've had a planned post sitting idle in the back of my mind for the last ten days or so due
to travelling, the flu, etc, and just haven't managed to find the time to get it out, so here
belatedly is a quickie version of it (actually only one aspect of several), because
It's important!
:
Concerning the tanker attacks, B's postulations of Iran's strategy, and Magnier's response
citing Iranian sources - I don't buy it, and never did, for many reasons, many of which have
already been discussed. I think there is a very important twist that has been left out.
The tanker attacks were not done by Iran. The US has the smoking gun, but that was planted
in their hands by Israel, who were the most probable culprits behind the attacks. Netanyahoo
is waiting for new elections, with criminal indictments hot on his tail. His only motivation
for the tanker attacks is ultimately to save his skin from the criminal pursuit.
Now comes the sting: Iran has top class humint on Israel, and would have known about their
plans for the tanker attacks in advance, probably in detail. Being 10 steps ahead of
everybody else, the Iranians decided to use the tanker attacks to their own advantage - which
is exactly what we are seeing now (although I think we see only the smallest tip of the
iceberg).
I think the Iranians were by the time of the tanker attacks already ready to carry out
covert attacks, of which some of the proxy attacks such as Houthi attacks on pipelines and
airports etc might have been examples. The tanker attacks themselves are not Iran's style,
and this type of attacks are not in Iran's interest (at least under the conditions prevailing
so far, though as we get closer and closer to open warfare that changes) - but encouraging
ambiguity about whether Iran was responsible, and even actively encouraging attributions was
very much in Iran's interests. Why? Because Iran had prior intelligence, and was actively out
to record everything as it happened and get incriminating evidence against the US and Israel.
Their desire was to encourage the US to publish as much fake evidence as possible, and when
the time is ripe Iran will come out with the real evidence blowing the US position wide
open.
Iran's emphasis on going it alone rather than their ever closer partnership with Russia
and China was just part of the deception - probably Russia and China are briefed on the
Iranian strategy in detail -- that partnership is as solid as the strongest rock. Frankly, I
think some of the things Khamenei said were wildly implausible and rather stupid to fully
believe (like the implied fragility of the Iran-Russia-China relationships!!!) - but even
that was an intrinsic part of their game, because the deception is aimed at stupid people
blinded by hubris, and once the targets have fallen into the trap they will be seen to be
even more stupid for having fallen for it.
Unlike the US, the Iranians are sensitive to what can be justified under international law
and what cannot. Where an action is clearly against international law, they would obviously
have to have good grounds to believe that they could get away with it, even if things went
wrong, and benefits would have to outweigh risks.
That is really just a taster, there are lots of other aspects that tie in with it -
appologies for not presenting this theory more clearly and pulling all the threads together,
but I'm afraid my flu-befuddled mind is not up to that at this moment! Anyone interested can
no doubt explore it further for themselves as an exercise for the reader!
Not surprising that some unnamed Iranian commander speaks belligerently against USA.
It's clear that Magnier believes this is newsworthy because of a few sly phrases like
"Iran will not stand idle" that's supposed to confirm the view that Iran has turned into the
terrorists that the anti-Iranian group (USA, Israel, Saudis) say they are.
I don't buy it. A strategy of 'stealth attacks' makes no sense as it invites increasing
surveillance and beligerence from USA and is highly likely to backfire when an incident can
be traced to Iran.
Much more likely that it's a propaganda ploy that plays into the false narrative that Iran
is a terrorist nation.
Some interesting bits and pieces from the wikipedia page on the P-8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_P-8_Poseidon
"It is designed to operate in conjunction with the Northrop Grumman MQ-4C Triton Broad Area
Maritime Surveillance unmanned aerial vehicle."
"During the P-8A Increment 2 upgrade in 2016, the APS-149 Littoral Surveillance Radar
System (LSRS) will be replaced by the Advanced Airborne Sensor radar.[56]"
Advanced airborne sensor radar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Airborne_Sensor
"The Advanced Airborne Sensor (AAS) is a multifunction radar installed on the P-8 Poseidon
maritime patrol aircraft. The radar is built by Raytheon as a follow-on to their AN/APS-149
Littoral Surveillance Radar System (LSRS).
The AAS has its roots in the highly classified AN/APS-149 LSRS, which was designed to
provide multi-function moving target detection and tracking and high resolution ground
mapping at standoff ranges covering land, littoral, and water areas. The radar was deployed
on a small number of P-3C Orions, with "game changing" results. Containing a double-sided
AESA radar with near 360-degree coverage, it could scan, map, track, and classify targets,
and do all of these tasks near simultaneously; it was reportedly sensitive enough to pick up
a formation of people moving over open terrain.[1]
Building upon the LSRS, the AAS also has a double-sided AESA radar, which contains a
moving target indicator (MTI) that can detect, classify, and track targets on land and at sea
at the same time, with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and inverse synthetic aperture radar
(ISAR) for picture-like radar imagery of both inland and ocean areas at the same time; these
can profile vessels from a long distance and generate fine resolution without relying on
optical sensors, especially in day or night and in adverse weather conditions. Once it
detects and classifies a hostile vessel, the P-8 can send targeting information to another
armed platform and guide a networked weapon (e.g. Tomahawk cruise missiles, SLAM-ER, JASSM,
LRASM, SDB II) to it through a data link. The AAS is in ways superior to the AN/APY-7 used on
the U.S. Air Force's E-8 Joint STARS, looking both port and starboard rather than just being
side-looking. Other potential missions could include detecting and tracking low flying and
stealthy cruise missiles, communications relaying, and electronic warfare as a standoff
platform to penetrate contested airspace, since AESA radars are capable of radar jamming,
producing fake targets, frying electronic components, and even cyberwarfare.[1][2]"
...........
The advanced airborne sensor helps throw some light on why the aircraft was there and
videoing the drone shootdown.
Tensions in the Persian Gulf are reaching a
point
of no return
.
In recent weeks,
six
oil tankers
have been subjected to
Israeli
sabotage
disguised to look like Iranian attacks to induce the United States to take
military action against the Islamic Republic. Some days ago Iran rightfully shot out of the sky a
US Drone. In Yemen, the Houthis have finally started
responding
with
cruise and ballistic missiles to the Saudis' indiscriminate attacks, causing damage to the Saudi
international airport of Abha, as well as blocking, through
explosive
drones
, Saudi oil transportation from east to west through one of the largest
pipelines in the world.
As if the political and military situation at this time were not
tense
and complex
enough, the two most important power groups in the United States, the Fed and the
military-industrial complex, both face problems that threaten to
diminish
Washington's status as a world superpower
.
The Fed could find itself defending the role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency
during
any conflict
in the
Persian Gulf that would see the cost of oil rise to
$300
a barrel
, threatening
trillions
of dollars in derivatives
and toppling the global economy.
The military-industrial complex would in turn be involved in a war that it would struggle to
contain and even win, destroying the United States' image of invincibility and inflicting a mortal
blow on its ability to project power to the four corners of the world.
Just look at how surprised
US
officials
were about Iran's capabilities to shot down an advanced US Drone:
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region."
The Fed and the defense of the dollar
The US dollar-based economy has a
huge debt problem
caused
by post-2008 economic policies. All central banks have lowered interest rates to zero or even
negative, thus continuing to feed otherwise dying economies.
The central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements, an entity hardly
known to most people, has
stated
in writing
that "the outstanding notional amount of derivative contracts is 542 trillion dollars." The total
combined GDP of all the countries of the world is around 75 trillion dollars.
With the dimensions of the problem thus understood, it is important to look at how Deutsche Bank
(DB), one of the largest financial institutions in the world, is dealing with this. The German bank
alone has assets worth about 40 trillion dollars in derivatives, or more than half of annual global
GDP.
Their solution, not at all innovative or effective, has been to create yet another bad bank into
which to pour at least 50 billion dollars of long-term assets, which are clearly toxic.
"The bad bank would house or sell assets valued at up to 50 billion euros ($56 billion) –
after adjusting for risk – and comprising mainly long-dated derivatives.
The measures are part of a significant restructuring of the investment bank, a major
source of revenue for Germany's largest lender, which has struggled to generate sustainable
profits since the 2008 financial crisis."
Thus, not only has Deutsche Bank accumulated tens of billions of dollars in unsuccessful options
and securities, it seeks to obtain a profit that has been elusive since 2008, the year of the
financial crisis. Deutsche Bank is full of toxic bonds and inflated debts kept alive through the
flow of quantitative easing (QE) money from the European Central Bank, the Fed and the Japanese
Central Bank. Without QE, the entire Western world economy would have fallen into recession with a
chain of bubbles bursting, such as in public and private debt.
If the economy was recovering, as we are told by soi-disant financial experts, the central-bank
rates would rise. Instead, rates have plummeted for about a decade, to the extent of becoming
negative loans.
If the Western financial trend is undoubtedly heading towards an economic abyss as a result of
the monetary policies employed after 2008 to keep a dying economy alive,
what is the rescue
plan for the US dollar, its status as a global-reserve currency, and by extension of US hegemony?
Simply put, there is no rescue plan.
There could not be one because the next financial crisis will undoubtedly wipe out the US dollar
as a global reserve currency, ending US hegemony financed by unlimited spending power.
All
countries possessing a modicum of foresight are in the process of de-dollarizing their economies
and are converting strategic reserves
from US or US-dollar government bonds to primary
commodities like gold.
The military-industrial complex and the harsh reality in Iran
In this economic situation that offers no escape, the immediate geopolitical effect is a surge
of war threats in strategic locations like the Persian Gulf. The risk of a war of aggression
against Iran by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis would have little chance of success, but it would
probably succeed in permanently devastating the global economy as a result of a surge in oil
prices.
The risk of war on Iran by this triad seems to be the typical ploy of the bad loser who,
rather than admit defeat, would rather pull the rug out from under everyone's feet in order to
bring everybody down with him.
Tankers being hit and then blamed on Iran with no evidence
are a prime example of how to create the
plausible
justification
for bombing Tehran.
Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the actions of Bolton and Pompeo seem to be
aligned in prolonging the United States' unipolar moment, continuing to issue diktats to other
countries and failing to recognize the multipolar reality we live in. Their policies and actions
are accelerating the dispersal of power away from the US and towards other great powers like Russia
and China, both of which also have enormous influence in the Persian Gulf.
The threat of causing a conflict in the Persian Gulf, and thereby making the price of oil soar
to $300 a barrel, will not save US hegemony but will rather end up accelerating the inevitable end
of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.
Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the world's
reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to the real causes
of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to prolong the
post-crisis economic agony of 2008.
At the same time, with Trump as president, the neocon-Israeli-Saudi supporters see a
unique opportunity to strike Iran, a desire that has remained unchanged for 40 years.
As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power
groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world
economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a result, would lose
any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off possible strikes as he did
after the US drone was shot out of the sky.
While unable to live up to his electoral promises, Trump seems to be aware that the path laid
out for him in the event of an attack on Iran would lead to his political destruction and probably
to a conflict that is militarily unsustainable for the US and especially its Saudi and Israeli
allies. It would also be the catalyst for the collapse of the world economy.
In trying to pressure Iran into new negotiations, Trump runs the risk of putting too much
pressure on Tehran and giving too much of a free hand to the provocations of Pompeo and Bolton that
could end up triggering a war in the Strait of Hormuz.
Putin and Xi Jinping prepare for the worst
Our current geopolitical environment requires the careful and considered attention of relevant
heads of state. The repeated meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping indicate that Russia and China
are actively preparing for any eventuality. The closer we get to economic collapse, the more
tensions and chaos increase around the world thanks to the actions of Washington and her close
allies.
Xi Jinping and Putin, who have inherited this chaotic situation, have met at least a
dozen times over the last six months
, more recently meeting at least three times over two
months.
The pressing need is to coordinate and prepare for what will inevitably happen,
once again trying to limit and contain the damage by a United States that is completely out of
control and becoming a danger to all, allies and enemies alike.
As Putin just recently said:
"The degeneration of the universalistic model of globalization and its transformation
into a parody, caricature of itself, where the common international rules are replaced by
administrative and judicial laws of a country or group of countries.
The fragmentation of global economic space with a policy of unbridled economic
selfishness and an imposed collapse. But this is the road to infinite conflict, trade wars and
perhaps not just commercial ones. Figuratively, this is the road to the final struggle of all
against all.
It is necessary to draft a more stable and fair development model. These agreements
should not only be written clearly, but should be observed by all participants.
However, I am convinced that talking about a world economic order such as this will
remain a pious desire unless we return to the center of the discussion, that is to say, notions
like sovereignty, the unconditional right of each country to its own path to development and,
let me add, responsibility in the universal sustainable development, not just its own."
The spokesman of the Chancellery of the People's Republic of China, Hua Chun Ying, echoed this
sentiment:
"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has
come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their
hegemony.
The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself
extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding
transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United
States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue
are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits.
But as long as these new trade disputes persist, China informs the government of the
United States of America and the whole world that it will immediately impose duties on each
other, unilaterally on 128 products from the United States of America.
Also, we think we will stop buying US public debt. It's all, good night!"
I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt
it.
U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released◄►◄►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next
New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Sooner or later the US "maximum pressure" on Iran would inevitably be met by "maximum
counter-pressure". Sparks are ominously bound to fly.
For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to
consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of
Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête
noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military
capacity to keep the Strait open.
would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market;
and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world's $80 trillion GDP and
causing an unprecedented depression.
Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if
the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to
Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5
million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.
Soleimani's intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The
Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent "shooting gallery." Brigadier General Hossein
Salami stressed that Iran's
ballistic missiles are capable of hitting "carriers in the sea" with pinpoint precision.
The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship
missiles – as I confirmed
with IRGC-related sources.
We'll let you know when it's closed
Then, it happened.
Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
went straight
to the point ; "If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil
from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in
view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces."
The facts are stark. Tehran simply won't accept all-out economic war lying down –
prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question
has been officially addressed. Now it's time for the derivatives.
Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force
the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true.
Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk
to Warren Buffett.
The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington
consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate
figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should
know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks
– is in Basle.
The key point is it doesn't matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.
It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it's going to
be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking
of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according
to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.
Another US banking source explains; "The key in the analysis is what is called notional.
They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the
notional can become real. For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a
barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will
go that high. That is notional. But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous
figure."
BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for
contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an
estimate.
The banking source adds, "Even here it is the notional that has meaning. Huge amounts are
interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel,
then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world's GDP is oil. This is what is called
in business a contingent liability."
Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the
Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per
day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It's self-evident the world economy would
collapse based on just that alone.
War dogs barking mad
As much as 30% of the world's oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran
was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through
the roof by now. They aren't.
Iran's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since
1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.
Since 1972, Oman's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical
miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means,
crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other
half in Oman's. There are no "international waters".
And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz
publicly – and not by stealth.
Iran's indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof.
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, "even a limited strike
will be met by a major and disproportionate response." And that means gloves off, big time;
anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi's words, "Saudi and UAE oil facilities
in flames".
Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As
Hezbollah's secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, "war on
Iran will not remain within that country's borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle
East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be
wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling
family."
It's quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying .
The dogs of war though are barking mad .
Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss
"regional security concerns and ongoing operations" with – skeptical – generals, a
euphemism for "maxim pressure" eventually leading to war on Iran.
Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss –
about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove
US sanctions.
War zone in effect
As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike "We lied, We cheated, We stole" Pompeo
– America's "top diplomat" – is virtually running the Pentagon. "Acting" secretary
Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the
"intelligence community is convinced" Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident.
Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head
of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.
Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state
of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all "hostile" military
and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping
company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.
American government arrogance under the control of sickos has not shied away from the belief
that destroying countries that do not cave in to Washington's demand of "surrender or perish"
-- an ultimatum made in Israel. Indeed it regards that despicable policy as an entitlement
– to protect the "international community". Iran may well be the nation that will do
away with the nations of turbaned lapdogs and absolute monarchs who have been kept in power
by the dozens of US military bases in the area. Maybe a serious jolt of the global economy is
long overdue, to bring the Washington dogs of perpetual war to come to their senses.
Was Iran succumbing to the JCPOA provisions and abiding by them not sufficient
capitulation for the insane leaders in Washington?
I hope we don't go into another stupid war. Bring all our troops home from all around
the world. Just protect this Republic. We're not the policemen of the world.
@joeshittheragman
It astonishes me that people are still using the phrase "policemen of the world" to define US
behavior.
The last time I recall The US even remotely acting as the "worlds's policeman" was in
1991, when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
The Iraq 2003 "debacle", the Libya"shit show" and the Syria" fiasco" have all proven, over
time, to be acts of wanton carnage and illegal aggression, . not "police work".
The United States, under Neocon tutelage , is no "policeman" .not by any stretch
It is more like a humongous version of "Bernie Madoff meets Son of Sam."
We have become a grotesque, misshapen empire .of lies fraud .,illegal war, .mass murder
..and heinous f#cking debt.
You have to hand it to the Iranians for basically announcing their intentions to destroy the
US economy via the derivatives market that the US financial industry largely produced. Kill
them with their own weapon.
A show down between the US and some entity is inevitable. Be it Iran, China or Russia, the
US will be over extended and their very expensive weaponry will, I believe, come up wanting
on all counts. The MIC has been scamming the country for decades. The military brass is just
bluster. When it comes down to an actual confrontation, the US military will come up short as
BS won't cut it.
Yes, they will destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people but then their toys will run
out and then what? Missiles will take out the aircraft carriers and the world will see that
the emperor is naked.
In June of 2014, as the forces of the Islamic State swept toward Baghdad, President
Barack Obama began to recommit American military forces to Iraq. He also observed that
"Iran can play a constructive role, if it sends the same message to the Iraqi government
that we're sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it is inclusive." In an
instantly famous article by Atlantic magazine correspondent and White House amanuensis
Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had to learn to
"share" the Middle East with Iran.
In imagining a kind of strategic partnership with Tehran, Obama is recycling a deeply
held belief of late-Cold War "realists" like former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft. "For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in
the region, as it was until 1979," when Shah Reza Pahlavi was toppled in the Khomeini
revolution." "Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World," foresaw that "a
post-Mullah dominated government shedding Shia political ideology could easily return to
being a net contributor to stability by 2030
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143606/Mearsheimer-S-Arabia-a-threat-not-Iran
"The truth is that it is the United States that is a direct threat to Iran, not the other
way around. The Trump administration, with much prompting from Israel and Saudi Arabia, has
its gunsights on Iran. The aim is regime change.
America does not seem to think the Iranian regieme can do anything except bluster as they
are slowly smothered.
Famous last words -- review what Bernanke said just before subprime exploded: 2007 --
Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Woes
Won't Seriously Hurt Economy -- that said, I have no idea what will happen if Iran
decides to interfere with shipping in the straits -- or how likely that is.
The biggest long-term threat to the US is the end of the petrodollar scheme -- due to its
unmatched worldwide political and military hegemony, and 'safe haven' status, the dollar has
largely been insulated from the consequences of what are in reality staggering, almost
structural (at this point) US deficits -- but that can't and won't go on forever.
In reality, the US is today far less dependent on imported oil than most people probably
imagine, and therefore far less vulnerable to any import supply issue.
Israel and the zio/US has interfered in Iran since the 1953 CIA/Mossad coup and at intervals
ever since then and have brought this problem on by the zio/US and Israeli meddling in the
affairs of Iran and an all out war via illegal sanctions which in fact are a form of war.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not the problem , the problem is the
warmongers in the zio/US and Israel and will not end as long as the warmongers remain in
power.
A good start to ending these problems would be to abolish the CIA!
@MLK
Yes, the sanctions on Iran are having an effect, and the recent Iranian actions acknowledge
this; but that does not mean Iran is weak. Iran is telling the U.S. that it is NOT Venezuela
or North Korea. Kim is all bark, but no bite; Trump was quite right to call him "little
rocket man." Even he, with his singular lack of style and grace, is not doing this to the
Iranian leadership.
The economic sanctions against Iran already constitute acts of war. The Iranians have just
demonstrated that they can disrupt oil flow from the Middle East in retaliation, and not just
in the Street of Hormuz. In addition, they have now shown that they can take down American
aircraft, stealth or not, with precision. This means Iran is able and willing to strike back
and escalate as it sees fit, both economically and militarily. If the U.S. don't relent, Iran
WILL send the oil prices through the roof, and it will humiliate the U.S. on the world stage
if they are stupid enough to go to war over it.
The Iranian messages are simple, clear, and consistent. Compare this to the confused
cacophony that emerges from the clown troupe in Washington, and you can easily tell which
side has been caught unawares by recent events.
This is a watershed moment for Trump – he will either assert himself, return to
reason, and keep the peace; or he will stay aboard the sinking ship. No good options for him
personally, of course; his choices are impeachment, assassination, or staying in office while
presiding over the final act of the U.S. empire.
The US is committed to conflict not only most obviously against Iran, but also with
Russia.
US, or rather a bunch of lunatics infesting Trump's Admin, might be committed, but it
absolutely doesn't mean that the US has resources for that. In fact, US doesn't have
resources to fight Iran, let alone Russia. By now most of it is nothing more than
chest-thumping and posturing. Today Bolton's statement is a further proof of that.
Instead, Bush saw that situation, within the unique moment of US no longer constrained
by a rival superpower, as an opportunity to exert US global dominance.
The much derided Chomsky
There were once two gangsters in town, the USA and USSR, there's relative peace cuz each
was constrained by the rival's threat.
NOW that the USSR is gone, the remaining gangster
is running amok with total impunity.
Now I dunno if the USSR was a 'gangster' ,
as for uncle scam, .. needs no introduction I presume ?
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the
region.– "
@Wally
It's all cashflow and OPM, on the hope of hitting the big-time when prices spike. A giant
house of cards waiting to implode, and that is before one takes into account all the hugely
negative externalities associated with fracking that give it any hope of profitability, which
would vapourise if the costs of the externalities were charged to the operators.
According to preliminary data for 2018, oil demand surpassed 20 mmb/d for the first time
since 2007 and will be just shy of the 2005 peak (20,524 mb/d versus 20,802 mb/d in
2005).
It's really tragic to see two brotherly ideologies Capitalism and Islam (both want to rule
the world) go at each other throats in this manner. After all, they have fought shoulder to
shoulder a holly jihad against socialism in such far flung places as Afghanistan, Iraq and
now Syria.
I think that based on this latest conflict, people can see what a principled country US
is. People used to think that US hates only socialist revolutions. Until Iran's Islamic
revolution came along – and US was against it too. So, it's safe to say that US are
against ANY revolutions – be they Socialist or Islamic. I guess we can call them
contra-revolutionaries.
At least 95% of the American people do not want war with Iran. For that matter the same
percentage did not want war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. But the powers that be
do not ask the American people if they want to go to war, they just do it based on the
authority they assume is theirs. Meanwhile, our elected representatives who do have the
authority to start or prevent wars turn a deaf ear to their constituents because the voices
they hear in protest are weak or muted. Let's face it, the wars since WWII have affected only
a relatively minor segment of our population. A hell of a lot more people die in traffic
accidents than on the battlefield so what's to get excited about. Keeping a large standing
army, navy and air force is good for the economy, the troops have to be provided the latest
best of everything and as for the troops themselves for many it's not a bad way to make a
living with a retirement and health care system better than many jobs in the civilian sector.
So my message to the American people is if you really do not want war with Iran you had
better speak up louder than you are now.
CAN IRAN ENTER ITO NEGOTIATION WITH IRAN? IT CANT. BECAUSE ISRAEL WITH NO FOOT IN THE DOOR OF
THE HELL IS WAGING THE WAR AND GETTING US PUNISHED .
UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002–
[Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli
groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate
what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.' Now,
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November
interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day
after' the Iraq war ends
[Hide MORE]
-- -- -
They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in
[Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
03/14/03
--
in 2003 Morris Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy
in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran . According to the website, it
will be un-American,immoral and unproductive to engage with any segment of the regime .
During a may 2003 conference at the AEI on the future of Iran,Amitay sharply criticized the
U.S State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic ,claimed the criticism of Newt
Gingrich did not go far enough . Amiaty was introduced by M Ledeen as the "Godfather" of
AIPAC Amitay admitted that direct action against Iran would be difficult before 2004
election.
Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi ? has again risen," says Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must
be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding
that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and
allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and
its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo." http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
March 14,2003
"Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have long targeted Iran. Richard Perle,
former Defense Policy Board member, and David Frum, of the neo-com Weekly Standard,
co-authored "An End to Evil," which calls for the overthrow of the "terrorist mullahs of
Iran." Michael Ladeen of the influential American Enterprise Institute argues that "Tehran is
a city just waiting for us." http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/05/26/the-oil-connection/
According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant
public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting
Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending
NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days
that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag
the United States into war.
"Our belief was that if they [Israel] went on their own, knowing the limitations No, they're
a very good air force, alright? But it's small and the distances are great, and the targets
dispersed and hardened, alright? If they would have attempted a raid on a military plane, we
would have been assuming that they were assuming we would finish that which they started. In
other words, there would be many of us in government thinking that the purpose of the raid
wasn't to destroy the Iranian nuclear system, but the purpose of the raid was to put us [the
United States] at war with Iran."
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/11/06/israel-and-the-trillion-dollar-2005-2018-us-intelligence-budget
Emergence of ISIS is linked to US efforts to weaken Iran
-In "The Redirection", written in 2008(!) – years before the 2011 uprising, Seymour
Hersh wrote of plans to use extremists in Syria.
Excerpts:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The
U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse
a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the
nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the
covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young
Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools,
training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid
with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his
associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, "
@Simply
Simon In the old days, the orders for the US government were coming down from the
Tri-Lateral Commission and the 6-7 major companies. Rockefeller took the TLC underground
ground with himself. The oil companies continue asking the US government for protecting the
ME/NA resources. Then Neocons replaced the TLC which their focus was twofold.
1. Destabilize the regions for protecting Israel
2. Control the resources militarily
3. Keep the Chinese out and cut their access to the resources
Guess what, Chinese have penetrated the regions constructively and quietly. America with its
unjustified fucking wars is being hated even more than 1953.
@KA
Very true! Unfortunately the presidents were misinformed or uninformed about the proxies
created by the CIA. The first created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan manned and financed
by the Saudis, recruited by Mossad and intelligence was provided by the CIA. Sound really
really good to the Americans since it was free of charge with no loss of life! Then during
the Iraq war its neighbor Syria was getting destabilized so the CIA replicated Al-Qaeda and
formed a new gang which called themselves ISIS. The function of ISIS was to overthrow
Al-Bashar of Syria. The secondary mission for both groups was to bug Iran from its western
and eastern front.
Manning both of these groups with Sunnis was the biggest mistake that KSA, Mossad and the CIA
made. See the Sunnis are not fighters without sophisticated weapons from the West. On the
other Shiites can fight with a sword and empty handed if they have to. They remind me of VC's
in Vietnam. The Shiites decimated the ISIS and most of AlQaeda now the US is trying to get
credit for that but they know better now. So my recommendation to the US is please don't
aggravate the Shiites otherwise they will embarrass us just the VC's
@Monty
Ahwazi{ All insurance companies will drop their coverage of the oil tankers
immediately.}
During the Iran-Iraq war, US re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers and ran them under US flag and
protection through the straight.
Same thing can be done again.
And if insurance companies drop coverage, US Treasury will provide the coverage: some US
insurance company will be "convinced" by US Gov to provide the coverage and US Treasury will
guarantee _any_ losses incurred by the insurance company or companies.
US can always add to the national debt ( .i.e. print more dollars).
So, no: declaration won't do.
Only destroying stuff works.
{You guys sitting here and making up these nonsensical policies}
Nobody is making policy here: we are not a government.
We are exchanging opinions.
btw: where are you sitting?
Are your personal opinions considered 'policy', because you are ..what?
@anon
That was buried deep in the article. (Thanks for posting link.) Next lines, the NYT is
skeptical of US claims. Too bad this isn't first pararaphs!)
Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the
Middle East, said the attack could have endangered "innocent civilians," even though
officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international
waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.
Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support
its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly
called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little
context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.
It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the
aggressor in a series of international incidents.
@Zumbuddi
Thank you. If the US were a real [HONEST] policeman, they would have stopped Kuwait from
stealing Iraqi oil. But no, Bush was a dirty cop, on the take.
@dearieme
Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. JFK was getting us out of Vietnam. In
his time, there was not massive amounts of US troops in Vietnam, only advisors. JFK planned
to get all the troops out after he was re-elected.
It was during Johnson's presidency that the Vietnam war became a huge war for the US.
Johnson set up the Gulf of Tonkin false flag on August 2 1964. This started the huge draft of
young men for Vietnam war that dragged on till the early 1970s.
Johnson also allowed Israel to do a false flag on the US on June 8 1967. Israel attacked
the USS Liberty. 34 servicemen killed and 174 injured. Israel wanted to kill them all and
blame it on Egypt, so US would nuke Egypt. Lovely nation is little Israel. The song " Love is
all you need" by the Beatles was released on June 7 1967. Summer of Love, Hippies in San
Francisco, all planned to get Americans into drugs and forget about what Israel is doing in
the Middle East. It worked, nobody noticed what Israel did since we have a "free" 500 Zion BC
press in the US in 1967 and we still do these days.
Iran is pretty self sufficient with minimal foreign debt. Their Central Bank is under their
control and works for the people. They should just hunker down and hope Trumps crew is out of
a job after the elections next year
If the US strikes they can block the straits. However, the US would probably knock out the
refineries so that will hurt
They shot down the drone because it was collecting intelligence on targets the US plans to
strike. Thats defensive not provocative
If the US wants to go at Iran they will manufacture something. People are so dumbed down
they can made to believe anything, as events 18 years ago and since have proven
Hopefully this is just distraction to cover up some nefarious plan to loot the working
class some more. Or maybe getting the straits closed is part of the plan. Who knows?
THE TICK TOCKS WHY TRUMP DIDN'T BOMB IRAN NYT'S PETER BAKER, MAGGIE HABERMAN and THOMAS
GIBBONS-NEFF:
"Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly
Mistake": "He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his
advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of
his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
"While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson
in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran's provocations with force was
crazy. The hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr.
Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.
"The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the
official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that,
the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime,
when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the
military planned.
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home
.
Saddam was given the assurance by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that the USA
supported his retaliatory action against Kuwait. Same usual trap and deliberate provocation;
all the rest is obfuscation.
@AnonFromTN
The loss of two American aircraft carriers appears to be the assumption you are making to
guarantee an Iranian victory.
Such a loss is by no means assured.
The idea that American willpower will collapse in the event of the loss of two capital
ships is your second assumption, and it's both a fanciful and dangerous assumption.
I'm not myself terribly impressed by American military power, but comparing naval combat
to counterinsurgency operations is absurd.
Your economic assumptions appear to come from the permabear school. Actual economies and
governments don't work that way. A major reduction in global supplies will result in
compulsory conservation, rationing, price controls, etc. This was done in recent memory in
the 1970s in both North America and Western Europe, when you were still behind the Iron
Curtain and perhaps not aware.
@alexander
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home."
Efforts by Egypt to arrive an Arab initiated solution was ignored and dismissed by USA
Initial Saudi effort to find a face saving exit by Saddam was met with resistance and then
a manufactured satellite image of Saddam massing his soldiers for invasion of Saudi was
widely disseminated by US.
Saddam crimes was no less or more egregious than what Israel was enjoying with US dollars
and with US support and with impunity ( It was still occupying Pastien and Parts of Syria and
Lebanon )
It was Levy the Israeli FM who threatened that his country would attack Iraq if US did
not.
War against Saddam was orchestrated by Jewish members of Thatcher and by Democrats of USA
) Solarz – NY Senator was one of the guys and the AIPAC whose president Mr. Dine
confessed the crimes )
@alexander
UN has been abused by USA taking the advantage of the collapse of Soviet . (This is what
Wolf0owitz told Wesley Clarke in 1992 in Feb : This was the time we can and we should take
care of these countries Iran Iraq Syria Libya and Yemen while Russia is still weakened and
unable to help its erstwhile vassals states) .
USA had no right to ask Saddam to leave . Subsequent behaviors of USA has proved it.
Israel also in addition has no right to exist .
If correction had to come from Iran Hezbollah and Syria- then so be it. That news would be
best thing that would happen to humanity within last 200 yrs .
@Iris
but -- but -- but (sputters Alexander the otherwise sage commenter), The UN -- that's the
U-nited Nations!! fer pete's ache, Agreed!! ( Agreed is Diplomatese for: "Please stop
twisting my arm; Please stop bankrupting my country; Please stop threatening to tell my wife
-- ).
in other words, the UN is a toy and a ploy for someone like G H W Bush salivating at the
once in a lifetime opportunity to exert world dominance -- 'scuse me: "Create a New World
Order" -- in the context of a power vacuum / dissolution of the Soviet Empire, previously the
only counterbalance to US superpower status.
No doubt the UN was got on board. It acted like the paid-for- judge and show-trial in a
case the prosecutor had already rigged.
imho, what is more significant, and what it takes years to unearth, is the decision making
and back-room dealing that came BEFORE the UN was induced to stamp its imprimatur.
Tony Blair endorsed Bush the Lesser's war on Iraq. Does that grant it legitimacy, or in
any way explain why US waged that war?
I don't care about numbers.
50 (proper) sea mines backed up by 20 air/land-sea missiles do the job. Block the Hormuz.
I am sure the regime in Tehran has that number.
Does anyone?
Don't think so.
Mines in particular.
While missiles could be tricky to produce even smart sea mines are not.
A lot of explosive-check.
A couple of sensors (acoustic/magnetic)-check.
A couple of hardened micro controller boards-check.
That's it.
In this very game there are, really, only two elements that interest me:
Tactical nukes.
Selective draft.
What hehe really interests me is the escalation from "tactical" to "strategic".
@Thorfinnsson
Let me make this clear: there won't be Iranian victory. Iran will pay a hefty price. There
will be the defeat of the Empire, though, a major climb down. The worst (for the Empire) part
would be that the whole world would see that the king has no clothes. Then the backlash
against the Empire (hated by 6/7th of the Earth population) starts, and that would be
extremely painful for everyone in the US, guilty and innocent alike (myself included).
Compulsory rationing and price controls were possible when the governments actually
governed. When the whole governments and legislatures are full of corporations' marionettes,
as is the case now in the US and EU, these measures are impossible. Profiteers will have
their day. They will crush Western economies and therefore themselves, but never
underestimate the blinding force of greed. The same greedy bastards are supplying the US
military with airplanes that have trouble flying and with ships costing untold billions that
break down in the Panama canal, of all places. The same greedy scum destroyed the US industry
and moved all production to China, in effect spelling the doom of the only country that could
have protected their loot from other thieves. That's the problem with greed: it makes people
incredibly shortsighted.
So what? That nice lessons are being imparted slowly to the Israeli slave USA.
USA does what other countries are accused of before invading . USA throws out any qualms
any morality any legality . It uses UN . Right now it is illegally supplying arms to Saudi to
Israel and to the rebels in Syria. These are the reasons US have gone to wars against other
countries for. Now some countries are standing up and saying – those days are gone ,
you can't attack any country anymore just because someone has been raped or someone has been
distributing Viagra.
As a matter of fact, the whole world began to ask, you are willing to launch your military
to eject Saddam from Kuwait Bravo! ..Now what are willing to do about Israels illegal seizure
of Palestinian territory in the West bank .It is more or less the exact same crime, Isn't
it?
George Bush Senior was the last US President in American History to withhold all loans to
Israel, until it ceased and desisted from illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian
Territories.
Many believe it was his willingness to hold Israel to the same standard as everyone else,
which cost him his second term.
@Thorfinnsson
Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4A intel drone that cost $250: A model that is marketed as being
hard to shoot down since it has an 11 mile high altitude ceiling and a long operational
range. That a coastal AA missile battery knocked it down with one shot answers several
questions.
Iran's envoy to the United Nations has called on the international community to end "unlawful destabilizing measures" by the US,
declaring that while Iran does not seek war, it "reserves the right to counter any hostile act."
Iranian envoy to the UN Majid Takht Ravanchi has condemned continuing US provocations that culminated Thursday morning in the
downing of an American surveillance drone by the Iranian air force over Hormozgan province.
The drone "had turned off its identification equipment and [was] engaged in a clear spying operation," Ravanchi confirmed in a
letter to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, adding that the aircraft had ignored "repeated radio warnings" in order to enter
Iranian airspace near the Strait of Hormuz.
"... Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc. ..."
"... His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising. ..."
"... He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back. ..."
"... Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR. ..."
"... Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers. ..."
"... Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT. Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear WMD's. ..."
"... My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians" as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack. ..."
Whether Generalissimo Bone Spur and President Chief Kaiser of the USA, His Imperial Majesty Donald Trump, actually called for
a stand down of any attack on Iran for the shooting down of a surveillance UAV, or he suddenly realized that such an act would
touch off another unneeded war, is at this point in time a matter of some debate. What is clear however is that his Imperial Majesty
must clean out his current foreign policy and national defense staff (Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel etc.) before another crisis develops.
Otherwise the neocons that currently inhabit the Oval Office chicken hawk coop will be back at fomenting another crisis, which
might actually give them the war they so dearly want. His Imperial Majesty appointed them and he can fire them.
All this narrative fits Trump's modus operandi and his fake Alpha male persona.
Hire B-team actors whom he can fire at will, and for effect, as required to maintain the facade of 'dominance.' Let the dogs
loose and then yank on their chains at the last minute. The master's voice etc.
His problem is: it only works in TV Reality Show land -- and only for a limited time between business-as-usual advertising.
He, and his cast of zio-policy diplomatic zombies have a much harder time when it comes to the real world and real national
boundaries that resist and are likely to fight back.
Trump and US MIC is dangerous of course. But Trump has enough rat cunning to know when he's cornered. All he's done here with
this alleged last minute "call back" is test prove his chain of command is working. (...or is it?)
George V---
As far as I can tell it doesn't matter who the president has or who he is. Seems the US is perpetually seeking war or at the very
least threatening war. War on drugs, war on poverty war on disinfo war, trade wars , unending list of WAR, WAR, WAR.
I cannot see any way that the current irrational sanctions against Iran by the US can be rolled back. All US administrations are
full of hubris and in love with their own imagined gloriously supreme power. The only way they can be rolled back is if Iran offers
some face-saving excuse, which they can't do. They have nothing else to give (Pompeo's 'conditions for international re-alignment'
were essentially a demand for surrender and 'regime' change, probably authored by Maniac Walrus Bolton).
Sanctions were never justified in the first place. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has submitted
to extra-ordinary inspections by the IAEA for decades. And gets ticks on the boxes. Anyone that thinks Iran is trying to 'build
the bomb' probably believes unicorns live in the White House (the American one), and that Saddam blew up the Twin Towers.
Compare the western attitudes towards Iran, and those towards India and Pakistan. Neither of which have signed up to the NPT.
Not a single whimper from western governments or their MSM propaganda channels, when those countries developed an arsenal of nuclear
WMD's.
My guess on what happened with Trump was the same MO as in Syria, he has a temper tantrum ("kill them all, even the Russians"
as was rumored) and he was informed of the possible fallout from such an attack.
Trump will attack, just not yet. There is some new toy they want to try out. Shock and Awe style.
"... Russia, China and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting irrationally. ..."
"... Asians all worried about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows, even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports. Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian strategy. ..."
"... High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that. ..."
"... These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to lie left and right as they do. ..."
"... It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for that war. ..."
"... Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei, Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure reelection. ..."
"... Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only competent officers carrying out their orders. ..."
"... How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation they are counting on the likely result. ..."
"... Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to escalate into targeting US forces. ..."
"... The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now. Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare. ..."
"... Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support ..."
"... This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them. ..."
"... The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust him. ..."
"... Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to respond to these acts of war. ..."
"... They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War. ..."
"... Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002. ..."
"... The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just before election. The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists have done this so many times they're just going through the motions. Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations in a disruptive manner. ..."
"... Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US / Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies." ..."
"... The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never pay its way out. ..."
"... --One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition? ..."
"... -- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that "the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian people, especially Iranian women." ..."
"... Trump thinks that he can f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen. ..."
"... He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an unwinnable war hung around his neck. ..."
"... But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy. ..."
"... John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests. We are not out of the woods. ..."
"... The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not the manned P8 aircraft. ..."
"... No, this action was appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people and force a regime change. ..."
"... I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton. ..."
"... Trump should throw his ass and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei. ..."
"... This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran, internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed restraint and have been left with no choice. ..."
"... And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs. ..."
"... PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone. The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses: "Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise." Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed." ..."
"... No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats. ..."
"... Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290 people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson seems like the only realist in the MSM. https://youtu.be/Rf2cS4g0pes ..."
"... It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed in international airspace? ..."
"... Sorry. Here's the ink to Tucker on the Iran war brink. https://youtu.be/3PQW2tMMn2A ..."
"... Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel? Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign) that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat? ..."
"... As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty to him only condescension. ..."
"... Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election goodbye. ..."
I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of Trump. However, if he does not start a war, he
will end (in my mind, at least) as a vast improvement over his immediate predecessors.
Wait a minute. Obama blew it with Libya. However,
-he reached a good deal with Iran
-he didn't bomb Syria when the crossed his "red line" and managed to make it look like the R
controlled Senate made the decision .
-He didn't kiss Bibi's ring.
look at a decent map of this area. the us naval base in Bahrain and air base Qatar are an
Iranian missiles equivalent of firing from lower Manhattan to hit something in Hoboken.
The USA military assets within the Persian gulf have if war breaks out checked into the hotel
California.
It is a logistical nightmare for the Pentagon to protect and resupply in the event of
serious hostilities. Trump surely has been told by real us military professionals the giant
hairball he takes on if he gets into a war with Iran and what it means for us servicemen
station there and throughout the larger middle east.
it is unfortunate that the usa media uses fools like bolton and pompeo as clickbait to
generate revenue fore their business at the expense of whats best for the nation but there it
is... the msm has an agenda which is not at all in the service of the nation.
Yes, a grown up has the right to change a decision. Now, ball is in Khomeini court. Abe asked
him to release some Iranian-American prisoners. If Khomeini wants to lower threshold of
conflict, he can do this gesture without losing any face. Humanitarian action.
Russia, China
and the Europeans all want Iran to remain in JCPOA and Putin is worried about Iran acting
irrationally.
See what kind of other pressure comes down on Iranians. Asians all worried
about the security of oil flows to Asia. Japan especially dependent on Middle East oil flows,
even if they've moved out of Iranian purchases. US more able to go it alone with extensive
domestic and other sources.
Khamenei should call Trump and setup a media spectacle of a summit in Switzerland. They
can agree on the same deal as before but as long as the headline says "Iran agrees to not
build nukes", Trump will be happy and Khamenei will be his new best pal.
The same playbook as KJU where nothing tangible is likely to happen except that KJU has stopped nuke & missile
tests that create media hysteria among the Never Trumpers.
IMO, the ball hasn't left Trump's court. How long is he going to tolerate the neocons in
his inner circle who are likely to keep coming up with another casus belli? Can he find some
distance from being Bibi's lapdog? How long is he going to allow his conflicted son-in-law to
meddle in the Middle East?
Trump must calculate the potential of where escalation leads and what a full on war with
Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon means for his re-election campaign. Bernie is
banging the table hard against any military action in Iran. The probability that 50,000 votes
in Michigan, Pennsylvania & Wisconsin changes sides the next election would be rather
high in the event of an unpredictable full-scale war.
I hope Khamenei takes any offer Trump makes for direct talks. Trump is heavily influenced by
the last person he meets.
I get that Khamenei doesn't want to meet on the premise that the JCPOA is flawed and must
be changed but if he can get an audience on the basis of airing mutual grievances in an
unfiltered environment, it would be an opportunity. Currently, the only people Trump talks to
are Neocon loons. They are innumerable but the FDD seems to be the center of gravity.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet." Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for
getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted with madness.
The IRGC knuckle dragger in charge at Hormuz will get a medal or two, and a promotion. The U.S. is waging a total economic war on Iran. It cuts off all its exports and imports.
Iran is fighting back by all means. It has no other choice. Iran now implements a "strategy of tension" that is designed to put "maximum pressure" on
Trump. The tanker attacks, the mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq, the Houthi strikes an Saudi
desalination plants and the shoot down of that drone are all part of that Iranian
strategy.
High Iranian officials, including its president, have multiple times announced: "If we can
sell no sell oil than none of our neighbors in the gulf will be able to sell their oil." They
mean that and they have the plans and means to achieve that.
These strikes will continue, and will become stronger. I most cases Iran will have
plausible deniability. That is easy to create when CentCom and the White House are know to
lie left and right as they do.
Trump has two choices.
He can pull back on the sanctions and other U.S. violations of JCPOA, or he can start a
full war against Iran that will drown his presidency, put the world economy into a depression
($300/bl oil) and kill many U.S. soldiers.
It is Trump, not Iran, who killed JCPOA. It is Trump, not Iran, who will be blamed for
that war.
Exactly! There's one striking characteristic of the "resistance" leaders, including Khamenei,
Syrian President Assad, and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, and that is that they are reliable: they
do what they say they are going to do. They have integrity, that quality so clearly absent
from all US and Western European leaders, all beholden to their Ziodonors to assure
reelection.
The Iranians will NOT contact Trump to arrange a meeting. The Iranians will NOT
meet with Trump because the JCPOA is flawed. The Iranians will NOT meet with Trump after a
brief suspension in sanctions to ask for permanent sanctions relief. The Iranians WILL meet
with Trump when he lifts most or all of the sanctions in good faith and rejoins the JCPOA. Is
it just a coincidence that the two ships attacked last week were carrying petrochemicals,
just days after Trump and the US placed sanctions on the largest Iranian petrochemical
producer? What is it about "If we cannot ship oil/petrochemicals, nobody can." that people
don't understand?
Additionally, any standoff missile attack or "March of the B52s" will be met with
immediate regional attacks on US (Saudi and Israeli) assets, military personnel and civilians
that will destabilize the entire region and destroy the global economy. Not the best scenario
for a reelection bid, is it? I'm with b. There is no knuckle dragger at Hormuz, only
competent officers carrying out their orders.
How blame is apportioned will matter little to Iran if it miscalculates one iota. Yes it
cannot sit idle until it is strangled by economic sanctions. But neither can it escalate
beyond the destruction of civil and military hardware alone. One dead American is all the
neocons need. A counter strike would then be inevitable and the uncontrollable escalation
they are counting on the likely result.
Col. Lang has described here the catastrophic consequences for America's enemies when they
have doubted its resolve. And the sure route to galvanizing that resolve is for Iran to
escalate into targeting US forces.
The only way this ends without a war which would be catastrophic for both sides is
if Trump realizes the reality of the situation he is in and ditches the neocons right now.
Iran has got its message across and must now desist to allow Trump breathing room to
de-escalate. Let us pray that Suleimani and the Iranian leadership are men enough to
understand that holding the moral high ground confers no advantage in warfare.
Publicly, much chest thumping over how Iran has the cowardly Great Satan on the run like a
beaten dog.
Privately, phone calls to China and Russia begging for assurances of support and attempted offers of negotiations
with Trump complete with wildly unrealistic demands.
This is delusional thinking. The Iranians realized a long time ago not to rely on other
countries for assistance. Every Iranian knows not to trust Russians from history. China might
be the only hope, not for support, but to convince that this war is as much about them.
The Chinese should close Adelson's Macau casinos for health and safety violations. Zionist
donors for Trump's election campaign are driving this. Adelson's boy Bolton needs removing
before anything positive can happen, Tucker Carlson needs some help with his campaign to oust
him.
Could you explain how the concept that economic sanctions are a belligerent act of war is
anti-American? This is a historical concept that you, as a teacher and student of military
history, are well aware of. The Iranians are using the means that they have available to
respond to these acts of war.
They are not equipped to confront the US military directly, so
they are using tactics to place pressure on the US in other areas, primarily by threatening
the global economy by plausibly deniable acts against shipping in the Persian Gulf. This is a
masterstroke right out of the pages of Sun Tze's Art of War.
Trump has painted himself into a corner. He can offer sanctions relief if he wants to
negotiate, or he can attack, and we can hope that the US military learned some of the lessons
taught by Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper in the Millennium Challenge 2002.
The neocons are playing out provocations until Congress is forced to vote on War just
before election.
The provocations will continue -- Israel's Rational Institute & expert game theorists
have done this so many times they're just going through the motions.
Iranians have watched that game play out before and, perhaps, know how to handle provocations
in a disruptive manner.
Hook repeated, emphasized & repeated again that "finance is the basis of war," and US /
Trump strategy is to "not to bankrupt Iran," but to "deny Iran access to financial ability to
fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and other of the #1 state sponsor of terror's proxies."
The congressmen questioning Hook nodded sagely. None of them so much as hinted at the fact that the USA is so deep in debt it can never
pay its way out. Nor was any congressman sage enough, or moral enough, or consistent enough, to
question:
-- International policy pundits & think tankers opine that the greatest guarantee of
peace is economic stability. US is deliberately seeking to destabilize Iran economically. To
what end?
--One of the expectations of the JCPOA was that with sanctions lifted, Iran would enter into
the mainstream economy, trading with states throughout the world. This normalization of
commerce would constrain Iran from taking actions that would jeopardize its trade
relationships. Why does Trump & the zioncons not wish Iran's commercial normalization to
take place? Is it because Israel cannot stand the competition?
-- by what right USA violates UN Charter demands that internal affairs of a member state must
not be interfered with. Congressmen crowned themselves with laurel as they proclaimed that
"the people of Iran are not our enemy; it is the government; we act on behalf of the Iranian
people, especially Iranian women."
When I visited Iran in 2008, "Iranian women" spoke with us and asked if we could please
provide several days' warning before bombing Iran so that they could shelter their children.
Iranian women are some of the toughest you'll meet.
-- what casus belli legitimizes aggression against Iran? Does the USA no longer
subscribe to Just War theory? Several years ago I heard Notre Dame's Mary Ellen O'Connell
discuss Just War theory with respect to Iran -- https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol2/iss2/6/.
US claims to uphold "universal values" ring hollow if such basic steps in framing policy are
ignored.
I deal in facts, not in 'deeply bigoted anti-Americanism'. Interesting that you do not want to recognize those facts. They are right before your
eyes. Just I give it a day or two until the next 'incident' happens.
Trump thinks that he can
f*** Iran and sit it out? Not gonna happen.
The question has been raised of my denigration of b. He has a long history on SST He is an
excellent military analyst but the long and so far as I can remember unbroken record of
interpreting EVERY situation as demonstrating the demonic nature of the US causes me to
discount anything he writes on other than military subjects narrowly defined. IMO b's
hostility to the US is a permanent burden that he carries.
The NYT report that Donald Trump ordered the attack and then pulled back is in Jimmy
Carter's "been there done that" territory. Although a New Yorker and he never had to sit in a
gasoline line, Donald Trump, personally and legally, cannot be a one term President. He is a
political savant.
He gets that he cannot be an LBJ or a Harry Truman with the Albatross of an
unwinnable war hung around his neck.
My assumption is that someone in the chain of command
after the surveillance drone was shot down triggered a preplanned strike package that was
stopped once it got to the President for approval. Once again global media moguls strike back
at the nationalist President with Fake News.
But, I am afraid the chosen true believers on
his staff do not believe nor care that Iran has prepared a massive disproportionate
non-nuclear response that will destroy the global economy.
John Bolton and Mike Pompeo have
other agendas than the President's re-election and what is in the USA's national interests.
We are not out of the woods.
Do we know for sure Trump is the one who initially ordered the strike? Or did someone down
the line interpret the rules of engagement (do I presume correctly that some such would be in
place at the present time?) to allow him or her to order it?
In a situation of this degree of geo-political gravity, nobody in the chain of command
below the CinC would have had the authority or temerity to attempt to order this strike
package.
Neither Pompeo nor Bolton is in the chain of command and attempts by them to order
such attacks would have been rejected by the military. BTW if Trump aborted the strikes only
10 minutes out from the targets he was cutting it too close. Communications can always
fail.
The IRGC knuckle dragger at Hormuz wisely and prudently targeted the unmanned drone and not
the manned P8 aircraft. Since it was the Iranians who recovered the wreckage, it will be hard
for the US to maintain the drone was well outside Iranian airspace.
No, this action was
appropriate in the face of our policy of maximum pressure to starve out the Iranian people
and force a regime change.
I applaud Trump's decision not to engage in a shooting war. The way he got to that
decision was messy, but the final decision was right. Those calling him weak for not engaging
in a war of choice are craven fools. Chief among those is Bolton.
Trump should throw his ass
and his mustache out of the WH before the sun goes down. Trump brought this situation upon
himself with his pulling out of the JCPOA and initiating his "war" of maximum pressure. It is
he who can deflate this crisis, not Kamenei.
This is all one big PsyOp imo. The US has no popular support for an attack on Iran,
internally or externally. We are going to attack, but want to make it seem like they showed
restraint and have been left with no choice.
I don't foresee the Iranians talking to Trump unless and until the US walks back its
sanctions, or Trump himself goes and sits down with the Ayatollah.
And this nonsense about Iran allowing the US to make some window dressing attack on
innocuous targets to save face/ All I can say is Iranians are not Arabs.
PS -- C Span ramped up an orgy of war hysteria over Trump's threat, then stand-down over
Iran's shoot-down of an un-manned drone.
The public was, as usual, confined to a narrow frame of reference and range of responses:
"Trump was a coward," vs. "Trump was wise."
Congressmen who were interviewed emphasized that "no American was killed."
No one mentioned that Lyndon Johnson called back flights sent to rescue crewmen on the USS
Liberty when Israel attacked the ship, strafed the wounded and those in life boats.
This seems like Professional Wrestling theater where you have the wrestlers hamming it up for
the drama and you wonder what the script is. We only get to see what the camera frames.
I am thankful that our military acknowledges that our President is the Commander-in-Chief. He
commanded, they obeyed. As for all the pundits on all sides, their lack of perspective or
even understanding of history leaves me terrified. There seems to be no understanding of how
Iran is capable of retaliation. An example:
Everyone remembers the shootdown of Iranian Air flight 655 on July 3, 1988 by the guided
missile cruiser Vincennes, under the command of the late Captain Will Rogers, in which 290
people were killed. President Reagan said America will never apologize. President Clinton
ultimately paid the Iranians $130 million.
Few remember what happened next -- some 8 months later, in March, 1989, Capt. Roger's
spouse Sharon, was in her van stopped at a traffic light in San Diego. A pipe bomb went off
under the back of the van. It was small -- she was unhurt, fortunately, but definitely shaken
up, and the van did catch fire. Despite an intensive investigation, the FBI has never solved
this case.
Never let us become so blind and arrogant in our strength that we are unable to conceive
retaliation by those weaker.
Has anyone considered the possibility that the drone was sent there to be shot down by the
Iranians?
It is no secret that the Neocons and the Israeli zionists (I am repeating myself here) do
want a war between Iran and the United States. First, there were a few tanker attacks which
were brushed off by Trump. Then this, which was more difficult to brush off. Is it possible
that the drone actually went to Iranian airspace but GPS coordinates were spoofed (by
insiders on the American side) so that Trump (and the administration) believed that it stayed
in international airspace?
The Americans do seem to really believe that the drone was in
international airspace and no one can make a point that it is to Iran's benefit to target an
American asset in international airspace, especially now when tensions are so high. Iran has
the most to lose in the event of a war with the Americans (no points for guessing which
country has the most to win - Israel). And it is a coincidence that the guy heading the Iran
mission Centre, Michael D'Andrea, was previously the head of drone operations. Or is it a
coincidence?
What would I do if I were a neocon who wants war between the US and Iran, a war that Trump
doesn't. For the start of hostilities, it is essential that both sides, US and Iran, feel
that they are in the right - which of course this situation is. I would create a context, an
excuse/rationale for the start of actual hostilities to the US administration (and of course
for the consumption of the American public). Then I will make the case to Trump that we
should have a 'limited' retaliation. I know that the Iranians will strike back after the
'small scale' bombing. And the Americans have to retaliate to that also. What chances are
there that any retaliation by the Americans will not end up in total war with Iran??
Trump doesn't want war and probably saw through the machinations to get him to agree to a
'small' bombing campaign as retaliation that would surely lead to a larger conflagration and
total war with Iran that the neocons want so much. This particular provocation was
unsuccessful in its aim. However, I think that provocations by the neocons will continue and
at an ever increasing pitch - enabled by the neocons within the administration and the
Israelis. Trump doesn't want war but his administration filled with neocons does and they
will find a way maneuver Trump into it. Israel will fight Iran till the last standing
American in the Middle East.
Why did Donald Trump hire neocons Bolton & Pompeo as well as torturer Gina Haspel?
Couldn't he find people who shared his views (at least what he said during the last campaign)
that our ME regime change wars were a disaster that we shouldn't repeat?
As Tucker noted in his segment yesterday Bolton & the neocons have been plotting a war
with Iran for some time. They don't care if it sinks Trump's presidency. They have no loyalty
to him only condescension.
Hopefully Trump learns from this near miss of a catastrophe for his presidency. But he has
seemed weak and indecisive on these matters all along. He never fought back for example with
all the tools at his disposal against the attempted coup by law enforcement & the
intelligence agencies.
All he did was constantly tweet witch hunt. He's once again delegated
it to Barr after Sessions sat on it.
He allowed Pompeo & Bolton to bring on fellow neocon
Elliott Abrams who previously screwed up in Nicaragua to attempt another regime change in
Venezuela, which has been another botched example of how everything that the neocons touch
turns to shit.
Yet as Tucker notes in his segment yesterday the neocons are "bureaucratic
tapeworms" that some how manage to survive failure after failure with the same regime change
prescriptions. Trump better wise up like right now or he can kiss his re-election
goodbye.
The fact that the transponder was turned off is important because it essentially confirms
that the drone was intended to "stray" into Iranian airspace from the get-go. Basically, it
would ensure that Teheran would be certain this was a military aircraft (a civilian aircraft
doesn't just turn its transponder on and off at a whim), and would make it much more
difficult for any civilian radars in the area to be able to confirm the exact position of the
drone, such that it would always be a case of arguing whose military radar telemetry was
truthful. It was intended to be at least targeted, further proven by the P8 shadowing it to
pinpoint Iranian radar/launch sites. The whole operation was almost certainly to bait the
Iranians into at least an attempted shoot down, while laying all the groundwork for a very
limited and targeted (but mainly, face saving) response from Trump.
If you look at Korea and Syria, and even Trump's prior business dealings, it is pretty
clear his "art of the deal" is to let your opponent commit themselves, then act crazy and
reckless and use every dirty trick to put the opponent in a bind, then try to make a new deal
more favorable to himself. The limited strike stuff worked in Syria because Russia encouraged
Syria to look at the long game, and that they were really turning the corner and getting the
upper hand, so "taking" a harmless strike or two would not change that, whereas goading the
US into a more serious campaign could indeed be pretty devastating for Syria at that time.
Trump obviously loved that deal, and after deeming that he'd maximized the PR from it, even
wanted to get out of Syria before anyone noticed he hadn't really changed anything or
defeated anyone. Unfortunately his financiers instructed him that he needed to stay, and he
wasn't strong enough to challenge them.
But with Iran, it's different. The status quo is unacceptable to them, and they know they
hold the world's economy by its oily balls. The US has already gone too far, and Iran sees
nothing in it for them to accept a "limited" strike to allow Trump to save face. To the
contrary, that would only serve to solidify the status quo, which Iran cannot do. The
PomBolSkal faction most likely ordered the latest tanker operation, but one charge fell off
prior to detonation, the ships didn't explode and sink, and the hurried efforts to
manufacture "evidence" that Iran did it was so amateurish it made the Skripal business look
professional. They likely ordered the drone bait operation, too, thinking they could once
again play Trump into believing he could respond with a limited "Syria style" strike and look
like a hero, all the while privately knowing and intending that massive escalation would be
inevitable and they would finally get the war against Iran they really wanted.
Trump, though, had military school upbringing, and has shown a fair amount of respect for
the military. During his campaign he surrounded himself with military figures, and his
financiers permitted it as they (rightly) assumed it would increase his chances of getting
elected, but quickly caused them to be replaced with their kindred spirits in PomBolSkal as
soon as they could so their agenda could proceed. In this case, a major war with Iran was the
goal, but in spite of Bolton and Pompeo, in particular, working hard to isolate Trump from
input by the Pentagon, I have a feeling that after the faction cajoled Trump into ordering a
strike, the Pentagon said enough is enough and got word to Trump in no uncertain terms that
the outcome was not going to be like Syria, but was going to directly and quickly result in a
massive escalation for which Trump would get the blame. I would suggest that's when Trump
ordered the strike to stand down, and why some loyal to him or the Pentagon told the news
media to put that story out there, unabridged, laying the groundwork for Trump to can his
"advisors." Pompeo has been clearly blamed for the failure of progress in Korea, Bolton was
blamed for the Venezuela fiasco, and Haskal was caught lying to trump about the Skripal
affair. Trump is an opportunist and definitely does not like being embarrassed, and may use
this as leverage to move those demons on out. One can only hope.
Pomp, Haskel or Bolton - we should see one of them fired soon. Trump would surely benefit
politically from the disposal of any one of these cretins. And it fits the theme of the Trump
television show AND Trumps natural inclination to avoid blame and to tar others with (sh)it.
If there is no shake up in the cabinet, then we will know that Trump is not "The
Decider".
Is Lindsey Graham Cracker toning down his warmongering rhetoric?
It should be noted that a somewhat higher oil price is no longer a clear negative for the US
economy and may, in fact, by positive.
In the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s - oil prices rising would decrease US economic activity because
most of the oil was imported.
Today, that is no longer true.
While higher oil prices costs consumers more, as before, today shale oil extraction means
higher oil prices also translates into higher revenues for US businesses instead of cash
being sent abroad. More jobs, more equipment orders, more shipping internally, etc.
The US had a multi-decade record low in oil imports in February - 175,000 barrels per day net
imports (October 2018 through March 2019, excepting February, averaged a bit over 1M bpd) vs.
roughly 20.5M bpd consumption.
To compare: US net imports in January 1981 averaged 6.27M bpd vs. roughly 16.5M bpd consumed
per day.
So every $1 increase in oil price translates to $7B injected into domestic US oil industry,
in turn converts some significant multiplier of US GDP to offset the potential reduction in
consumer disposable income spend in areas excluding oil/gasoline costs. Arguably shale oil
has a higher multiplier because it requires so much more exploration, drilling, transport and
technology than "conventional" very large deposit oil.
In contrast, imported oil has pretty much no multiplier - a little for banks and
international shipping, but not much.
This is what I mean when I say that the US is the least affected by a potential interruption
in Persian Gulf oil, and potentially could positively benefit.
"The easiest way out for Trump is to abolish sanctions against Iran. He at least should issue
waivers for China and others to allow them to again buy Iranian oil."
Yes, but that's not actually easy, and it's very unlikely Trump will do it. Remember how
even Obama was kept on the defensive by our warmongering MSM wailing about the violation of
his supposed "red lines?"
And Trump is much less disposed to change course when events have proved him wrong.
I'd say the likelihood of some short of shooting war/conflict is well over 50%.
Trump wants to avoid war if possible but won't eat all the words he's spoken in the last
two years. Adelson, Bolton et al probably want war, though how they want that war to unfold
is another question. Iran is trying to thread the needle. It needs enough conflict to create
more energy havoc. Some sort of shooting beyond drones will probably be required for
that.
"... That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the fog. ..."
"... The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances. ..."
"... Netanyahu has reiterated his desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on the front line. ..."
"... Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran: "According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region. ..."
"... The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists -- they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life. ..."
"... Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move. ..."
"... If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go in, let us get a good thrashing. ..."
"... It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his neocon ilk. ..."
"... Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran. ..."
"... China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that China stopped buying oil from Iran . US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran. ..."
The most important Item I've read so far this morning is
this report on the Ufa, Russia Security Conference that was attended by both Iranian and Outlaw US Empire officials. The entire
article requires reading, but this is the most relevant excerpt that has some links in the original I won't duplicate:
"Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National Security Council member and the
Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), Ali Shamkhani.
As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani's words concerning the possibility of mediation with the US and
the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:
"'We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our country, we consider using
the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United
States has unilaterally withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal sanctions against
Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its own mistakes. This process needs no mediation.'
"'This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious
decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement
and return to fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be reducing its commitments]
step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.'"
It was noted by b that the Outlaw US Empire faces a growing international coalition against its actions, which results from
sentiments made at the rather many recent international conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by
G-20 in 8 days.
That admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in the Gulf region is what
restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday
morning pleasant despite the fog.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 AM | 29 (boring that it's yet another Anon, who can't be bothered to distinguish himself
all from the other thousands of Anons)
the stage is now maximum restraint and effort at co-operation, which Iran will be expected to respect. That means one more
act against US (or false flag by US) and strikes will occur. Not comparable to hostage crisis, here US is projecting being
reasonable, even if you read that as being weak.
It's not me who reading the US as weak. It will be the attitude of the Iranians, who haven't forgotten the US failure in 1980
(April 24, 1980), as opposed to the US public for whom it is so many crises ago that they've forgotten. And the Iranians are right.
Trump hesitated, as every previous attempt to launch a strike on Iran has finished finally in a stand-down.
The risks are just too great (for what the US public is prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They
might be able to screw themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come, but it will do
no good at all for Trump's re-election chances.
Mikael Kallavuo , Jun 21, 2019 12:19:06 PM |
91jsb , Jun 21, 2019 12:20:15 PM |
92
Well it looks like Elijah Magnier has finally written the piece he was hinting at releasing yesterday.
Here it is:
Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level of tensions to new heights in the Middle
East. After the sabotage of four tankers at al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's
attack on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC – now categorized by the USA as a terrorist
body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone, sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out
war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has cornered himself;
the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral campaign.
According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be
allowed to bomb one, two or three clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as
winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty
sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan
of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased
their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary.
According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly
organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting
tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies
or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
...
Iran's economy is under attack by Trump's embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump refuses to lift the embargo and wants to
negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu
has reiterated his desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is meeting with his Arab allies to help bring
it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting
Israel on the front line.
EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd, President Donald Trump says he hadn't given final approval to Iran
strikes, no planes were in the air.
The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran
is aware that the US President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his electoral
campaign. According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump
be allowed to bomb one or two clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out as winners
and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy
beach in Iran would trigger a missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every
step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level
of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According
to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised,
orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months.
...
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the Middle East completely, not by targeting
tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies
or enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the rest of the world.
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or another American surveillance aircraft,
this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official.
..
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone when it was shot down -- hours
after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that
doubt, officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense official said, put the administration
in an isolated position at what could easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this
one with a proven ability to strike back.
Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran: "According to him, Washington was doing
everything possible to defuse tensions with Iran and return the containment system in the region.
However, Hook blamed Tehran for rising tension in the region because of the refusal of any diplomatic initiatives.
"Our diplomacy does not give Iran the right to respond with military force. Iran needs to meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not
military force," the envoy added."
Diplomacy needs to be met with diplomacy......Really???
Iran should impose sanctions on all of SA, UAE and US oil exports. How's that for diplomacy Mr. Hook? In case you missed it
that is exactly what they are doing. Meeting your brand of diplomacy head on.
We are living in the realm of absurd. How is it that we have left the welfare of our kids, families and the future of our country
in the hands of these incompetent morons?
And why is the rest of the world sitting with their popcorn watching this horror show?
After reading the wiki item on P-8s having a normal crew of 7, I got to thinking about the 35 number either being a botched
translation or how many bodies were noted via thermal imaging radar, something I doubt Iran was thought to possess. As I wrote,
Iran can see everything to its West, which is a very BigDeal.
I digested Magnier's latest. The following is an extremely important point:
"Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel on
the front line ."
Except that is an impossibility. The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front line with a massive crosshairs imprinted
on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate
betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists -- they are to be Genocided in the pursuit of attempting
to make a myth come to life.
Every writer, Magnier, b, Escobar, and most all barflies, etc, are saying the decision lies with Trump. As I've written before
and again above, I disagree. The decision to go to war with Iran rests with the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire.
And it's my belief that such a war will not bring them A Few Dollars More and instead make their Fistful of Dollars evaporate
rapidly. thanks to their great outstanding, naked, risks. For perhaps the very first time, the Current Oligarchy is exposed
to the risks involved in a war it initially though it could win. Last night, it seemed to awaken to the potential consequences
and blinked. The Philadelphia refinery blast may be shear coincidence or not, but it also has likely helped since its right down
the street from the Current Oligarchies penthouses.
Now, it's just about the time of day when the Houthis launch their attacks.
Blooming Barricade , Jun 21, 2019 4:14:14 PM |
155
Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line: only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud
USA types would approve such a disastrous move.
If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the
Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we
all go in, let us get a good thrashing.
_____
George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to start "World War III" with an attack on Iran
they will live to regret it because, unlike Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.
The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when he testified in front of the senate in
2005, has given his take on the recent ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it
says, had entered its airspace.
Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday
President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off
the strikes.
Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the United States and its allies in the region."
In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway insisted that any country that allows "its
land to be used for the launching for an American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."
The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: "No more war. No more war in the Gulf. No
war on Iran."
It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American
oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his
neocon ilk.
I don't think my opinion has changed. There've been several cases where they've been about to attack Iran, but then have drawn
back. Spring 2018 (Israel), 2012, even the event of 1980, where they tried but failed. Trump's aborted attack is just another
case.
Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon the regime. They aren't as far as I
can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran, hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during
my visit to Iran a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I think we can expect a nationalist
resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran.
China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that
China stopped buying
oil from Iran . US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from trading with Iran.
I was shocked-- but not surprised-- to see visibly-pained CBS Pentagon flack David Martin on
the boob tube this morning quoting an unnamed source that speculated that the reason Trump
cancelled the bombing of Iran was that he got "cold-feet."
Thank you, Vasili Arkhipov, for getting cold-feet, too! Madness, our nation is afflicted
with madness.
"... Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines ..."
"... It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western 1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why? ..."
...Russia on Friday announced it was ready to help Iran export its crude and ease
restrictions on its banking system if Europe fails to launch its dollar-evading SPV, Instex
(Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) with Tehran, according to Interfax and PressTV .
The
three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unveiled late in January the direct non-dollar payment
mechanism meant to safeguard their trade ties with Tehran following the US withdrawal from the
nuclear deal and in the face of the "toughest ever" sanctions imposed by the United States
against the Islamic Republic. In its initial stage, INSTEX would facilitate trade of
humanitarian goods such as medicine, food and medical devices, but it will later be expanded to
cover other areas of trade, including Iran's oil sales.
However, it has not resulted in any trade deals so far. In late May, the US threatened
Europe with "
loss of access to the US financial system " if it rolled out the SWIFT-evading SPV, which
appears to have crushed Europe's enthusiasm to pursue alternative financial transactions with
Tehran, forcing it to conceded to Washington (again).
Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Moussavi said European
governments have failed to meet their expectations in implementing INSTEX to protect the JCPOA,
criticizing their "lack of will" to deal with America's pressure against Tehran.
What this means is, China will have access to a lot cheaper oil than western market prices, including to the
hilt subsidized, with colossal hidden losses, US shale oil. Well done Trump. The Tariffs, Americuhns are the ones paying for those as well. Imbeciles.
We are seeing a return to "Gun Boat Diplomacy"... Even THAT will not work.. ultimately. Brinkmanship, of this order reveals a Disturbed mind.. the US criminal elite psyche.. Or as Jidu KrishnaMurti said so aptly..The constant assertion of belief is an indication
of fear.
The USA continues to publicize its belief.. that it is the viral of democracy.. And leader
of the Free World. Hollow words.. which it will be forced to eat.. before too long. That time of
confrontation.. is Not Far OFF !! This desperation is that of a deranged mind.. that is going down the tube.. breaking
down.. A society in free fall..
This is exactly how it will always work out when psychopaths are in charge because normal
society doesnt manage them.They come from all backgrounds but some genetic varieties of people seem to have YUGE
problems with it. I also believe inbreeding has a role.
Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines
It's not the actual physical oil Russia is helping Iran with, numbnuts -- it is brokering
and facilitating the sale of oil without having the Jewish shysters in London and NY involved
- the same reason the Chinese set up their own oil bourse.
Costa. People don't understand the system. The Brits bad mouthed Russia over the Novichok
false flag incident last winter and jumped on the sanction crap. But they gladly accepted a
load of LNG from a Rotterdam energy broker to keep their asses from freezing. It was Yamal
LNG from RUSSIA. Brokers take the energy (including world-wide trades) and sell it off taking
a small bit from each "barrel"as their profit.
I'm sure the Iranians already know this. The EU is just an extension of US power. They
were never serious about allowing the free flow of trade with the Iranians. One must get rid
of the EU if a real Peace plan with Iran is to take place. But this will never happen under
Trump.
European politicians are cucks bribed to the teeth by the evil empire to toe the Zionist
line. Europe is all but an emasculated world power. Pathetic. Kick US forces out and take a
******* stand against all this ******** America is stirring on Europe's doorstep. Refugees,
terrorism, bad relations with Russia....all thanks to the Anglo Zionists. Europeans keep
taking it. The Marshall Plan guilt-trip is working well.
True but the Zionist banker noghtmare spread to the US from the British empire, so Europe
has been perpetually screwed, thus all the world wars that took place there, etc.
Europe is not a power, it is an artificial construction with no real leadership.No military to back its decisions and a bunch of feminists and homos that make up its
culturally diverse parliaments. European women act like men and the men act like women. There is no fight left in Europe..
China and Russia need to preserve Iran for the BRI which is the lifeline for everyone who
has had a belllyfull of JewSA ********. China and Russia will facilitate Iranian trade and
Iranian nuclear ICBM peacemakers will soon follow.
Trump is loosing, he scares Europeans and Turks but don't let be fooled, Americans are
not allowed near Iranian border of Turkey, why do you think is that restriction?
It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial
shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western
1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why?
Because the kinetic advantage is no longer with them, it's now in the East. Nevertheless, their innocent youth can still be salvaged, provided they desire salvage. No
more impunity without retribution, cheers...
So India stop importing Iranian oil in order to buy the same oil from Russia for much more
since thy where buying that same oil from Iran at great discount. India looks to Russian crude as Iranian imports crash
"... Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff. ..."
"... Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies. This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real. ..."
"... Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately. There have been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best. ..."
"... As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article, Iran's threats against global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se. There's plenty of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S. military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to oil traffic. ..."
"... It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole of Europe. ..."
"... Last week I asked whether Trump's "B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman , staging a potential false flag over some oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it. ..."
Iran has had enough.
I think it's fair to say that after
60+ years of U.S. aggression towards Iran that the decision to shoot down a U.S. drone represents
an inflection point in world politics.
In the first few hours after the incident the fog of war was thick. But a day later much of it
has cleared thanks to Iran's purposeful poke at U.S. leadership by coming clean with their
intentions.
Iran chose to shoot
down this drone
versus hitting the manned P-8 aircraft and then chose not to lie about it in
public, but rather come forward removing any deniability they could have had.
They did this after President Trump's comments yesterday during a news conference with Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau where Trump described the attack as "a big mistake" and "not
intentional."
But it was intentional.
And the reason for this was that despite Trump's assurances yesterday there is considerable
debate as to where the drone actually was.
According
to a report from the NY Times
(and buried deep in a very long article):
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or
another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate
Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official. The official said
the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike -- which could under
international norms be viewed as an act of war.
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone
when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight
path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt, officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense
official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could easily end up being
the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this one with a proven ability to
strike back.
This means a couple of things. First,
it is likely that Trump was not properly briefed
on the issue by his National Security Council, who were pushing him to strike back hard and who are
itching to get the U.S. into an armed conflict with Iran.
Framing the attack as a mistake Trump was handing Iran the opportunity to de-escalate things. To
me, this signaled that Trump was told through back channels this was an operation designed by us to
put Iran in a no-win situation -- either allow encroachment of their airspace or shoot down a drone
that would land in international waters.
Moreover,
doubts as to the drone's position, remember, with a plane carrying actual
ordnance on its wing, put Trump in a real bind.
And he knew it at the presser. That's the way Trump tried to frame this the way he did. Because
the implications here are that he is being boxed in on all sides by his administration and his
allies -- the Saudis, Israelis and the UAE -- and frogmarched to a war he doesn't want.
He wants Iran to heel but he doesn't know how to go about it.
That Iran then chose the next day to openly declare that they were not confused or misled and
knew exactly what they were doing puts Trump in an even worse position.
Because an unmanned drone, as he said in his futile tweetstorm, is not worth going to war over,
especially one whose position in in dispute.
And everyone knows it. Europe wouldn't condemn Iran here. No one did. Only the U.S. And that
silence is deafening as Pompeo, Bolton and Haspel again over-extend themselves.
Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the
magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff.
Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies.
This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real.
Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately.
There have
been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn
out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best.
It also tells you just how quickly the global economy is slowing down if a major military
incident between Iran and the U.S. near the Strait of Hormuz only pushed the price of Brent Crude
up to fill the gap on the weekly chart and confirm the recent low.
... ... ...
As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article,
Iran's threats against
global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se.
There's plenty
of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S.
military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to
oil traffic.
It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of
trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality
Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole
of Europe.
No one wants to see $300 per barrel oil. That Goldman Sachs is posting potential targets of
$1000 per barrel tells you where they are positioning themselves, as if they know something?
Goldman? Have insider knowledge?
Please! It is to laugh.
What we are looking at here is the ultimate game of brinkmanship.
Trump
is saying his maximum pressure campaign will break Iran in the end and if they go one step further
(which they won't directly) he will eliminate them.
Iran, on the other hand, is stating categorically that if Trump doesn't allow Iran to trade than
no one will. And that threat is a real one, given their regional influence. Incalculable financial
and political damage can be done by Iran and its proxies around the region through attacks on oil
and gas infrastructure.
Governments will fall, markets will collapse. And no one gets out without scars.
It's the kind of stand-off that needs to end with everyone walking away and regrouping but is
unlikely to do so because of entrenched interests on both sides and the historical grudges of the
men involved.
What's important is to know that the rules of the game have changed. Iran has taken all the
punches to the nose it will take from Trump without retaliating. When you corner someone and give
them no way out you invite the worst kind of counter-attack.
Last week I asked whether
Trump's
"B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman
, staging a potential false flag over some
oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to
think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the
motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace
to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it.
I give Trump a lot of credit here for not falling into the trap set for him.
He now has to begin removing those responsible for this quagmire and I'm sure that will be on
the docket when he meets with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping next week at the G-20.
It starts with John Bolton and it ends with Mike Pompeo.
And if he doesn't replace them in the next six to eight weeks then we know Trump
isn't serious about keeping us out of war.
He's just interested in doing so until
he gets re-elected
US threats and the drone shoot down did effect oil shipments from the gulf:
"Insurance rates also soared after those incidents, with companies charging at least
$180,000 in premiums to go to the Persian Gulf. They were about $30,000 early this year
before tensions began to escalate."
As a result:
"Oil tanker owners are raising the prices they charge to export Middle East crude as tensions
surge in a region that accounts for about a third of all seaborne petroleum shipments."
Rates for transporting 2 million-barrel cargoes from Saudi Arabia to China jumped to
almost $26,000 a day on Thursday, more than double where they were at the start of June,
according to Baltic Exchange in London."
Meanwhile, the punishing sanctions on Iran has been crafted and applied by an Israeli
immigrant to the United States named Sigal Mandelker who is the Israeli-American dual
national who runs the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) at the Dept. of
the Treasury.
$150,000 in increased insurance costs on a 2 million bpd tanker = very tiny increase in oil
cost. It isn't nothing, but the primary issue is availability...
Together, five of China's leading crude petroleum suppliers (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola,
Iraq plus Oman) represent over half (55.2%) of overall Chinese crude oil imports for
2018.
China's top 10 crude petroleum providers supply almost four-fifths (79%) of its imported
crude oil.
Fastest-Growing Suppliers of China's Imported Crude Oil
The value of Chinese purchases of crude oil from its 15 top suppliers amounted to a subtotal
$216.7 billion in 2018, up by an average 50.7% from the $143.8 billion worth of imported
crude from those same 15 providers during 2017.
Libya: Up 248.1% since 2017
United States: Up 112.8%
Malaysia: Up 79.9%
Congo: Up 76.7%
Brazil: Up 76.6%
Kuwait: Up 67.8%
Iraq: Up 62.3%
United Arab Emirates: Up 60.8%
Russia: Up 58.6%
Colombia: Up 50.6%
Saudi Arabia: Up 44.6%
Oman: Up 40%
Iran: Up 25.8%
Angola: Up 23.6%
Venezuela: Up 6.2%
[Jun 22, 2019] this report on the Ufa, Russia Security Conference by both Iranian and Outlaw US Empire officials. The entire article requires reading, but this is the most relevant excerpt that has some links in the original I won't duplicate:
"Given current global events, the most significant attendees in Ufa are a senior US National
Security Council member and the Secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (SNSC),
Ali Shamkhani. As of now, the only official news comes from Ali Shamkhani's words concerning
the possibility of mediation with the US and the possibility of Iran acquiring weapons systems
to fend off US threats. Shamkhani stated:
"'We currently face demonstrative threats. Nevertheless, when it comes to air defense of our
country, we consider using the foreign potential in addition to our domestic capacities
Mediation is out of question in the current situation. The United States has unilaterally
withdrawn from the JCPOA, it has flouted its obligations and it has introduced illegal
sanctions against Iran. The United States should return to the starting point and correct its
own mistakes. This process needs no mediation.'
"'This [gradually boosting of uranium enrichment and heavy water production beyond the
levels outlined in the JCPOA] is a serious decision of the Islamic Republic [of Iran] and we
will continue doing it step by step until JCPOA violators move toward agreement and return to
fulfilling their obligations. [If JCPOA participants do not comply with the deal, Iran will be
reducing its commitments] step by step within legal mechanisms that the JCPOA envisions.'"
It was noted by b that the Outlaw US Empire faces a growing international coalition against
its actions, which results from sentiments made at the rather many recent international
conferences that have already occurred in June that will be topped by G-20 in 8 days. That
admission along with the stark mostly unreported economic realities of any armed conflict in
the Gulf region is what restrains the war mongers. The Money Power and the Current Oligarchy
won't allow war is what I see. And that makes this Friday morning pleasant despite the
fog.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2019 8:04:55 AM | 29 (boring that it's yet another Anon, who
can't be bothered to distinguish himself all from the other thousands of Anons)
the stage is now maximum restraint and effort at co-operation, which Iran will be
expected to respect. That means one more act against US (or false flag by US) and
strikes will occur. Not comparable to hostage crisis, here US is projecting being
reasonable, even if you read that as being weak.
It's not me who reading the US as weak. It will be the attitude of the
Iranians, who haven't forgotten the US failure in 1980 (April 24, 1980), as opposed to
the US public for whom it is so many crises ago that they've forgotten. And the Iranians
are right. Trump hesitated, as every previous attempt to launch a strike on Iran has
finished finally in a stand-down. The risks are just too great (for what the US public is
prepared to accept). And we've just seen it happen again. They might be able to screw
themselves up to go through with it, and accept the losses and stalemate that will come,
but it will do no good at all for Trump's re-election chances.
Posted by: Mikael Kallavuo | Jun 21, 2019 12:19:06 PM |
91 Well it looks like Elijah Magnier has finally written the piece he was hinting at
releasing yesterday. Here it
is:
Iran is pushing US President Donald Trump to the edge of the abyss, raising the level
of tensions to new heights in the Middle East. After the sabotage of four tankers at
al-Fujairah and the attack on the Aramco pipeline a month ago, and last week's attack
on two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC –
now categorized by the USA as a terrorist body) yesterday shot down a US Navy drone,
sending two clear messages. The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war,
no matter what the consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US
President has cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump
launched his electoral campaign.
According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US intelligence
– made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one, two or three
clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to come out
as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer and sent
its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a missile
launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Moreover, Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies
in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in
confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have
increased their level of readiness and alert to the highest level; they will
participate in the war from the moment it begins if necessary. According to sources,
Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of
objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response,
anticipating a war that may last many months.
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the
Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in
every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or
enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the
rest of the world.
...
Iran's economy is under attack by Trump's embargo on Iranian oil exports. Trump
refuses to lift the embargo and wants to negotiate first. Trump, unlike Israel and the
hawks in his administration, is trying to avoid a shooting war. Netanyahu has
reiteratedhis desire for war with Iran -- a war that the US will fight–and is
meeting with his Arab allies to help bring it about. As Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's
Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump to go to war without putting Israel
on the front line.
EXCLUSIVE: In an exclusive interview with Chuck Todd, President Donald Trump says he
hadn't given final approval to Iran strikes, no planes were in the air.
The first message is that Iran is ready for an all-out war, no matter what the
consequences. The second message is that Iran is aware that the US President has
cornered himself; the embarrassing attack came a week after Trump launched his
electoral campaign. According to well-informed sources, Iran rejected a proposal by US
intelligence – made via a third party – that Trump be allowed to bomb one
or two clear objectives, to be chosen by Iran, so that both countries could appear to
come out as winners and Trump could save face. Iran categorically rejected the offer
and sent its reply: even an attack against an empty sandy beach in Iran would trigger a
missile launch against US objectives in the Gulf.
...
Iran has established a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US
in case of all-out war in the Middle East. Iran's allies have increased their level of
readiness and alert to the highest level; they will participate in the war from the
moment it begins if necessary. According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to
open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised,
orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last
many months.
...
Sources confirmed that, in case of war, Iran aims to stop the flow of oil from the
Middle East completely, not by targeting tankers but by hitting the sources of oil in
every single Middle Eastern country, whether these countries are considered allies or
enemies. The objective will be to cease all oil exports from the Middle East to the
rest of the world.
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone,
or another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did
violate Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration
official.
..
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the
drone when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of
the drone's flight path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt,
officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit,
a defense official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could
easily end up being the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this
one with a proven ability to strike back.
Posted by: b | Jun 21,
2019 1:23:18 PM |
107 b, how can you believe any of Trump's versions? I can't see that one is more
trustworthy than another
Listen to this horse manure coming from Brain Hook, "special" representative for Iran:
"According to him, Washington was doing everything possible to defuse tensions with
Iran and return the containment system in the region.
However, Hook blamed Tehran for rising tension in the region because of the refusal of
any diplomatic initiatives.
"Our diplomacy does not give Iran the right to respond with military force. Iran needs
to meet diplomacy with diplomacy, not military force," the envoy added."
Diplomacy needs to be met with diplomacy......Really???
Iran should impose sanctions on all of SA, UAE and US oil exports. How's that for
diplomacy Mr. Hook? In case you missed it that is exactly what they are doing. Meeting
your brand of diplomacy head on.
We are living in the realm of absurd. How is it that we have left the welfare of our
kids, families and the future of our country in the hands of these incompetent
morons?
And why is the rest of the world sitting with their popcorn watching this horror
show?
Posted by: Uncle Jon | Jun 21, 2019 2:53:41 PM |
131 h @124--
After reading the wiki item on P-8s having a normal crew of 7, I got to thinking about
the 35 number either being a botched translation or how many bodies were noted via
thermal imaging radar, something I doubt Iran was thought to possess. As I wrote, Iran
can see everything to its West, which is a very BigDeal.
I digested Magnier's latest. The following is an extremely important point:
"Ha'aretz described Netanyahu's Iran dilemma last month, the goal is to get Trump
to go to war without putting Israel on the front line ."
Except that is an impossibility. The Zionists are smack dab in the middle of the front
line with a massive crosshairs imprinted on their entirety. Occupied Palestine sits at
Ground Zero, and it seems that the Zionists are finally waking up to the ultimate
betrayal they'll experience at the hands of The Christian Rapturists--they are to be
Genocided in the pursuit of attempting to make a myth come to life.
Every writer, Magnier, b, Escobar, and most all barflies, etc, are saying the decision
lies with Trump. As I've written before and again above, I disagree. The decision to go
to war with Iran rests with the Current Oligarchy running the Outlaw US Empire. And it's
my belief that such a war will not bring them A Few Dollars More and instead make their
Fistful of Dollars evaporate rapidly. thanks to their great outstanding, naked, risks.
For perhaps the very first time, the Current Oligarchy is exposed to the risks
involved in a war it initially though it could win. Last night, it seemed to awaken
to the potential consequences and blinked. The Philadelphia refinery blast may be shear
coincidence or not, but it also has likely helped since its right down the street from
the Current Oligarchies penthouses.
Now, it's just about the time of day when the Houthis launch their attacks.
Watch the brilliant George Galloway on the consequences of war with Iran. Bottom line:
only hardline Likudniks and FDD Likud USA types would approve such a disastrous move.
If America attacks and destroys Iran after doing the same to Iraq, Palestine, Libya,
Syria, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, the Islamic religion should semi-officially adopt
anti-Americanism until the Empire falls, and it would be totally deserved. If we all go
in, let us get a good thrashing.
_____
George Galloway has warned the US and its allies in the Gulf that if they were to
start "World War III" with an attack on Iran they will live to regret it because, unlike
Iraq in 2003, they are capable of fighting back.
The Scottish firebrand, who famously took US lawmakers to task over the Iraq war when
he testified in front of the senate in 2005, has given his take on the recent
ratcheting-up of tension in the Gulf region after Iran shot down a US drone, which, it
says, had entered its airspace.
Washington maintains its UAV was shot down while patrolling over international waters
in an "unprovoked attack." On Friday President Donald Trump took to Twitter to claim the
US were 10 minutes away from bombing three Iranian sites, before calling off the
strikes.
Galloway believes that many Iranians would see it as a great "pleasure to fight the
United States and its allies in the region."
In a stark warning to US allies such as Qatar, the UAE and Saudia Arabia, Galloway
insisted that any country that allows "its land to be used for the launching for an
American attack on Iran will itself be immediately in flames."
The former Labour MP concludes his passionate message to the world by declaring: "No
more war. No more war in the Gulf. No war on Iran."
It is true that Trump needs to fire acting President Bolton. Bolton who was appointed to
the NSA by Sheldon Adelson, the Israeli/American oligarch, will not allow Trump to fire
Bolton; otherwise, he loses millions of $$$$. The pressure is also from Adelson and his
neocon ilk.
I don't think my opinion has changed. There've been several cases where they've been
about to attack Iran, but then have drawn back. Spring 2018 (Israel), 2012, even the
event of 1980, where they tried but failed. Trump's aborted attack is just another case.
Iran is a big country, and won't be defeated unless the people are ready to abandon
the regime. They aren't as far as I can detect. The exiles, and the middle class in Iran,
hate the regime. I've just had a lot of that poured into my ears, during my visit to Iran
a month ago. The popular feeling though doesn't seem to have abandoned the regime. I
think we can expect a nationalist resistance, if indeed Trump does attack Iran.
@Oscar Peterson #151
China has been complying with US sanctions on Iran, for example this article notes that
China
stopped buying oil from Iran .
US direct trade with Iran isn't so much as issue as the US stopping Europe and China from
trading with Iran.
The current conflict is about the US hegemony in the region, not anything else.
The analysis is really good. I especially like "The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to
foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender"
That means that Doug Bandow
proposals while good are completely unrealistic.
Notable quotes:
"... Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle East. ..."
"... Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are? ..."
"... Washington did much to encourage a violent, extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn. ..."
"... The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran, triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace. ..."
"... Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well. Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran. ..."
"... Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism. ..."
"... Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington, ascendant in Tehran. ..."
"... Europeans also point to Bush administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War. Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response. ..."
"... Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the mother of all Mideast conflagrations. ..."
"... In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions, requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires a freer society. ..."
Sixteen years ago, the George W. Bush administration manipulated intelligence to scare the public into backing an aggressive war
against Iraq. The smoking gun mushroom clouds that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice warned against didn’t exist, but the
invasion long desired by neoconservatives and other hawks proceeded. Liberated Iraqis rejected U.S. plans to create an American puppet
state on the Euphrates and the aftermath turned into a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe which continues to roil the Middle
East.
Thousands of dead Americans, tens of thousands of wounded and maimed U.S. personnel, hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, and
millions of Iraqis displaced. There was the sectarian conflict, destruction of the historic Christian community, the creation of
Al Qaeda in Iraq—which morphed into the far deadlier Islamic State—and the enhanced influence of Iran. The prime question was how
could so many supposedly smart people be so stupid?
Now the Trump administration appears to be following the same well-worn path. The president has fixated on Iran, tearing up the
nuclear accord with Tehran and declaring economic war on it—as well as anyone dealing with Iran. He is pushing America toward war
even as he insists that he wants peace. How stupid does he believe we are?
The Iranian regime is malign. Nevertheless, despite being under almost constant siege it has survived longer than the U.S.-crafted
dictatorship which preceded the Islamic Republic. And the latter did not arise in a vacuum. Washington did much to encourage a violent,
extremist revolution in Tehran. The average Iranian could be forgiven for viewing America as a virulently hostile power determined
to do his or her nation ill at almost every turn.
In 1953 the United States backed a coup against democratically selected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh. Washington then aided
the Shah in consolidating power, including the creation of the secret police, known as SAVAK. He forcibly modernized Iran’s still
conservative Islamic society, while his corrupt and repressive rule united secular and religious Iranians against him.
The Shah was ousted in 1979. Following his departure the Reagan administration backed Iraq’s Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran,
triggering an eight-year war which killed at least half a million people. Washington reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect revenue
subsequently lent to Baghdad, provided Iraq with intelligence for military operations, and supplied components for chemical weapons
employed against Iranian forces. In 1988 the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in international airspace.
Economic sanctions were first imposed on Iran in 1979 and regularly expanded thereafter. Washington forged a close military partnership
with Iran’s even more repressive rival, Saudi Arabia. In the immediate aftermath of its 2003 victory over Saddam Hussein, the Bush
administration rejected Iran’s offer to negotiate; neoconservatives casually suggested that “real men” would conquer Tehran as well.
Even the Obama administration threatened to take military action against Iran.
As Henry Kissinger reportedly once said, even a paranoid can have enemies. Contrary to the common assumption in Washington that
average Iranians would love the United States for attempting to destroy their nation’s economy, the latest round of sanctions apparently
triggered a notable rise in anti-American sentiment. Nationalism trumped anti-clericalism.
The hostile relationship with Iran also has allowed Saudi Arabia, which routinely undercuts American interests and values, to
gain a dangerous stranglehold over U.S. policy. To his credit President Barack Obama attempted to rebalance Washington’s Mideast
policy. The result was the multilateral Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It provided for an intrusive inspection regime designed
to discourage any future Iranian nuclear weapons program—which U.S. intelligence indicated had been inactive since 2003.
However, candidate Donald Trump had an intense and perverse desire to overturn every Obama policy. His tight embrace of Israeli
prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who ignored the advice of his security chiefs in denouncing the accord, and the Saudi royals,
who Robert Gates once warned would fight Iran to the last American, also likely played an important role.
Last year the president withdrew from the accord and followed with a declaration of economic war. He then declared the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard Corps, a military organization, to be a terrorist group. (Washington routinely uses the “terrorist” designation
for purely political purposes.) Finally, there are reports, officially denied by Washington, that U.S. forces, allied with Islamist
radicals—the kind of extremists responsible for most terrorist attacks on Americans—have been waging a covert war against Iranian
smuggling operations.
The president claimed that he wanted to negotiate: “We aren’t looking for regime change,” he said. “We are looking for no nuclear
weapons.” But that is what the JCPOA addressed. His policy is actually pushing Tehran to expand its nuclear program. Moreover, last
year Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a speech that the Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian, who spent more than a year in
Iranian prison, called “silly” and “completely divorced from reality.”
In a talk to an obsequious Heritage Foundation audience, Pompeo set forth the terms of Tehran’s surrender: Iran would be expected
to abandon any pretense of maintaining an independent foreign policy and yield its deterrent missile capabilities, leaving it subservient
to Saudi Arabia, with the latter’s U.S.-supplied and -trained military. Tehran could not even cooperate with other governments, such
as Syria, at their request. The only thing missing from Pompeo’s remarks was insistence that Iran accept an American governor-general
in residence.
The proposal was a nonstarter and looked like the infamous 1914 Austro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia, which was intended to be
rejected and thereby justify war. After all, National Security Advisor John Bolton expressed his policy preference in a 2015 New
York Times op-ed titled: “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.” Whatever the president’s true intentions, Tehran can be forgiven for
seeing Washington’s position as one of regime change, by war if necessary.
The administration apparently assumed that new, back-breaking sanctions would either force the regime to surrender at the conference
table or collapse amid political and social conflict. Indeed, when asked if he really believed sanctions would change Tehran’s behavior,
Pompeo answered that “what can change is, the people can change the government.” Both Reuel Marc Gerecht of the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies and Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations have recently argued that the Islamic Republic is an exhausted
regime, one that is perhaps on its way to extinction.
However, Rezaian says “there is nothing new” about Tehran’s difficult Iranian economic problems. “Assuming that this time around
the Iranian people can compel their government to bend to America’s will seems—at least to anyone who has spent significant time
in Iran in recent decades—fantastical,” he said. Gerecht enthusiasm for U.S. warmaking has led to mistakes in the past. He got Iraq
wrong seventeen years ago when he wrote that “a war with Iraq might not shake up the Middle East much at all.
Today the administration is using a similar strategy against Russia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela. The citizens of these countries
have not risen against their oppressors to establish a new, democratic, pro-American regime. Numerous observers wrongly predicted
that the Castro regime would die after the end of Soviet subsidies and North Korea’s inevitable fall in the midst of a devastating
famine. Moreover, regime collapse isn’t likely to yield a liberal, democratic republic when the most radical, authoritarian elites
remain best-armed.
... ... ...
More important, Washington does not want to go to war with Iran, which is larger than Iraq, has three times the population, and
is a real country. The regime, while unpopular with many Iranians, is much better rooted than Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship. Tehran
possesses unconventional weapons, missiles, and allies which could spread chaos throughout the region. American forces in Syria and
Iraq would be vulnerable, while Baghdad’s stability could be put at risk. If Americans liked the Iraq debacle, then they would love
the chaos likely to result from attempting to violently destroy the Iranian state. David Frum, one of the most avid neoconservative
advocates of the Iraq invasion, warned that war with Iran would repeat Iraqi blunders on “a much bigger sale, without allies, without
justification, and without any plan at all for what comes next.”
Iran also has no desire for war, which it would lose. However, Washington’s aggressive economic and military policies create pressure
on Tehran to respond. Especially since administration policy—sanctions designed to crash the economy, military moves preparing for
war — almost certainly have left hardliners, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, who opposed negotiations with Washington,
ascendant in Tehran.
Carefully calibrated military action, such as tanker attacks, might be intended to show “resolve” to gain credibility. Washington
policymakers constantly justify military action as necessary to demonstrate that they are willing to take military action. Doing
so is even more important for a weaker power. Moreover, observed the Eurasia Group, Iranian security agencies “have a decades-long
history of conducting attacks and other operations aimed precisely at undermining the diplomatic objectives of a country’s elected
representatives.” If Iran is responsible, observed Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group, then administration policy perversely
“is rendering Iran more aggressive, not less,” thereby making the Mideast more, not less dangerous
Of course, Tehran has denied any role in the attacks and there is good reason to question unsupported Trump administration claims
of Iranian guilt. The president’s indifferent relationship to the truth alone raises serious questions. Europeans also point to Bush
administration lies about Iraq and the fabricated 1964 Tonkin Gulf incident used to justify America’s entry into the Vietnam War.
Even more important, the administration ostentatiously fomented the current crisis by trashing the JCPOA, launching economic war
against Iran, threatening Tehran’s economic partners, and insisting on Iran’s submission. A cynic might reasonably conclude that
the president and his aides hoped to trigger a violent Iranian response.
Other malicious actors also could be responsible for tanker attacks. Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Israel, ISIS, and Al
Qaeda all likely believe they would benefit from an American war on Tehran and might decide to speed the process along by fomenting
an incident. Indeed, a newspaper owned by the Saudi royal family recently called for U.S. strikes on Iran. One or the reasons Al
Qaeda launched the 9/11 attacks was to trigger an American military response against a Muslim nation. A U.S.-Iran war would be the
mother of all Mideast conflagrations.
Rather than continue a military spiral upward, Washington should defuse Gulf tensions. The administration brought the Middle East
to a boil. It can calm the waters. Washington should stand down its military, offering to host multilateral discussions with oil
consuming nations, energy companies, and tanker operators over establishing shared naval security in sensitive waterways, including
in the Middle East. Given America’s growing domestic energy production, the issue no longer should be considered Washington’s responsibility.
Other wealthy industrialized states should do what is necessary for their economic security.
The administration also should make a serious proposal for talks. It won’t be easy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
declared “negotiation has no benefit and carries harm.” He further argued that “negotiations are a tactic of this pressure,” which
is the ultimate “strategic aim.” Even President Hassan Rouhani rejected contact without a change in U.S. policy. “Whenever they lift
the unjust sanctions and fulfill their commitments and return to the negotiations table, which they left themselves, the door is
not closed,” he said. In back channel discussions Iranians supposedly suggested that the U.S. reverse the latest sanctions, at least
on oil sales, ending attempts to wreck Iran’s economy.
If the president seriously desires talks with Tehran, then he should demonstrate that he does not expect preemptive surrender.
The administration should suspend its “maximum pressure” campaign and propose multilateral talks on tightening the nuclear agreement
in return for additional American and allied concessions, such as further sanctions relief.
In parallel, Washington should propose negotiations to lower tensions in other issues. But there truly should be no preconditions,
requiring the president to consign the Pompeo list to a White House fireplace. In return for Iranian willingness to drop confrontational
behavior in the region, the U.S. should offer to reciprocate—for instance, indicate a willingness to cut arms sales to the Saudis
and Emiratis, end support for the Yemen war, and withdraw American forces from Syria and Iraq. Tehran has far greater interest in
neighborhood security than the United States, which Washington must respect if the latter seeks to effectively disarm Iran. The administration
should invite the Europeans to join such an initiative, since they have an even greater reason to worry about Iranian missiles and
more.
Most important, American policymakers should play the long-game. Rather than try to crash the Islamic Republic and hope for the
best, Washington should encourage Iran to open up, creating more opportunity and influence for a younger generation that desires
a freer society. That requires greater engagement, not isolation. Washington’s ultimate objective should be the liberal transformation
of Iran, freeing an ancient civilization to regain its leading role in today’s world, which would have a huge impact on the region.
The Trump administration is essentially a one-trick pony when it comes to foreign policy toward hostile states. The standard quo
is to apply massive economic pressure and demand surrender. This approach has failed in every case. Washington has caused enormous
economic hardship, but no target regime has capitulated. In Iran, like North Korea, U.S. policy sharply raised tensions and the chances
of conflict.
War would be a disaster. Instead, the administration must, explained James Fallows, “through bluff and patience, change the actions
of a government whose motives he does not understand well, and over which his influence is limited.” Which requires the administration
to adopt a new, more serious strategy toward Tehran, and quickly.
"... Does anyone think the Chinese and Russians are going to just watch and let US take down one of their clients without resistance? I bet they snuck in some 'surprises' for the Evil Empire. ..."
"These attacks were often carried out by the U.S. Air Force after the Iranian-backed
paramilitaries and their allies from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) approached the rebel groups
near Tanf."
Should read: These attacks were often carried out by the I.S.I.S Air Force after the Iranian-backed
paramilitaries and their allies from the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) approached the Islamic State
strongholds and Al Qaeda positions near Tanf.
The U.S. Military is sort of like Mike Tyson. Devastating offensive capabilities rooted in
dazzling air power, but ultimately limited by a glass jaw. Just like Tyson, they will
eventually run into someone, who actually has the intestinal fortitude and courage to get off
the mat after the first punch. I don't think they would know how to react if they got
counterhit. Maybe they would even fold? That's how deep the supremacy psychosis runs in the
U.S. command structure. They don't know what it is be hungry and desperate in a war setting,
since they've been reading their press clippings for the last several decades.
I bet the Israelis and everyone else recorded all the Iranian Air Defense radar signatures
and fingerprints they could find. The Iranians lost the advantage of surprise the moment they
turned on their radars in reaction to Trump's head fake.
Does anyone think the Chinese and Russians are going to just watch and let US take down
one of their clients without resistance? I bet they snuck in some 'surprises' for the Evil
Empire.
The US military is so cocky, resting on their laurels from 85 years ago. They are too
concerned with providing gender reassignment surgery as opposed to shoring up their
weaknesses. Fred Reed actually wrote a great article a few months ago outlining the rapid
decay of the US Military (see key excerpt below):
The Army recruits from a soft millennial population. America is no longer a country of
tough rural kids. Social engineering has rotted the ranks. The military has suffered years of
feminization, SJW appeasement, affirmative action,
lowered physical standards ,
and LGBTQ insertion. Conscription is politically impossible. The Army cannot defeat Afghans
even with the advantages of unlimited air power, artillery, gun ships, medevac, helicopters,
and drones, It would last a very short time if it had to fight the Afghans or Iranians, on
even terms. Muslims are more virile than today's Americans and have proven tenacious.
A military that never fights a war that it has to win, that never encounters an enemy
that can dangerously hit back, inevitably deteriorates.
Militaries come to believe their own propaganda. So, apparently, do the feral
mollycoddles in the White House and New York. The American military's normal procedure is to
overestimate American power, underestimate the enemy, and misunderstand the kind of war it is
getting into. Should Washington decide on war with Iran, or Russia (unless by a surprise
nuclear strike) there will be the usual talk of the most powerful, best trained, best
equipped etc., and how the Ivans and towel-heads will melt away in days, a cakewalk. Bet
me.
You do realise there is no support outside of Israel, a few of its Sunni bitches, and the
magic underpants bible belt of America, for war with Iran, dont you?
Its geopolitics to simply put it. Syria is the stepping stone to reaching favorable
conclusions against Americas geo political foes which is why Russia drew a red line in Syria
against American intervention.
Because they were an obstacle to the Saudi Caliphate. A secular government that protected
minorities. And our leaders love to be little bitches for the guys in dresses.
Just think how justified and satisfied the jewsmedia would be with Iran firing back
against amerisraeli aggression. Now we're can have a full scale war, they dared to defend
themselves!
I wonder how much intelligence we got from this event.
Iranian radars, radar types, radar locations, missiles, SAMs, etc, etc. etc... We figured
out where their hiding holes are, their battle plans, tactics, etc...
The fools went into high alert while we bluffed. I wonder if this was really the whole
idea of this US exercise.
The Air Force should of never used "password" for the password. Seriously. Hacked? The
com, if any, is encrypted. I say if any com to the craft because they can and are, guess
what, pre programmed for their flight. No com needed. Not even GPS.
"... "Suez, Iran, and the perils of imperial over-reach," by Helena Cobban, which was published today. ..."
"... The US may also get the backing of any mercenaries the Saudis will pay for because they are otherwise engaged in Yemen, other than that the US will be on their own to fight the resistance who Magnier writes about.. "According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised, orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many months". ..."
"Exclusive: A Saudí intelligence chief has pleaded with British authorities to
carry out limited strikes against Iranian military targets, limited strikes against Iranian
military targets hours after Donald Trump aborted."
Houthis still quiet. At his Twitter, b said
he read this :
"Suez, Iran, and the perils of imperial over-reach," by Helena Cobban, which was published
today.
About Ike's response, Cobban writes: "He used hardball to bend them to his will: not just a strong resolution passed in the
United Nations, , but also swift U.S. steps to undermine the British pound." [My
Emphasis]
What I'd like to know is that "special procedure" and whether it can be used again.
The numbers of people in the region backing the US seem so small, as an example Qatar home to
a large US force and US airbase population approx 2.6 million [88% are foreign workers] UAE 9
and a half million [foreign workers 80%] the US surely would not expect backup from these
satraps who could be overrun in hours.
It is not exactly people evacuating the Gulf by
hanging on to the skids of helicopters yet but US defense contractor personnel at the Balad
Air Base in Iraq are preparing to evacuate over "potential security threats," Iraqi military
sources said Friday. Nearly 400 contractors with the companies Lockheed Martin and Sallyport
Global that are stationed at the Balad Air Base north of Baghdad will be departing the
country in two stages amid rising tensions with neighboring Iran. .
The US may also get the backing of any mercenaries the Saudis will pay for because they are
otherwise engaged in Yemen, other than that the US will be on their own to fight the
resistance who Magnier writes about.. "According to sources, Iran's allies will not hesitate
to open fire against an already agreed on bank of objectives in a perfectly organised,
orchestrated, synchronised and graduated response, anticipating a war that may last many
months".
@JS 59
Yes, on the transponder .. .and here's some more on that.
One key detail on the RQ-4 is that its transponder was turned off, in violation of
international law, and at variance with all the other "interceptions" over international
waters that we often read about.
The fact that the transponder was turned off is important because it essentially confirms
that the drone was "stealth" flying where it should not be, over Iran territory. They knew it
was wrong, but did it anyhow ignorantly believing that Iran couldn't do anything about
it.
The US reaction to the shoot-down is telling. First, it was: "in international airspace"
and then, correct that, it became "operating at high-altitude approximately 34 kilometers
from the nearest point of land on the Iranian coast." That presumably means the slant
distance from the RQ-4 at 60,000 feet to Iran's coast, which if believed puts the aircraft
very close to Iran's twelve-mile limit (as b said).
So looking at these statements it seems quite probable that General X who approved that
flight believed that the waters of the narrow Strait of Hormuz were international waters,
which they are (mostly) not, but territorial waters belong to Iran and Oman. But he didn't
know that, so transponder ON would work there. But the flight planning obviously included
going beyond "international waters" and violating Iranian airspace, and while they would be
at 60,000 feet where Iran couldn't touch them why advertise their presence.
This drone shoot-down is one example of the need for the Pentagon to make a needed
transition from beating up on third world countries, without fear of advanced weaponry, to
the systems needed to fight a peer or near-peer adversary. The idea that any aircraft can be
put up there at 60,000 feet with no transponders activated, in or near national airspace
during full alerts, and survive, no longer applies. Maybe in Afghanistan but not in Iran.
Plus Iran used an indigenous SAM system and not its S-300 to do it! It's a real wake-up call,
or should be.
So a little "shock and awe" lesson to the US courtesy of Iran, which probably affected the
later decision to cancel any payback, at least for now. Bottom line: Iran is not the usual
toothless patsy; it has a formidable military ready to act to prevent the economic
strangulation of their country.
Campaign of stealth attacks? Iran's "escalation dominance"?
1) The fact is the ONLY act that we know that Iran actually performed is shooting down the
drone. They immediately accepted responsibility. No stealthy silence.
It was the US that sought to escalate after the attacks on shipping (by bombing
Iran). IMO Iran's downing of the drone was an example of "escalation dominance", instead it
effectively but a stop to any further escalation.
2) And it seems highly likely that USA/Trump attempted to get Iran to accept a limited,
harmless bombing or missile attack based solely on:
>> cooked up evidence that Iran was responsible for the attacks on shipping;
>> Trump's peaceful intent as shown by the "let's talk" message delivered by
Japan's Prime Minister;
>> Trump's prior Syrian attacks whose ineffectiveness demonstrated that Iran had
no reason to fear a strike because Trump's belligerence is just necessary political
showmanship.
@Don Bacon #78
The transponder being off may well be a violation of air vehicle norms, but stealth is a lot
less clear.
For one thing, there is no mention whatsoever of the MQ4 being a stealth vehicle.
The primary benefit of turning off the transponder is identification. Unless the drone is
truly stealthy, it would be visible on radar, pretty much the moment it took off (and
apparently the Iranians were tracking from takeoff).
The entire ME is so small that a single S400 installation covers most of it - the whole
region is lousy with radars from each of the various nations (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq,
Israel, Syria etc) and extra-territorial powers with bases (US, China, Russia).
I'd also note that it is common Western air strategy to fly vehicles near/into adversary
airspace in order to get them to turn on, which in turn permits identification and
classification for potential later operations. I've seen a list somewhere of the 2 dozen or
so manned flights which were shot down engaging in these types of endeavors with the Soviet
Union.
Jim Stone has offered that an American air operation was attempting to locate Iranian
submarines when the drone was shot down. The Iranians have pointed out that they chose not to
destroy the accompanying manned aircraft.
From Stone: "[The drone] did cross into Iranian airspace, as proven by the fact that Iran
got the debris and not the Navy, which went after it immediately. Iran beat them to it and
the Navy could do nothing to prevent the Iranians to from picking up the pieces, a reality of
it landing on Iranian turf. Iran shot down the drone to force the anti-submarine aircraft to
leave their airspace without killing any Americans. This beyond proves that Iran not only can
target American stealth, they can target it selectively and not hit a nearby aircraft. That's
BAD NEWS for the U.S.
What is even WORSE news is that Iran did it at 4 AM, which means night attacks won't be
beneficial against Iran."
Layman notion of aircraft stealth: from what I have read, stealth means "reduced radar
signature" and it does not work in all directions. When the plane is "optically visible" to
radars from multiple angles then it is not stealthy. An attacking plane would fly low to be
in optical range of a single radar installation, or fly high through a border that has few if
any such installations like eastern Syria. Vicinity of Hormuz Straight seems to have plenty
of Iranian radars.
A spy place could use "fly low" approach but in that case it would not see much. On the
eve of war, "suicidal drone missions" can be used to map radar installations to destroy in
the first wave of attacks, but Iran presumably saturated their key coastal area with
redundant and mobile radars and launching sites, imposing losses on the initial attack
waves.
Idle thought: it begins to look as if the shootdown of that huge drone was an unexpected
event. If that's the case, the the US has just handed the Iranians, Russians, and Chinese
another big gift of our latest and greatest technology. Just like with the RQ-170 Sentinel
loss in 2011.
Ash @102 I don't think the number of 35 being a crew is accurate. Remember this info is
coming from Iranian sources so translation of the Gen's comments may account for the word
'crew.'
But this P8 flight with 35 humans on board tailing the drone is a pretty critical detail
that should be explored.
Two links to cassad items (in Russian but can be machine translated via Chrome):
This link contains photos of debris from drone (unfortunately, the schematic of drone flight
path is incomplete) https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/5082008.html
Obviously, this blog is Russian "biased" but I have found that his information is
generally accurate and he comes up with some current info, photos, videos, which I have not
found elsewhere on a very timely basis.
Douglas Macgregor is right -- Trump have surrounded himself with neocons and now put himself against the wall. Wars destroy
presidency -- George Bush II is not viewed favorable by the US people now, not is Obama with his Libya adventure.
With the amount of derivatives in the US financial system the rise of the price of oil above $100 can produce some interesting
and unanticipated effects.
Notable quotes:
"... PRESIDENT TRUMP don't let them sucker you. ..."
"... The true American people, do never believe what this congress, house, and senate want they are cramming down your throats... ..."
The first thing to say here is that we have no means to know what really happened. At the
very least, there are two possible hypotheses which could explain what took place:
1) a US provocation: it is quite possible that somebody in the US chain of command decided
that Iran should be put under pressure and that having US UAV fly right next to, or even just
inside, the international border of Iran would be a great way to show Iran that the US is ready
to attack. If that is the case, this was a semi-success (the Iranians had to switch on their
radars and attack the UAV which is very good for US intelligence gathering) and a semi-failure
(since the Iranians were clearly unimpressed by the US show of resolve).
2) an Iranian provocation: yup, that is a theoretical possibility which cannot reject
prima facie : in this scenario it was indeed the Iranians who blew up the two tankers
last week and they also deliberately shot down the US UAV over international waters. The goal?
Simple: to show that the Iranians are willing and ready to escalate and that they are confident
that they will prevail.
Now, in the real world, there are many more options, including even mixes of various
options. What matters is now not this, as much as Trump's reaction:
Now, whether this was a US provocation or an Iranian one – Trump's reaction was the
only correct one. Why? Because the risks involved in any US "more than symbolic strike" would
be so great as to void any rationale for such a strike in the first place. Think of it: we can
be very confident that the Iranian military installations along the Persian Gulf and the
southern border of Iran are highly redundant and that no matter how successful any limited US
missile strike would have been, the actual military capabilities of Iran would not have been
affected. The only way for the US to effectively degrade Iranian capabilities would be to have
a sustained, multi-day, attack on the entire southern periphery of Iran. In other words, a real
war. Anything short of that would simply be meaningless. The consequences of such an attack,
however, would be, in Putin's words "catastrophic" for the entire region.
If this was an Iranian provocation, then it was one designed to impress upon the Empire that
Iran is also very much "locked, cocked and ready to rock". But if that is the case, there is
zero change that any limited strike would achieve anything. In fact, any symbolic US attack
would only signal to the Iranians that the US has cold feet and that all the US sabre-rattling
is totally useless.
I have not said such a thing in many months, but in this case I can only admit that Trump
did the right thing. No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has
made the decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the
longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need
to spend remaining on very high alert.
The basic theory of attack and defense clearly states that the attacking side can gain as a
major advantage if it can leave the other side in the dark about its plans and if the costs of
being ready for a surprise attack are lower than the costs of being on high alert (those
interested in the role and importance of surprise attack in the theory of deterrence can read
Richard Betts' excellent book "
the longer the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money
they need to spend remaining on very high alert.
Yep. Men and material getting tired. Tired men and material make mistakes.
Smart.
As I've said plenty of times before, the "beauty" of the setup is that TPTBs simply create a
climate for a mistake resulting in loss of life of American personnel. BANG.
Or, you put two combat forces next to each other and ramp up the tension. Just a matter of time.
I am currently very slightly optimistic (48-52%) that the US will not attack Iran in the
short term. In the long term, however, I consider that an AngloZionist attack is a quasi certainty.
Yep. Short term being 3 months (related to the first paragraph).
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion to get
a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip code in the
US ..Hannity the Chicken-Hawk thinks he is even tougher Chicken-Hawk War Hawk now that he
studies MMA Serra Brazilian Ji-jitsu on Jericho Turnpike ..Yesterday Sean Hannity"My
philosophy is you hit me .I hit you back ten times harder" .of course, Sean will be hiding in
his mega-Mansion in Lloyd Neck .as the US Cargo Planes land in Virginia with a 100 stainless
steel coffins containing the bodies headless bodies of Native Born White American Working
Class Young Men Donald and Melania step inside the cargo bay to view the stainless steel
coffins ..
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal is
to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Would killing 150+ Iranians help dislodge the violent regime? No. Thus, the proposed
strike did not align with the political goal. Trump was right to cancel it.
Think of it as the Putin Playbook. Did Putin go for mass casualties when Turkey shot down
one of its fighters in 2015? No. Both Putin and Trump show similar strength. Restraint
against precipitous, ill conceived, and overly bloody actions.
_____
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni. There will be
a response with minimal bloodshed. Instead it will focus on the regime. Deepening the divide
between the Iranian people and their despotic leaders prepares the path for internal
forces to replace those leaders.
Oil storage is a likely choice. The tanks are large and spilled oil is highly visible. It
would demonstrate the inability of the regime to stop the U.S. Storage facilities are visible
to the public, so the government would have trouble denying or misrepresenting the event.
Port facilities would also be a good choice, although that would be harder to time for few to
no casualties.
That's going overboard on precision though. And what's with the oil refinery in Pennsylvania going up into balls of flame. I hope this
won't get dragooned into an "Iranian sleeper cell attack".
The provocations have to be such that domestic acquiescence in elite war profit taking will
not be disturbed. That requires a series of propaganda events ramping up for domestic
consumption.
10 minutes from striking is worryingly close, and Trump's disclosures on the matter are
troubling. Apparently it was only at this late hour that Trump came around to asking for
specifics on how many Iranians his order would kill. The generals told him approximately
150.
This was the game-changer, and Trump was nominally ordering this attack over the shoot
down of a single US surveillance drone, and he rightly noticed that killing 150 people was
not very proportionate to that, fortunately, he called the attack off before the first
missiles were fired.
Trump went on to issue a flurry of Tweets saying Iran would never be allowed to have
nuclear weapons, which of course this entire almost-attack had not a thing to do with. He
also bragged about how much damage the US sanctions have done to Iran and how weakened Iran
already is.
Troublingly though, administration hawks were still able to get Trump to sign off on the
attack earlier on Thursday, and his assurances on Twitter suggest that the loss of the
single drone really didn't enter into it as a big issue for him. This raises ongoing
concerns that having called off the Thursday attack, Trump might be sold on a lesser attack
at any time, or at least something nominally different that gets carried out before he gets
around to asking about the casualties.
Why would you end your mis-analysis where you justify war with the word PEACE? Spelling it out in all CAPS? You are seriously proposing that the US has the right to judge the government of another
country and to deliberately destabilize that country in order to oerturn its governemtn?
Do you realize that economic sanctions are considered to be acts of war? In other words, you support acts of war and think that is PEACE? Are you insane?
Military action needs to support the underlying political goals. And, the political goal
is to stop the Iranian regime from threatening and destabilizing the region.
Yeah. Makes total sense from an Israeli/Saudi perspective. When bullshit is all there is,
Hollywood logic can be used to explain the world!
Trump realizes that the Iranian people are the victims of sociopath Kahmeni.
I hope you have been given a sheet with talking points, otherwise I pity you.
The Deep State never rests.
Dual treason sandwich via Reuters for Mr. Trump. It's really like living in a Nazi regime, with Heydrich walking the corridors,
blackmailing and manipulating and "disposing of" problem factors.
Iran's top national security official has denied a Reuters report claiming that Tehran
had received a low-key message via Oman from the US warning of an imminent attack on the
Islamic Republic.
"The US didn't send any message," Keyvan Khosravi, spokesman for the National Security
Council, told Iranian television.
The comment dismissed a previous report by Reuters, which cited unnamed Iranian
officials as saying that Donald Trump had warned Tehran of a military strike and also gave
a time to respond. The message was reportedly delivered via Oman and followed the downing
of a US spy UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) earlier in the week.
Hmm, so they shot down a drone; would they be able to shoot down every American plane that
entered their airspace? A good reason to call off the strike; if the Iranians had a missile
lock on every American plane. Having all their planes shot down would be an even worse defeat
for the United States than just calling off an attack.
Putin checks Trump.
The Iranians might be deciding to stand firm against US sanctions and other provocations as
de facto acts of war before the sanctions do materially impact the Iranian
economy and its military capability.
Recall the chicanery through which the United States surreptitiously provoked Japan into
attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor so that FDR, a committed Anglophile, could enter
the European war through the back door to save his British friends.
1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial allies
systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
2. Japan decided that it would have to act to obtain those resources or, accept its
eventual demise as a nation state.
3. FDR hinted to the Dutch that the newly-positioned naval resources at Pearl Harbor would
attack and cut the Japanese lines-of-communication per chance Japan struck south to obtain
oil, rubber, and other resources in Southeast Asia. This was intentionally leaked to the
Japanese.
4. The United States monitored the locations and progress of the Japanese fleet en route
to Pearl Harbor to protect its exposed flank per the above. Japanese naval resources were
under a communications blackout. However, the Japanese merchant marine supporting those
forces were not. The US monitored their locations as a proxy for the location of the Japanese
fleet. The rest is history
The Iranians are in a similar position: either fight now at the peak of their military
power or, fight for survival later at a significant economic and military disadvantage. Like
the Japanese, the Iranians would be wise to do the former. This strategy optimizes their
chances for national survival.
The first thing in is missiles that target air defense batteries. I doubt
the US is worried about Iran shooting down every plane. The drone probably was flying a
steady even course and took no evasive maneuvers unlike an attacking aircraft. The success
rate of surface to air missiles is not very high.
@TheJester1. Via economic sanctions, the United States and its European colonial
allies systematically denied Japan the resources it needed to sustain its population and its
industrial economy.
BS. The embargo was because Japan continued to occupy part of China. All they had to do
was go back home. Did FDR do it to get us into the war? Maybe, but Hitler was under no
obligation to declare war on the US since Japan did not declare war on the USSR when Hitler
attacked the USSR.
No limited attack also makes sense even if we assume that the Empire has made the
decision to attack Iran and is just waiting for the perfect time. Why? Because the longer
the Iranian feel that an attack is possible, the more time, energy and money they need to
spend remaining on very high alert.
Then
this might also be a strategic PSYOP destined to lull the Iranians into a false sense of
security. If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist
bullseye painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant
threat of war.
Trump Claims He Canceled an Airstrike Against Iran at the Very Last Minute
I one hundred percent support letting The Orange One continue on with his awesome cowboy
delusions as long as it keeps a war from starting.
My reaction:
"Wow, sir! You have such self-control! Those Iranians don't know how close they were to you
just kicking them back to the Stone Age! It's great that the better (wiser and more patient)
side of you won out in the end – you are awesome!"
WASHINGTON -- Maintaining that the unmanned aerial vehicle was simply going about its day
without posing a threat to anyone, U.S. Department of State officials claimed Thursday that
one of their drones was minding its own business on its way to church when Iran attacked it
out of nowhere. "This was an outrageous, unprovoked attack by the Islamic Republic of Iran on
an innocent drone who merely wanted to attend mass in peace," said acting Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo, emphasizing the drone's upstanding moral character by pointing out its history
of donating to charity, volunteering at soup kitchens, and making homemade cookies for school
bake sales. "We're talking about a drone that sings in the church choir and coaches little
league baseball games on the weekends -- an absolute pillar of the community. This is an
upstanding family drone who did nothing to deserve any sort of attack. What kind of world do
we live in where an innocent drone can't fly through Iranian air space on its way to church?"
At press time, Department of Defense officials confirmed that their request for Iran to
return the drone's body back to the U.S. for a proper burial had gone unanswered.
@MarkinLA Read Frazier Hunt, The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur.
TheJester is right.
Yes, China was under Japanese occupation. The Chinese Communists were fighting the Japs.
The USA was supporting the side that was not fighting the Japs but the Communists, being, the
USA, fanatically anti-communist.
My guess is that the USA forced Japan into war because of the economic potential of China,
i.e. they wanted to take Japan's place.
And the USA didn't side with Hitler but with the other side because they didn't know
Indian independence would come immediately after the War. So they sided with the Brits
because of the apparent economic potential of the British Empire. If India had gained
independence just before the war the USA would have sided with Hitler, because then, without
India, German Europe would have had a greater economic potential than the British Empire.
The Iranians claim that a manned spy plane was next to the drone (i.e. that it also was in
their territory) but that they chose not to shoot it down since 35 soldiers were on board.
"Along with the American drone was an American P8 aircraft with 35 on board, and it was
also violating our airspace and we could have downed it too," he said, adding, "But we did
not do [shoot down] it, because our aim was to warn the terrorist forces of the US."
To me, a total cynic, it looks like the Americans attempted a repeat of the incident when
they deliberately misled their sailors so that they sailed into Iranian territorial waters. I
guess they messed up the GPS for them.
"Iran releases video of captured American sailor crying "
I too would cry if I realised that my superiors had set me up as a sacrificial lamb.
Let's not forget the attempt to sink the USS Liberty. That was a joint operation between
the US Deep State and Israel to try and get the US to attack Egypt.
"'But Sir, It's an American Ship.' 'Never Mind, Hit Her!' When Israel Attacked USS
Liberty"
@TheJester But why were sanctions imposed on Japan? Because Japan was acting in violation
of international law? Well yes due to Japanese imperial aggression against China. In 1935-40
Japan was no angelic virgin. It committed unprovoked aggression against China, committed
massive war crimes and crimes against humanity. Yes FDR likely wanted to have USA enter the
Pacific war to enable war against Hitler but the crippling sanctions against Japan had a
legitimate basis. To punish Japan for aggression in China
It looks like the Americans are having a false flag feast.
The positions in Iraq – whether directly or indirectly connected to the US
interests in Iraq – for example Baghdad, Basra and al-Taji base to Northwest of Baghdad
and Nineveh operations command headquarters in Northern Iraq have come under Katyusha missile
attacks in recent day, the Al-Akhbar newspaper reported.
The paper reiterated that the missile attacks have taken place as a result of recent
regional tensions, and said that the US officials are trying to portray the attacks as
messages by Iran after al-Fujaira and the Sea of Oman mishaps.
It noted that no group has claimed responsibility for the recent missile attacks on Iraqi
cities.
Sources close to Hashd al-Sha'abi Commander Abu Mohandes al-Mahdi, meantime, categorically
dismissed any accusations against the Iraqi popular and resistance forces, and said that the
Americans themselves are most probably behind some of these attacks because some of the
missiles are made in the US.
@HEREDOT Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying
over Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
It's usual crew numbers nine, but this one had 35 sacrificial lambs packed onboard, to be
murdered by the (((Deep State))) to push Trump into the corner, with the (((MSM))) screaming
that it was Iran's fault, no proof needed or lies fabricated–just like the illegal
invasion of Iraq–to give Israel what it's demanding that its American colony do: Bomb,
bomb, bomb Iran.
My guess is that the American thugs behind this latest FF attempt were hoping the
Iranian surface-to-air missile would of shifted its initial target–the drone– and
went for the much larger P8.
That Butcher Boy Bolton and his fellow homicidal maniacs failed means that more Americans
are being lined up in their cross-hairs, ready to be sacrificed for the glory of Apartheid
Israel.
If that is the plan, it will fail: the Iranians have lived with a AngloZionist bullseye
painted on their heads ever since 1979 and they are used to live under constant threat of
war.
Wrong, Saker, the Iranians have been getting attacked by America and the Brits since we
overthrew their democratically elected prez in 1953, because he had the audacity to think and
say that the majority of Iran's oil revenues should be going to Iranians, not Wall Street
.
@BengaliCanadianDude Agreed. If Israel want to attack Iran, go ahead, but they won't,
because they know they'd get their asses kicked unless Uncle Sucker was leading the way.
Or maybe Israel could send in its fearsome DIAPER BRIGADES to wreak havoc in
Tehran?
The diaper reference is not a joke, it's fact that the IDF has issued combat nappies to
their troops, who let loose their bladder anytime they engage REAL men with guns who shoot
back. But let's give credit where its due, when it comes to shooting Palestinian kids with
slingshots or medics, Israel is #1.
@peterAUS Iran has been living with the same threat since 1979. The result is a hugely
popular military and IRGC which is one of the best career choices in the country. It's a way
of life for the nation to be under siege by now and for Shia Muslims the idea of being ready
to fight to the death always hovers due to the history of Islam with respect to the
Sunni/Shia divide. This disagreement is extreme, to be a Muslim and understand it is to feel
horror! ; and despair at the idea any reconciliation is even possible between the two sects
and a shared history does not make for a shared point of view. Shias have always been
outnumbered and it was us who were targeted for extreme violence in the end (or the
begginning) when a dispute over leadership turned bitter. Successive Islamic powers have
attempted to exterminate Shias and the latest incarnation of the Salafis begginning with
Wahhabism (nurtured by the Rothschild controlled British SS at the end of the Ottoman Empire)
and lately morphed into Takfirism which is Daesh and their ilk, have always sought out Shias
first and foremost for attack.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is firstly an Islamic Republic in full revolutionary mode,
(as opposed to 'fundamentalist') it is also in a close second the "Capital" of Shia Islam and
what I have described is the history of Iran and the times the Persian state was not an
Islamic one are no less a part of the historical memory of the nation. Even those times
(which invariably ended in defeat for Persia) reinforce the idea that it is as an Islamic
state Iran stands best chance of survival and the confidence that if they remain true to
these principles they will prevail is backed by an unbroken history of successful defense as
a righteous Islamic state. This may be beyond many of the younger generation and ignored by
the wealthy older generation Iranians but it must be ingrained in the political and social
cosnciousness of the political and religious and intellectual elite.
Iran is ready. They have always been ready in one sense. Saddan Hussein who attacked them
when they were at their weakest and still lived to regret it could attest to that if he was
still around to talk. That war in which the USA gave full and unconditional support to their
protege Saddam who only became their enemy when he became a better man and leader later on in
time, was a wake up call to Iranian leadership and the nation as one. They knew that they
needed missiles and a very strong defensive posture and that is what they have. F^ck with
them at your peril I say.
I doubt myself the USA will attack Iran, at least as long as they have ships and troops
within 1000 miles of Iran. That includes towing their static aircraft carrier "Israel" out of
range as well.
@2stateshmustate agree, the comment that "the USA is taking the events to the UN is
loaded with false something or other..
Iran initiated the UN hearing AFAIK and IRAN says it will present evidence that it was the
USA's intention.. to do the deeds ..<=personally, my feeling is neither Russia nor China
will veto .. anything about these deeds.. the only veto will come from Article II of the COUS
, present leader [one Mr. Trumpy]. who is elected not by popular vote of the govern people
in America but instead by the hidden behind the scene, state to state vote of the
electoral college.. .. <== you mean all that to-do every four years to elect a president:
democrats vs republicans beating each other up, newspapers collecting billions in
contribution dollars to publish fake I hate you slogans, and he saids, you saids: dey all
be fake news, propaganda erotic ? yep.. sure enough is. dem guys dat rites dem
Konstitutions ain't no dummies deys knows vat ve good fore dem. Read Article II, sections 2
and 3.. you see..
Popular vote elects the Article I folks ( 525 in all: 425 members of the house of
congressional districts (Art. 1, Section 2), and 100 Senators (amendment 17, proposed 1912,
approved 1913federal reserve(act of congress), income tax (amendment 16) both also 1913
),
=>but Article I (section 2 and amendment 17 ) folks have no power to act.. as powerless
buffoons ..they are authorized only to approve a few things, try cases of Treason, and make
the laws, fund the actions, wants and needs demanded by Article II persons. It takes 2/3 of
each a divided Senate and 2/3 of a divided House [Art. I, sec 7[2,3] to over-power the Art II
privilege of veto.. and
==get this=> Article II persons are charged to enforce the law( Art II, section
2 [3] he[the President} shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Where is
Hillary? I see no words making such duty to enforce the law optional (so does the AG have an
option that the President does not, .) ?
I am in full agreement with the author about who was most likely behind the attacks on the
ships and how the two separate attacks were done. Even down to accepting the possibility Iran
was behind some or all of this as provocation for the reasons given. If so it would mean they
are hurting badly and need to bring things to a head fast. This does not fit with my
observations of Iranian leadership which has always demonstrated a very long term and
patient, typically oriental approach to logjams in diplomacy and nothing has happened to
suggest they are suddenly feeling extremely more pain than previously. In short it is
possible but I doubt it.
To my mind the things which speak against the Iranians having attacked the tankers the
second time at least are substantial: Both ships were Japanese owned. This attack as such was
against Japanese interests WHILST the Japanese PM (Japanese death cult and mafia associations
and all) was making a historical visit to Tehran! What sort of dung for brains clowns would
invite someone for dinner and then send the kids out to set fire to their car whilst they
dined? Of course Washington would do something like this (shooting missiles at Syria whilst
enjoying a lovely piece of cake with their Chinese ally ffs ) but Iran? Give me a break.
Secondly if Iran was guilty, how come the USA is lying like a cheap rug from the get go?
The video the US Navy quickly produced is PROOF they are lying. The black and white imagery
does NOT hide the distinctly different paint jobs on the ship depicted and the actual one
involved. Whatever that video is, it is NOT a video of either of the ships involved in the
second incident. So if Iran was guilty why is the USA using fabricated evidence to assert
it?
The claim that the Iranians tried unsuccesfully to shoot down a Reaper drone which was
according to the USA monitoring the ship BEFORE IT WAS ATTACKED was what stuck in my craw
from the start. What the hell was a REAPER Drone doing monitoring that particular ship at
that particular time? Is this a common practice? Reaper drones are NOT recon drones they
carry hellfire missiles and kill things! When you consider the reports by the crew, as
relayed by the Japanese company owner about a flying object just before the explosion and the
pictures of the damage which clearly show fairly small holes about half way between the
gunwale and waterline the conclusion these were small missiles is hard to avoid. Indeed
HELLFIRE missiles would fit the bill nicely.
As for attacking Iran I do not believe that the USA will dare start anything, especially
now, so long as they have troops and ships within range of Iranian missiles. Iranian missiles
power is immense and an unknown because they do not know where it all is, and they do know
much of it is very, very well hardened against attack. IF they do start a war with Iran
whilst they have assets in the region, invluding "Israel" then they have completely lost
their minds and I'd say the war will end very fast and hard for them. Not even going nuclear
will do it. They are deluded if they think so. Nukes are not magic, they are just big bombs
and even the radiation component is not a big deal these days. (few realise it but modern
nukes are quite 'clean') Iran is a vast country and well dug in over millenia. However
unleashing a full nuclear war against a non nuclear state will end the USA forever as a world
citizen in every way. There is no solution for the USA except to make peace or back off. They
can plan and scheme all they like but Allah is the best of planners.
@Fran Macadam Well if that line of turkeys pecking at the crumbs of provocations
unfolding which purport to involve Iran keep on gobbling on cue they are going to realise too
late they just walked into the slaughter house. Iran will send home many thousands of their
boys and girls in body bags and sink their ships but the real hurt will be the end of the US
economy. They'll be missing even allegorical crumbs when they only have dirt to eat.
@MarkinLA Japan continued to occupy part of China (and viciously so, clearly stamping on
the foot of white-colonial interests with their homegrown late-comer colonialism) but i
mainly started to challenge US power in the Pacific, and with strong determination.
Israel does not have the ability to deceive the US, and why would it need to with Trump in
power? American fracking technology has greatly limited Iranian ability to cause trouble. If
it was the Iranians that did the limpet mine attack on international shipping then what would
their objective have been? Clearly they don't want more any real war or even more sanctions.
What they do want is create demand for their oil and sell it at a good price. The price of
oil is already up from the mere tension over the limpet mine and shootdown and had there been
US military action oil prices would have gone much higher. I see this whole affair as a sign
that the Iranian regieme is getting desperate, because America's slow smothering strategy is
working. Iran wants to breack out of its current situation and Trump is walking them into
that.
Israel will do nothing, the partisan supporters of Israel in the US can be kept quiet on
the immigration Issue by throwing them a bone (as Trump has been doing). Iran want to rase
oil prices and create demand for its oil, that is all. Hitting Iran, but quite lightly, is
the best option for Trump if he wants to win reelection. And so he will hit Iran at a time of
his choosing, which will probabally be closer to the election. The armed forces of America or
any other country are not for enforcing international law or notions of fair play, but rather
for defending that country's interests. Iran and Trump's agendas converge on a clash well
short of all out war in the very near future.
Occam's Razor suggests Trump got news that the drone was indeed inside Iranian airspace and
decided for once to call BS.
Besides, in the great scheme of things, one lost drone doesn't make up for the USS
Vincennes killing 290 people on Iran Air 655 by shooting it down in Iranian Airspace. When
the Empire warned that civil aircraft were not safe in the airspace, it wasn't the Iranian
forces they were warning about.
@Miggle Sorry, "My guess" covers all that follows. It's only my guess that the USA would
have sided with Hitler if they'd known India would not be part of the British Empire.
@TheJester But it wasn't wise for the Japanese as they were completely defeated.
The key difference between Japan and Iran is that the Japanese Empire was an aggressor,
endlessly invading its neighbours. Iran has not fought an offensive war in 40 years.
Also have to question you on the time element. Time is on the side of the Asian countries.
It's countries, like Israel, who see this as peak time for military action. Iran has survived
40 years of sanctions and can certainly survive this time, especially with the support of
Russia and China. Yet they still must react to military planes threatening their air space.
Plus they have no control over oil tankers being targeted by third parties.
The more I see of this, the more convinced I am that the US as a society is clinically
insane.
Its borders are under attack by what can only be described as an invasion is taking place
with millions off illegal immigrants pour across the border to commit crime, steal jobs or
mooch of the welfare programs.
Its cities are decaying with armies of homeless, shit and drugs flooding the streets in
ever greater numbers while the working class people flee in great waves.
Masked and armed criminals roam the streets of major US cities, attack anyone they deem to
be a wrong thinker when not busy rioting, stealing and chanting for the deaths of others.
Its economy is in a bi-polar mood. On one hand the GDP is as high as ever with tons of new
jobs getting created, on the other hand the physical economy is shrinking as stores closes
and houses go unsold due to half the nation being unable to buy anything but food and
clothes.
In the face of all of these problems, the US Government has decided to put its full
attention on overthrowing the government of Venezuela and starting a war with Iran because
somehow, those two nations who posed no danger to the US have been declared high priority
targets that requires the full spectrum attention and political intervention by the US.
@A123 "There will be a response with minimal bloodshed." Yes, we are noted for the
delicate, nearly bloodless nature of our military reactions, merely focusing on regimes with
the full-throated applause of the grateful populaces. It would be a cake-walk, to quote our
valiant SecDef Rumsfeld prior to our 2003 Iraqi minimally bloody response.
And speaking of armchair generalship, I wonder where Trump's multi-starred consultant got
the figure "150" in answer to the question of civilian casualties. This is the kind of
clear-sighted strategic vision that has a U. S. victory in Afghanistan just around the
corner, to quote our junior Clausewitz's.
But it is also plausible (if by no means certain) that at least two groups could have
opposed such a strike:
1) The planners at CENTCOM and/or the Pentagon.
Yes, it's reported that the Pentagon advised Trump not to retaliate militarily for the
drone shoot down.
Given advanced missile technologies, surface warships of any stripe are sitting ducks. I'm
guessing that Iran has a plethora of missile batteries up and down its coast. If Iran
launched a barrage of missiles simultaneously (10? 20? 30?) at a single surface warship in
the Persian Gulf, what would be the probability that the ship's self-defense systems could
neutralize them all?
If a single multi-billion dollar warship were sunk, the credibility of U.S. naval "power
projection" would evaporate. In that context, the Pentagon's reluctance may be because they'd
rather not establish that their hyper-expensive blue-water surface Navy is an
anachronism.
There is a very simple solution to all this, and the sooner it happens the better.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to 2002),
should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
All the assets of these "deceivers" should be "seized" .to pay down the 22 trillion war
debt their lies created.
If there is anything left over , it should be placed in an " Iran War Escrow Account
".
This would ensure that the burden of the war costs falls directly on "their" shoulders and
NOT the US taxpayers.
This seems like a just and fair solution for everybody ., doesn't it ?
An authentic act of war before even before firing the first bullet. First, make the
economy scream in the tradition of yet another thug masquerading as head of state (Nixon).
Second, starve them into submission. Does the first Iraq war resulting in the death of an
estimated half a million children denied essential medicines ring a bell? Venezuela is
similarly being starved into surrender. Meanwhile Guaido is embezzling the humanitarian aid
intended for his needy countrymen.
All said, the history of our country's lies and deception going back a long ways, more
than speaks for itself.
@Justsaying Of course, starvation is a favorite tactic of OUR international Communist
overlords. They've used it for decades and killed hundreds of millions of people using it.
It's cheap and easy.
On direct orders from Donald Trump ..the US Military is illegally occupying the sovereign
Nation of Syria .and Trump took a direct order from JEW ONLY ISRAEL to do this think about it
A case can be made that the US strategy is not to go to war with Iran .but rather, use the
boogey man of Iran to justify a 100 year illegal US Military occupation of Syria on behalf of
JEW ONLY ISRAEL .
The late Fat Cockroach Christopher Hitchens justified murdering thousands of Iraqis
because it would be good for the Kurds Well, here is what I say:THE CRYPTO JEW KURDS WERE
NEVER WORTH IT .Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq always meant an IDF presence in Northern
Iraq
The best analysis of the 225 million dollar MQ-4C drone(more expensive than the F-35) shoot
down in my opinion is that of Jim Stone:
"The drone shot down was an MQ-4C, which is basically a more advanced clone of the Global
Hawk. A better score for Iran than a Global Hawk. ADDITIONALLY IMPORTANT: Iran was the one
that recovered the debris, the U.S. navy did not, which means Iran was telling the truth
about where it was flying to begin with. If they got it, it fell on their turf. It is really
blown to smithereens, a direct hit. That's good for Iran because it proves their missile
systems can do it, but it is bad because they don't have any big pieces. Additionally, there
was an American P-8 spy plane accompanying the drone, Iran was able to differentiate between
the two, and hit the drone. The P-8 was a much easier target. Iran obviously opted not to hit
it because killing it's crew would have meant war."
What everyone needs to be aware of here is "stealth" technology is a total farce, and can
be defeated with long wave radar, basically the same system used by England during WWII. The
drone shot down was considered a Max Stealth aircraft, same as the F-35. The F-35 and F-22
are basically "hanger queens"(many hours of maintenance required for every hour of flying
time), and with their stealth capabilities being defeatable, they are pretty much worthless.
Trump did not pull the trigger on this because he figured out the whole thing could go real
bad real quick.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars (dating back to
2002), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars they lied us into.
Everyone who conspired to defraud the US taxpayer into illegal wars, their heirs and all
who profited from (dating back to 1812), should be forced to pay for the cost of the wars
they lied us into.
@Justsaying You are correct. This is economic and siege warfare. Flying bullets, etc.,
add to the drama and consequences, but the war on Iran began many years ago. The vicious
clowns are up to the same old tricks, but bullshitting only the willing gulls.
No, it's not. Clearly the Nazis were on the defensive . Lying Abe Lincoln was, in
fact, much worse than the Nazis ever thought of being; in a totally different category
even.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not a terrorist nation and does not
export terrorism, that title belongs the the unholy trinity of the zio/US and Israel and
Britain, the creators and funders and suppliers of AL CIADA aka ISIS and all the various off
shoots thereof.
This war on Iran is a zionist project of the zionists who control the governments of the
zio/US and zio/Britain as has been the case in every war in Iraq and Libya and Syria and
Yemen and Lebanon , Israel has been the agent provocateur in every one of these wars!
The zionists have a goal of a satanic zionist NWO and are hell bent to get there if they
have to kill off all the goyim and muslims to accomplish it and they are well on their
way!
Read the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen on the zio/US and Israeli attack on the
USS Liberty for a look at how these two terrorist nations operate!
A handful of psychopaths determine our destiny. What makes us different from
animals?
I don't think other animals have psychopaths of the same species ruling over them nor do
they have hasbara clowns spouting sewage and doing worse 24/7, such as the alphanumeric zero,
above.
Mr. Saker left out the inconvenient fact that while that drone was indeed flying over
Iranian air space, a much larger target, the Poseidon P8 was flying nearby. The P8 is a
converted Boeing 737, making for a much larger radar profile for that missile. The P8 has
many ASW capabilities, and also can control drones.
If this is true the stupid bastards in control of this country better take note. If the
missile, that Iran says they developed, is cabable of distinguishing between a P8 and a drone
the US may have a big problem.
More likely, Trump and his Neocons knew that Iran had proof that the spy drone was shot down
over Iran's territory, that the truth would come out after the U.S. strike, earning the
world's condemnation and making Trump et al look like warmongering fools. That's what they
are, of course, but it gave Trump the chance to pose as a big humanitarian, stopping the
strike because, since it was only a plane, with no Americans on board, he didn't want to
"disproportionately" kill anybody. Yeah. Just wait until the Israeli puppets send another
plane with Americans on board, it'll give Israel and our traitorous Neocons the war they've
been lusting after for a decade or more.
In fact it's my understanding that the Japanese were bending over backwards in an attempt
to avoid war with the US but the Wall Street Commie catamite FDR and his henchmen foiled and
insulted them at every turn. The story of how they were repeatedly humiliated would raise the
hackles of the least sensitive among us.
The big picture is that the Wall Street and London Commies were aiming for world hegemony
even at their own populations' expense, of course, and Japan and Germany had to be castrated
even if populated and run by angels and innocent choir boys to ensure that they could be
turned into industrial slave states. It's apparent that the scum of the Earth won't rest
until they've accomplished their goals as we can clearly see here.
Sean Hannity lives in the largest Mansion in Lloyd Neck I have driven past his Mansion
to get a look as to just how big it is IT'S HUGE ..Lloyd Neck has the most expensive zip
code in the US
A simple Google search reveals Hannity sold his Lloyd Neck home in 2014, and has lived in
Oyster Bay for several years. Also, Lloyd Neck isn't even in Forbes' Top 50 Most Expensive
Zip Codes; the list is headed by four communities in California and one in Florida.
I'm not saying Sean isn't a pussy and a faggot, but your facts are suspect.
"... iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take for each side. there are NO international waters here. ..."
"... It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500 homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one wondering what else we are unaware? ..."
"... Iran's Air Defense Force has some really quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense complexes with serious sensors. ..."
"... Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts. Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. ..."
iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR
territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take
for each side. there are NO international waters here.
if oil ships stop transiting for any reason the western economic and banking system
implodes as the notional value of all those trillions in derivatives (oil at least) become
real once the price rises. not a shot need be fired to collapse the western world living
standards and there is nothing the pentagon can do about even IF it could which it CAN'T.
peace is the only sane option IF the west wants to remain upright and obstensibly
solvent.
The Trump administration has to come up with an explanation for this. Otherwise everyone will
believe that that the red phone rang. "Mr. Putin on the line, sir." Another ripe conspiracy
theory waiting in the wings is that Iran turned on some unexpected radar and showed just what
the planes were flying into. Some logical, plausible, and not too embarassing alternative
story is needed. Fast.
Let us hope Trump's alleged caution holds. For the moment, anyway. However, let us also hope
wiser heads prevail in Iran. It seems clear to me (which I do not mistake for assuming I am
automatically correct) that there has been a PATTERN of increased, violent actions coming
from Iran. i.e. increased shelling of US positions, or, near them, anyway, in Iraq. Along
with the tanker attacks and drone attacks, two, I might add. These seem calculated, at the
moment, at avoiding US loss of life. So, they are playing around with us, testing us. This
reflects, to me, ONE kind of thinking in Iran. However, there are other sides there, I
believe.
And in the meantime Trump is, essentially, bereft of support within DC. Unless it be in
the military. One side of the elite community hates Trump, but for the moment, goes along
with him. Trying to push and prod him forward to their ends. The NeoCons and Never Trumpers.
The other side basically loathes Trump and opposes whatever position he is taking.
Reflectively. Thoughtlessly. This leaves him essentially alone. IN DC. He should get out of
the Capital more often. To his Base. Away from the talking heads. In the meantime Iran should
give pause for thought. They may think the world will be on their side, if only to oppose
Trump. But they won't get much support other than soft and meaningless words, if they keep
poking the Bear. And they just might get eaten...hard as a meal as that would be to
digest.
My poorly informed speculation drawing upon my career as a chemist (i.e., no military
training or experience, the navy rejected me when I tried to join the NROTC in 1963) I am
inclined to disbelieve our claims that our drone was in international air space. One
commentator on MoA claimed there is no international air space over the Gulf of Hormuz. The
relevant treaties address only marine access.
It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure
until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500
homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one
wondering what else we are unaware?
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Combined with the possibility that Iran can present convincing evidence that the drone
penetrated their air space, Trump would be in a poor position to defend himself against war
crime charges should he order an attack. Might not play well in the upcoming election
cycle.
As a businessman, he could have decided the rewards of an attack did not justify these
risks.
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Certainly one of major considerations. Unlike Iraq's "integrated" (a propaganda
cliche--antiquated should have been the term), Iran's Air Defense Force has some really
quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense
complexes with serious sensors.
It also has Russian S-300PMU2. In general, Iran is nothing
like Iraq, Libya or Syria before Russia intervened.
I would put Iran's medium range (up to
100 kilometers range and up to 20 kilometers altitude) AD capabilities as robustly good.
And
then, of course, tactical-operational ballistic missiles with an easy reach anywhere in ME
(Qatar rings the bell, among many other) and, finally, who knows how many (very-very many)
and what capability anti-shipping missiles.
Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts.
Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of
Hormuz.
Probably a face saving gesture - can seem tough and reasonable simultaneously. It's shaping
up as de-escalation on both sides for now, which I deduce from recent press releases on
behalf of Iranian authorities saying that they refrained from shooting down a US P-8 plane
carrying 35 people, which was accompanying the unmanned drone which they acknowledge shooting
down. So they're mirroring each other IMO - it's not going to escalate.
Eric Newhill,
IMO,it is the izzies who are pushing for the destruction of Iran, with their BS about Amalek,
their god-given title to Palestine, and their attempts to re-mold the ME in their image. The
presence of Nasrallah&Co. and their rocket forces-mostly supplied by Iran-is the primary
issue. Most of the current ills of the ME can be traced to the izzies. Think Syria.
While there is no doubt that US can pound Iran into the stone age without really working a
sweat, she probably would not have gotten off w/o a few bruises for her pains. In addition,
more importantly in my view, the izzies might have also gotten a few surprises.
My friends were glad to end last night with no emergencies on their watch. We were all very,
very worried.
Ishmael Zechariah
Flying a plane into their territory, getting shot down, and then not attacking and calling it
an opportunity to deescalate. That's rich. The only thing these whole farcical attempt at
diplomacy has proven from the day the deal was denounced as being a bad deal is that those at
the top know little of Iran and Iranians. Nor do we want to know, since virtually every time
I watch TV and they bring on an "expert" to talk about Iran, they are not only not Iranian
but half the time Jewish.
Trump has come out through the usual direct communication channel, saying the reason he
called off a strike was that casualties were certain to occur and thus would not be
proportionate to an unmanned drone--
"On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked
& loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die.
150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it,
not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is
rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more
added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against
the WORLD!" Pres Trump tweet
Yes. Trump is more cool headed than a lot of people give him credit for being.
His actions have nothing to do with him being cool headed. He is very confused man as of
today. But in this particular case we all may be thankful for none other than Tucker Carlson
who, if to believe number of American sources, does advise Trump and that, in itself, is a
really good news for everyone on the planet. In fact, if Trump wants second term, among many
things he ought to do is to remove Bolton and appoint Tucker his NSA. Carlson surely is way
more qualified for this job than Bolton. Come to think about it, Tucker could make a decent
Secretary of the State too.
I've always felt that President Trump is impulsive and that impulsiveness is one of the
things that makes him unfit to be President. My question is not 'did he order airstrikes'. My
question is 'did an adult in the room step in' or 'did he actually change his mind'. I
suspect the answer to that question will break down along the typical partisan lines.
It does make clear that he has no overall plan or strategy in place. These actions
demonstrate that our President is unpredictable. While unpredictability has its own value
(perhaps especially in the political arena) I don't want to see miscalculations creep in when
we are talking about getting involved in a new war in the ME.
I thank Generals Dunford and Selva at the JCS for putting the brakes on Moron Bolton and
SecState Pompous. Particularly General Selva who says protecting oil shipments thru the
Strait is not our job; and who also pushed back hard against escalation in Venezuela in late
April.
The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military
aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in the Strait and its approaches.
That is true elsewhere also. The international legal regime of transit passage exists not
only at the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Dover Strait, the
Bab-el-Mandeb, and the Strait of Malacca.
Looks like impeachment for Russian collusion is off the table, Joe 'foot in mouth' Biden
gets some cover and even Democrats in congress are talking about how the AUMF is outdated.
Fixing the later, well that would take Pelosi allowing some legislation to come up for a
vote.
Prudent move by the President. It is encouraging that he put in play the concept of
proportionality. Although the scale of challenge represented by Hungary in 1956,
Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the Pueblo in 68 exceeded this event, Trump's reasoning in this
situation demonstrated a level of akin sobriety that has all too frequently been lacking in
the course of the last three presidencies. The lunatic fringes will no doubt find some way to
undercut him, the left for their usual obscene political reasons and the neo-cons because
they are neo-cons in service to their 'higher calling' but Trump by now has become accustomed
to the craven antics of former; and hopefully this unfolding will so contrast his reasoning
with the reasoning of his card carrying neo-con advisors that he will realize he needs to
clean house for the next time.
What "challenge" in Hungry? Ike made it clear, in 1944, never mind 1956, where our sphere of
interest was. There was never any doubt in Ike's mind, anyway. And who had enough gravitas
and knowledge to try and talk him out of his views? Czechoslovakia in 1968? Come on...we were
a bit, cough, cough, distracted in 1968. That was never in question either. Pueblo? Come on..
Jack posted an interesting tweet on another thread. It seems there may also be an alternate
explanation on why Trump called off the attacks.
Apparently Iran was informed of the imminent attacks. They responded through Oman &
Switzerland that they wouldn't play ball and any attack would escalate.
It is high time for Trump to eject the neocons from his administration.
There was a palpable lack of enthusiasm for a new war on FOX's programs last night.
IMO unless Trump comes to believe his re-election chances would be enhanced by a new war
or the IRG conducts ops too violent to be ignored he is likely to keep it holstered.
Iran has been abiding by the nuclear agreement. So why does it feel like the Trump
administration is edging the United States towards a war? #iran#iransanctions#trump
Ironic, politicians don't do any of the fighting but their soldiers do. The soliders don't
know why are fighting and get killed, politicians do know why they are fighting but don't get
killed. "War: A massacre of people who don't know each other for the profit of people who
know each other but don't massacre each other" Paul Valery
I feel bad for the brainwashed American citizens From school to military to sleeping ships
that are entertained with consumption Very dumbed down society
"> This whole situation, is Americas last stand along with Saudi and their local
cousins in Israel to maintain the Petro dollar system which , if Iran could trade its
resources equitably would be finished...This is the system that pays for the thousands of US
military bases surrounding China, Russia ,Iran etc...
that provides billions of dollars to maintain Israeli nuclear and military superiority in
Palestine and Western Asia
..and maintains the Saudi monopoly and high crude prices, and so the Saudi dictator
monarchist establishment...
Nobody is claiming Iran is perfect, yet lets see this for what it is..as with Trumps
attacks , tariffs and sanctions leveled across global trade and industry...The desperate
actions of a dying empire...
There is a reason is the Obama administration went back to negotiating. To keep them Iran
busy while it was launching the Stuxnet Virus on the industrial control systems in Iran.
Watch the documentary Zero Days. It is extremely eye opening.
ole="article"> The World should stand together to stop this kind of bullying....! The
Trump administration had already planned ... that it needs to invade IRAN to choke China,
Korea, Japan & now India who gets their Oil from Iran. The unilateral tearing up of an
International Agreement is evidenced that US will rather this World go to Hell and to give-up
its No. 1 place in Commerce and Defence. This kind of arrogance & "superiorority"
attitude is dangerous for one who claims the title "Sherif - of-the - World"..! USA via the
Trump Administration is HELL BENT on invading IRAN. The tearing-up and dishonouring the
wishes of the International Community in order to provoke IRAN to retaliate by also NOT
complying with the provisions of the said Agreement is evidence that the USA had already
decided to invade IRAN. They nearly did invade last year but probably decided that they can
conspire to create more incidents to justify their attack. AN INVASION ON IRAN IS PRICELESS
TO USA.... WHY..? 1) They get to plunder USD Tens/Hundreds of Trillions to enrich THEIR
coffers/ economy. 2) IRAN has the 2nd largest oil reserves. Rebrand the Oil as "American
Oil".. 3) Take control of the most important shipment ports in the world with regards to Oil
Commodity.. 4) Get rid of Out-dsted Military wears and bill them to Saudi at a premium. 5)
Introduce their latest Military Wears to the World and again Bill them to Saudi at a double
premium ;and. - to get new orders from other countries. - to send a message to China of USA's
military capabilities.. 6) To Warn China that it has a penchant to settle issues through the
Military if negotiations do not work in favour of the USA.. 7) Choke East Asian countries who
are a threat to USA's No. 1 position. 8 ) Take another step towards acknowledging ISREALS
legitimate presence of the Middle East. 9) To help Isreal fulfill their prophesy to take
control of the Middle East. Saudi will not know, what hits them when the time comes. 10)
There is another 3 more serious points but I will leave it to you guys to challenge yourself
to decipher it. 11) To put onto action his perspectives, opinion & views while he can,
should he not be elected next Term. And if Trump is able to control the War, he will be
popular enough to be elected next term. Or if the War gets out of hand, then the US
Presidential Elections may be postpone. Therefore this invasion may be his best chance to
continue on as President. THEREFORE, UNLESS THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY STEPS IN AND STRONGLY
OBJECT TO THIS BULLYING... ;;; AMERICA WILL INVADE IRAN.....! USA PROVE ME & THE WORLD
WRONG....
The US campaign for a war against Iraq in 2003 serves as a cautionary tale against
saber-rattling and finger-pointing amid current tensions in the Persian Gulf, the Kremlin's
spokesperson has said.
"We didn't forget the vials with white powder. We remember and, therefore, have learnt
to show restraint in our assessments,"
Dmitry Peskov said on a TV show aired on 'Rossiya 1' channel on Sunday...
The Kremlin's spokesperson stated that no sufficient proof has yet been presented to
blame anyone. Jumping to conclusions and making hasty decisions could lead to dire
consequences, he said.
Who is attacking oil tankers in the Gulf between Oman and Iran? So far, the answer is still
a mystery. The US, of course, accuses Iran. Iran says it's the US or its local allies Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Magnetic mines are blamed for the damage, though there have been claims of torpedo use. Last
month, four moored tankers were slightly damaged, though none seriously. This time the attacks
were more damaging but apparently not lethal.
A few cynics have even suggested Israel may be behind the tanker attack in order to provoke
war between Iran and the United States – a key Israeli goal. Or maybe it's the Saudis
whose goal is similar. The Gulf is an ideal venue for false flag attacks.
One thing appears certain. President Donald and his coterie of neocon advisers have been
pressing for a major conflict with Iran for months. The US is literally trying to strangle Iran
economically and strategically. By now, Israel's hard right wing dominates US Mideast policy
and appears to often call the shots at the White House and Congress.
However, this latest Iran `crisis' is totally contrived by the Trump administration to
punish the Islamic Republic for refusing to follow American tutelage, supporting the
Palestinians, and menacing Saudi Arabia. Most important, the Gulf fracas is diverting public
attention from Trump's war with the lynch mob of House Democrats and personal scandals.
Many Americans love small wars. They serve as an alternative to football. Mussolini's
popularity in Italy soared after he invaded primitive Ethiopia. Americans cheered the invasions
of Grenada, Haiti and Panama. However, supposed 'cake-walk' Iraq was not such a popular
success. Memories of the fake Gulf of Tonkin clash used to drive the US into the Vietnam War
are strong; so too all the lies about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Curiously, Trump's undeclared war against Iran has had unanticipated effects. Japan,
which relies on Iranian oil, is furious at Washington. Last week, Japan's very popular prime
minister, Shinzo Abe, flew to Tehran to try to head off a US-Iranian confrontation and assure
his nation's oil supply – the very same reason Japan attacked the US in 1941. Abe warned
an accidental war may be close.
Canada used to have warm relations with China. They are now in shambles. Canada 'kidnapped'
Chinese bigwig Meng Wanzhou, the crown princess of technology giant Huawei, at Vancouver
airport while changing planes on a US arrest warrant for allegedly trading with wait for it
Iran. Canada foolishly arrested Meng on a flimsy extradition warrant from the US.
This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders. If they had
been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left Canada, or they
could not find her. Now Canada's relations with Beijing are rock bottom, Canada has suffered
very heavy trade punishment and the world's biggest nation is angry as a wet cat at Canada, a
nation whose state religion is to be liked by everyone.
Now, Japan's energy freedom is under serious threat. China mutters about executing the two
Canadians it arrested for alleged espionage. Meanwhile, US-China relations have hit their nadir
as Trump's efforts to use tariffs to bully China into buying more US soya beans and to trim its
non-trade commerce barriers have caused a trade war.
The US-China trade war is badly damaging the economies of both countries. President Trump
still does not seem to understand that tariffs are paid by American consumers, not Chinese
sellers. Trump's nincompoop foreign policy advisers don't understand how much damage they are
doing to US interests. Putting gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson in charge of US foreign and trade
policy is not such a good idea.
A good way to end this growing mess is to fire war-lover and Iran-hater John Bolton, send
Mike Pompeo back to bible school, and tell Iran and Saudi Arabia to bury the hatchet now.
Instead, the White House is talking about providing nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia, one of
our world's most backwards and unpleasant nations. Maybe Trump will make a hell of a 'deal' and
have North Korea sell nukes to Saudis.
And now we wait the all-time bad joke, the so-called 'Deal of the Century,' which Trump
and his boys hope will get rich Arabs to buy off poor Palestinians in exchange for giving up
lots more land to Israel. It's hard to think of a bigger or more shameful betrayal by Arabs of
fellow Arabs, or a more stupid policy by the US. But, of course, it's not a made-in-the-USA
policy at all.
Mat Problem, reaction, solution. Out of the rulers contrived chaos
they will create the new world order.
We of European descent will not be included. Vote Up 8 Vote Down Reply 5 days ago
Guest ricck lineheart mmmm Bible School So many self proclaimed Christians yet all appear to
be through their words and actions thirsty for blood just as history shows . The same people
talk peace and love for all , B.S. ! Americans have such short memories and this is the best
weapon the Zionist Jew uses . Along with MainStreamMedia to aid and assist the U.S. must bleed
and kill masses of people their god is evil and lusting for blood . Vote Up 4 Vote Down Reply 5
days ago
Guest dennis ward Round up the usual suspects, the Saudi's and the Israeli's! STOP SELLING
THOSE MURDERING PSYCHOPATHS WEAPONS!!! Vote Up 3 Vote Down Reply 4 days ago
Guest Arindam 'This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders.
If they had been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left
Canada, or they could not find her. '
My thoughts exactly. The Trudeau administration performed extremely poorly in this regard
– and Canada is paying the price for it. Though one cannot rule out the possibility that
some back-room deal involving Trudeau's re-election was involved
'Trump's nincompoop foreign policy advisers don't understand how much damage they are doing
to US interests.'
More likely that they know exactly how much damage they are doing, and it is part of the
plan.
My own analysis is that the choice of Iran is more or less incidental.
For reasons I won't repeat, Israel always has to have an enemy. Between one thing and
another, Iran is the most attractive target at the moment.
Should she be reduced to quivering submission or blood-soaked anarchy, Israel will just
pick another victim for us to attack. My guess is that it would be Turkey, but first things
first.
"7 Countries in 5 years" and the first Arab Spring dress rehearsal designed to culminate in
an Iranian overthrow. Wayback time machine for warnings of what was and was to come: http://www.arkofcrisis.com/id51.html
@Colin
Wright no the Iran War will not be "incidental":
1) as it'll likely set the rest of the Middle East on fire, the Iran War will greatly
facilitate the Greater Israel Project; esp. as cover for a Final Solution of Israhell's
Palestinian Arab Problem.
2) Iran no longer takes 'Murkan debtbucks for oil. That must be put down, as international
demand for the 'Murkan debtbuck-that-buys-oil is what prevents the domestic debtbuck from
going to hyperinflationary collapse. Oil-producing Iraq dropped the 'Murkan debtbuck and so
did Libya. See what happened to them?
& expect Drumpf to announce his "great discovery about 9/11" any day now:
"Iran did it!" and as Linh D. says, the MAGA-idiots will believe it.
@Haxo
Angmark'no the Iran War will not be "incidental" '
My point is that what's at the heart of this is Israel's need for an enemy. Iran could
vanish tomorrow; it'd just mean Israel would have to start the work up on someone else.
Since we're in the endless war era, another war for Israel is on the horizon, but hardly
anyone seems alarmed, least of all Americans, for they've come to see themselves, quite
casually and indifferently, as only asskicking agents of war, and never its victims.
Please, don't be stupid. The "white man" goyim are not your enemies. We're all in
this together.
If we were that bad, we'd end everyone else tomorrow.
@Escher
If all it takes are some cocaine-addicted pedophiles who molested child actors like Corey
Faim to make some cheesy films for Americans to be brainwashed, perhaps they DESERVE this.
Definitely Jews themselves are not brainwashed.
Nor are Hindus in America. You won't see many Indian-Americans running out to die in Iran
because of the latest film about Nazis.
Muslims-and I worked in a Muslim country-won't care. Emirate Arabs will continue making
money.
Asian-Americans will not care, though clearly our author might be the exception.
Hispanics won't care.
So tell me, why do whites care? What meaning is missing in their lives that can only be
filled by stupid Hollywood films.
Trump's foreign policy is that of the neocons and Israel , the B-52's are fuelled and armed
just waiting for the false flag/pretext to bomb Iran back into the stone age , there will be
no invasion as the costs will be too high . There is speculation that the US is waiting for
Boris Johnson to become Prime Minister as unlike Theresa May he will come out strongly in
favor of military action against Iran .
"Above, I named Jews as the instigators of war against Iran, which made some readers
cringe" Try not to let it bother you. It's pretty obvious that most of the people that read
this website are learning and having a lifetime of indoctrination undone. Many are scared out
of their wits at even having a negative thought about Jews in private. I know the feeling. I
felt similarly growing up.
Growing up I was I was bombarded with non-stop anti-German hatred in the media and
everywhere else. This probably would not have bothered me except that both my parents grew up
in Germany during the war. That meant that like 99% of the other Germans, they were
patriotic. Both of them experienced some harassment when they came to the US, but my mother
liked the USA until we noticed a change around 1970. My father had a more difficult time at
work, but he survived and did very well, but he too noticed a change around that time. That
is the time period Norman Finkelstein identifies as the beginning of the "Holocaust
Industry". Finkelstein explains, that after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, Israel was
considered a valuable ally to the US when they defeated the Soviet backed Arabs. The Jews in
the US became more bold and the word "Holocaust" was abducted by them and was redefined to
refer to what supposedly happened to them during the war. There was an explosion of holocaust
movies, newspaper and magazine articles, everywhere you were bombarded with this propaganda.
In school too. On top of that, we lived in New York, which the Jews openly dominated by the
1970's. My parents also noticed how some Jews mocked Christianity and how Christianity was
being torn down. I think Europeans are more alert than Americans in regards to some things.
When I think about how Christianity has been destroyed in the west I can credit my parents
with seeing it coming.
My parents hardly noticed Jews until they began this full blown propaganda campaign that
went on for decades and I don't think it ever really ended. If it bothered you, it bothered
you less as the years passed by. I asked my mom, and during the National Socialist period,
she knew some Jews but they were a small minority so she had little interaction with them and
their was very little discussion of them. So, in other words, my parents growing up didn't
have negative thoughts about Jews, certainly not strong ones. That changed when the Holocaust
Industry took off and the Jews showed their hatred for the Germans everywhere, and as I said,
it never really stopped. Back then, while having some feelings for my parents homeland, I was
often arguing with them and going against them and Germany. And like the frightened readers
on this website, I knew better than to say, or even think a negative thought about Jews. I
always knew there were many things wrong with the WW II narrative but I think I really became
aware of the lies when I wrote an email to David Irving and he replied in 2007. With the
advent of the internet and reading some important books, you have to be a coward or liar to
deny the hatred and lies that many powerful Jews peddle and how they shove these lies down
everyone else's throats. I'm not as timid as I used to be.
Not only are we fighting Israels wars in the mideast, but the zionists who control the US can
attack and kill 34 and wound 174 Americans on the USS Liberty and got away with it and then
Israel and the zionist controlled deep state attacked the WTC on 911 and killed some 3000
Americans and got away with that also, and plunged America into 18 years and counting of
unending war!
In regards to the USS Liberty see the book Blood In The Water by Joan Mellen, can be had
on amazon.
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov called on Washington to weigh the possible
consequences of conflict with Iran and said a report in the New York Times showed the situation
was extremely dangerous.
U.S. President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for the
downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, but called off the attacks at the last minute, the report
said.
"... So far, there have been no official accusations explicitly made against Iran over the latest shipping incident. But the implications are pointedly skewed to frame-up the Islamic Republic. ..."
"... Saudi energy minister Khalid al Falih, whom Western media have quoted uncritically, claimed that one of the vessels allegedly attacked was on its way to load up on crude oil from the Saudi port of Ras Tanura, destined for the US market. ..."
"... When the US warned last week that it was sending a naval carrier strike armada to the Persian Gulf along with nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, it assumed the right to hit "Iran or its proxies" for any alleged attack on "American interests". The wording out of Washington is so vague and subjective that it lends itself to any kind of perceived provocation. ..."
"... Iran, for its part, has said it would not start a war with the US; that it will only act to defend itself from any American offensive. The foreign ministry in Tehran called the latest sabotage claims "highly alarming" and demanded more clarity from the Saudi and Emirati authorities as to what happened exactly. We can be sure that neither will come clean on that score, given their past record of calumny. ..."
"... The clarifying question is, of course, who gains from the latest twist in tensions? Certainly, it fulfills American, Saudi and Israeli desires to intensify aggression towards Iran. ..."
"Two Saudi oil tankers have been sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab Emirates posing
a potentially serious threat to world oil supplies," reports [sic] Britain's Guardian,
attributing the source of this information to the "Saudi government". What the Guardian omitted
was the key word "alleged" before "sabotage". Notice how the impression given is one of a
factual incident of malicious intent. Most other Western news media adopted the same reliance
on the official Saudi and Emirati claims.
Tellingly, however, Saudi and Emirati officials gave no details about the "significant
damage" allegedly caused to a total of four tankers.
What we seem to know is that the four vessels were somehow disabled off the UAE port of
Fujairah early on Sunday. The location at sea is in the Gulf of Oman, which lies outside the
Persian Gulf, about 140 kilometers south from the Strait of Hormuz. The latter is the narrow
passage from the Gulf of Oman into the Persian Gulf, through which up to 30 per cent of all
globally shipped crude oil passes each day.
Last week, Iran once again threatened it would blockade its territorial waters in the Strait
of Hormuz "if" the US carried out a military attack on it. Such a move by Iran would throw the
global economy into chaos from the anticipated crisis in oil markets. It would also doubtless
trigger an all-out war between the US and Iran, with American regional client regimes like
Saudi Arabia and Israel piling in to facilitate attacks against Tehran.
So far, there have been no official accusations explicitly made against Iran over the
latest shipping incident. But the implications are pointedly skewed to frame-up the Islamic
Republic.
Saudi energy minister Khalid al Falih, whom Western media have quoted uncritically,
claimed that one of the vessels allegedly attacked was on its way to load up on crude oil from
the Saudi port of Ras Tanura, destined for the US market. The Saudi official did not give
any substantiating details on the alleged sabotage, but emphasized that it was aimed "to
undermine the freedom of navigation". He called on international action to "protect security of
oil tankers". Wording that the American self-appointed global "policeman" (more accurately,
"thug") invokes all the time to cover for its imperialist missions anywhere on the planet.
When the US warned last week that it was sending a naval carrier strike armada to the
Persian Gulf along with nuclear-capable B-52 bombers, it assumed the right to hit "Iran or its
proxies" for any alleged attack on "American interests". The wording out of Washington is so
vague and subjective that it lends itself to any kind of perceived provocation.
An oil tanker on its way to collect crude from Saudi Arabia for the US market? That
certainly could qualify as perceived Iranian aggression against American vital interests.
Last week, Washington issued hammed-up warnings that "Iran or its proxies" was set to
"target commercial sea traffic". Days later, as if on cue, the alleged sabotage of four ships
appears to fit the theatrical bill.
Iran, for its part, has said it would not start a war with the US; that it will only act
to defend itself from any American offensive. The foreign ministry in Tehran called the latest
sabotage claims "highly alarming" and demanded more clarity from the Saudi and Emirati
authorities as to what happened exactly. We can be sure that neither will come clean on that
score, given their past record of calumny.
The clarifying question is, of course, who gains from the latest twist in tensions?
Certainly, it fulfills American, Saudi and Israeli desires to intensify aggression towards
Iran.
From the standpoint of Information Warfare, it is very critical when a new event happens to
put forward one's version of the "truth" first before any other possible competing theories can
arise. This could be why Pompeo or someone like him would chose to immediately come out with
accusations thrown around as facts with no evidence to support them and no respect for the
great Western concepts of "innocence until proven guilty" or the "right to a fair trial".
Pompeo's objective here is not the truth but to take that virgin intellectual territory
regarding the interpretation of this issue before anyone else can, because once a concept has
become normalized in the minds of the masses it is very difficult to change it and many people
in Washington cannot risk blowing the chance to waste thousands of American lives invading Iran
based on an ultimately false but widely accepted/believed narrative.
Not surprisingly foreign and especially Russian media has quickly attempted to counter the
"Iran obviously did it" narrative before it becomes an accepted fact. Shockingly Slavic
infowarriors actually decided
to speak to the captain of a tanker that was hit to get his opinion rather than simply
assert that Iran didn't do it because they are a long time buddy of Moscow. The captain's
testimony of what happened strongly contradicts the version of reality that Washington is
pushing. And over all Russia as usual takes the reasonable position of "let's gather the
evidence and then see who did it", which is good PR for itself as a nation beyond this single
issue.
In terms of finding the actual guilty party the media on both sides has thus far ignored the
simple fact that if Iran wanted to sink a tanker it would be sunk. No civilian vessel is going
to withstand an attack from a 21st century navy by having a particularly thick hull and the
idea that the Iranians need to physically attach bombs to boats is mental. Physically planting
bombs is for goofball inept terrorists, not a professional military. After all, even the West
acknowledges that
the Iranians use the best Russian goodies that they can afford and Russian 21 st
century arms will sink civilian ship guaranteed. The Iranians have everything they need to
smoke any civilian vessel on the planet guaranteed from much farther away than 3 feet.
If Iran's goal was to scare or intimidate the tanker they could have just shot at it with
rifles or done something else to spook the crew and get a media response. When looked at from
the standpoint of military logic, these "attacks" seem baffling as Iran could have just
destroyed the boats or directly tried to terrorize them to make a statement.
The New York Times inevitably echoed the
administration's claims, but if one went to the readers' comments on the story fully 90% of
those bothering to express an opinion decided that the tale was not credible for any number of
reasons.
Several commenters brought up the completely phony Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964 that led
to the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam, a view that was expressed frequently in
readers' comments both in the mainstream and alternative media. Others recalled instead the
fake intelligence linking Iraq's Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 conspirators as well as the bogus
reports of an Iraqi secret nuclear program and huge gliders capable to delivering biological
weapons across the Atlantic Ocean.
There were a number of questionable aspects to the Pompeo story, most notably the
unlikelihood that Iran would attack a Japanese ship while the Japanese Prime Minister was in
Tehran paying a visit. The attack itself, attributed to Iranian mines, also did not match
the damage to the vessels, which was well above the water line, a detail that was
noted by the Japanese ship captain among others. Crewmen on the ship also reportedly saw
flying objects, which suggests missiles or other projectiles were to blame, fired by almost
anyone in the area.
And then there is the question of motive: the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the
Emirates all want a war with Iran while the Iranians are trying to avoid a B-52 attack, so why
would they do something that would virtually guarantee a devastating response from
Washington?
... ... ...
The final story dates from early June when Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was privately
meeting with American Jewish leaders who expressed concern about the possibility that British
Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn might become prime minister. Corbyn has been targeted by British
Jews because he is the first U.K. senior politician to speak sympathetically about the plight
of the Palestinians.
"... Why Trump cancelled the JCPOA is imho a complicated story, can't be explained by the love of Israel. Most likely has to do, in first place, with China (oil.) ..."
"... It's not that complicated. And it IS because of a pathological subservience to Israel and the Jewish funders and opinion-shapers. Potential control of Iranian oil flows might be a subsidiary incentive, but unlike Venezuela where Trump probably does think it's largely about oil and about pre-empting Chinese influence, Iran is all about Israel, Israel, Israel. ..."
"... "....Media sources close to the U.S. allies, such as the UAE-based al-Arabiya TV, reported that Washington could approve a military response within a few hours. The news channel claimed that a limited strike against positions of the IRGC is one of the options being studied by Trump and his administration. ..."
"... Iran isn't Iraq, Serbia, Panama, or an airstrip in Grenada. This country has real military strike-back capabilities that the backwater states we're used to invading simply do not, meaning war would present a far heightened danger not only to our troops but to civilians in the region. All our recent wars have been stupid, but this one would be really stupid. Just once, could we not do this? Does the script always have to end the same way? ..."
CENTCOM gave a scenario that finally made sense, they said that an IRGC boat approached the
two tankers at night and attached the 'mines'. This would explain why it was above the
waterline and it would take great skill to do this with no injury and without being
detected.
The photos of the Kokuka Courageous published by the US Navy shows markings left by
a limpet mine on the side of the ship. The mine was attached by six round magnets,
one of which is still seen attached to the ship.
In addition to the six marks left by the magnets there are two screw holes drilled into
the steel. Apparently these too were used to secure the mine.
I find it highly unlikely that an Iranian speedboat could have made the holes while the
ship was moving. It is more likely that the limpet mine was attached while the ship was still
in port!
" Why Trump cancelled the JCPOA is imho a complicated story, can't be explained by the
love of Israel. Most likely has to do, in first place, with China (oil.) "
It's not that complicated. And it IS because of a pathological subservience to Israel
and the Jewish funders and opinion-shapers. Potential control of Iranian oil flows might be a
subsidiary incentive, but unlike Venezuela where Trump probably does think it's largely about
oil and about pre-empting Chinese influence, Iran is all about Israel, Israel,
Israel.
Even Saudi Arabia is of only secondary importance. If Saudi hadn't entered into a de facto
alliance with Israel--a process choreographed by Israel and its supporters--we wouldn't be on
the verge of war with Iran for it. The media exaggerates Saudi influence in DC (though it is
significant on a certain level) in order to diminish the (accurate) perception that Israel
and it's lobby have a Rasputin-like hold on the US policy process.
southfront has an interesting bit of info here, and then the analysis of what will happen if
the US tries any kind of military action, which I believe is correct. Iran might not be like
Syria/Russia and just sit back. unless something is going on behind the scenes that would
allow such a tit for tat
"....Media sources close to the U.S. allies, such as the UAE-based al-Arabiya TV,
reported that Washington could approve a military response within a few hours. The news
channel claimed that a limited strike against positions of the IRGC is one of the options
being studied by Trump and his administration.
Any military action by the U.S. could lead to a full-on military confrontation in the
Persian Gulf, as Iran is determined to respond to any attack. Such a confrontation will
likely have a devastating effect on oil trade and global economy....."
It is trump who has made a big big mistake by withdrawing from the Iranian nuclear deal. I
mean how dumb can you be
Here we go again. Iran has not only shot down an American spy drone over the Strait of
Hormuz, but refuses to feel bad about it.
Iran's General Hossein Salami -- one assumes this is a real person -- said of the drone
downing, "We are completely ready for the war. Today's incident is a clear sign of this
accurate message."
We all know what this means. This aggression will not stand, man.
Depending on who's doing the counting, the United States has attempted to overthrow
foreign governments roughly 72 times since World War II. The script is often the same, and
the Iran drama is following it.
...
Iran isn't Iraq, Serbia, Panama, or an airstrip in Grenada. This country has real
military strike-back capabilities that the backwater states we're used to invading simply
do not, meaning war would present a far heightened danger not only to our troops but to
civilians in the region. All our recent wars have been stupid, but this one would be really
stupid. Just once, could we not do this? Does the script always have to end the same
way?
These limited tactics haven't forced the United States to back off, and the Iranians
escalated Thursday by shooting down the American drone. A likely next step for the
United States would be to send aloft F-18 fighter escorts to accompany the big drones ;
good luck to the Iranians in that contest.
Well the drone didn't do it, so next time we need to send some real people up there to be
shot down. Would not want to be one of those pilots if they actually do this. Iranian and
B-team missiles all pointed at you.
Not to mention people these potential pilots would most likely consider allies are all
foaming at the mouth for them to be shot down.
A very good analysis. Trump essentially morphed into Hillary or worse. Essentially the same type of warmonger and
compulsive liar.
Notable quotes:
"... The American people appear largely uninterested in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into another pointless, disastrous war. ..."
"... At time of writing, the Washington Post has counted 10,796 false or misleading claims from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics. ..."
"... Pompeo insists " there is no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the exact same words that Vice President Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies reacted skeptically to Trump's claims.) ..."
"... What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that -- or worse . ..."
"... Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. ..."
"... At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further. ..."
"... On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks. Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S. military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels specifically designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes next. ..."
"... Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda covers an attack on Iran . This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts -- but may explain Pompeo's equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan. ..."
"... Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems somewhat hesitant , sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped. ..."
The Trump regime is attempting to gin up a war with Iran. First Trump reneged on Obama's nuclear deal with the country for no
reason, then he slapped them with more economic sanctions for no reason, and then, pushed by National Security Adviser John Bolton
and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, he moved massive military forces onto Iran's doorstep to heighten tensions further. Now, after
a series of attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman -- none of which were American -- that the administration blames on Iran,
Pompeo says the U.S. is "considering a full range of options," including war. (Iran has categorically denied any involvement.)
The American people appear
largely uninterested
in this idea. But unless some real mass pressure is mounted against it, there is a good chance Trump will launch the U.S. into
another pointless, disastrous war.
The New York Times ' Bret Stephens, for all his #NeverTrump pretensions, provides a good window into the
absolute witlessness of the pro-war
argument . He takes largely at face value the Trump administration's accusations against Iran -- "Trump might be a liar, but
the U.S. military isn't," he writes -- and blithely suggests Trump should announce an ultimatum demanding further attacks cease,
then sink Iran's navy if they don't comply.
Let me take these in turn. For one thing, any statement of any kind coming out of a Republican's mouth should be viewed with extreme
suspicion. Two years ago, the party passed a gigantic tax cut for the rich which they swore up and down would "
pay
for itself " with increased growth. To precisely no one's surprise,
this did not happen
. Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) was just
one
flagrant example of many who got elected in 2016 while
lying through their teeth about their party's efforts to destroy ObamaCare and its protections for preexisting conditions.
At
time of writing, the Washington Post has counted
10,796 false or misleading claims
from Trump himself since taking office. Abject up-is-down lying is basically the sine qua non of modern conservative politics.
Republican accusations of foreign aggression should be subjected to an even higher burden of proof. The Trump regime has provided
no evidence of Iranian culpability aside from
a video of a ship the Pentagon says is Iranians removing something they say is a mine from an oil tanker -- but a Japanese
ship owner reported at least one attack came from a "
flying object ," not a mine. Pompeo insists "
there is
no doubt " that Iran carried out the attacks -- the
exact same words that Vice President
Dick Cheney said in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction and his intention to use them on the United
States, neither of which were true. (This is no doubt why several U.S. allies
reacted skeptically
to Trump's claims.)
What's more, the downside risk here is vastly larger than tax policy. A great big handout to the rich might be socially costly
in many ways, but it won't cause tens of thousands of violent deaths in a matter of days. War with Iran could easily do that --
or worse .
Who else might have done the attacks? Saudi Arabia springs to mind. False flag attacks on its own oil tankers sound outlandish,
but we're talking about a ruthless dictatorship run by a guy who had a Washington Post columnist
murdered and chopped into pieces because he didn't like
his takes. And the Saudis have already been conducting a years-long war in Yemen with catastrophic humanitarian outcomes in order
to stop an Iran-allied group from coming to power. It's by no means certain, but hardly outside the realm of possibility.
At a minimum, anybody with half a brain would want to be extremely certain about what actually happened before taking any
rash actions. It's clear that Bolton and company, by contrast, just want a pretext to ratchet up pressure on Iran even further.
But let's grant for the sake of argument that some Iranian forces actually did carry out some or all of these attacks. That raises
the immediate question of why. One very plausible reason is that all of Trump's provocations have strengthened the hand of Iran's
conservative hard-liners, who are basically the mirror image of Pompeo and Bolton. "It is sort of a toxic interaction between hard-liners
on both sides because for domestic political reasons they each want greater tension," as Jeremy Shapiro of the European Council on
Foreign Relations told
the New York Times . This faction might have concluded that the U.S. is run by deranged fanatics, and the best way to
protect Iran is to demonstrate they could choke off oil shipping from the Persian Gulf if the U.S. attacks.
This in turn raises the question of the appropriate response if Iran is actually at fault here. It would be one thing if these
attacks came out of a clear blue sky. But America is very obviously the aggressor here. Iran was following its side of the
nuclear deal to the letter before Trump reneged, and
continued to do so as of February . So far the
European Union (which is still party to the deal) has been unwilling to sidestep U.S. sanctions, prompting Iran to
threaten to restart
uranium enrichment . So Iran is a medium-sized country with a faltering economy, hemmed in on all sides by U.S. aggression. Backing
off the threats and chest-thumping might easily strengthen the hand of Iranian moderates, and cause them to respond in kind.
On the other hand, sinking Iran's navy, as Stephens suggests in his column, would likely be a lot more dangerous than he thinks.
Americans have long been fed a lot of hysterical nationalist propaganda from neocons like him about the invincibility of the U.S.
military, and the ease with which any possible threat could be defeated. But while U.S. forces are indeed powerful, there is a very
real risk that Iran's navy -- which is full of fast-attack boats, mini-subs, and disguised civilian vessels
specifically
designed to take out large ships with swarm attacks -- could inflict significant damage. Just a few lucky hits could kill
thousands of sailors and cause tens of billions of dollars in damage. This is before you even get to the primary lesson of the Iraq
War which is that an initial military victory is completely useless and probably counterproductive without a plan for what comes
next.
Taken together, these factors strongly militate towards de-escalation and diplomacy even if Iran did carry out these attacks,
which again, is not at all proven. The current standoff is almost entirely our fault, and Iranian forces are far from defenseless.
America has a lot better things to do than indulge the deluded jingoist fantasies of a handful of armchair generals who want lots
of other people to die in battle.
Finally, attacking Iran would be illegal. It would violate
U.S. treaties , and thus the Constitution. The only justification
is the claim that the 2001 authorization to attack Al Qaeda
covers an attack on Iran .
This is utterly preposterous -- akin to arguing it covers attacking New Zealand to roll back their gun control efforts --
but may explain Pompeo's
equally preposterous attempt to blame Iran for a Taliban attack in Afghanistan.
Pompeo and Bolton are clearly hell-bent on war. But Trump himself seems
somewhat hesitant ,
sensing (probably accurately) that starting another war of aggression would tank his popularity even further. It's high time for
everyone from ordinary citizens up to Nancy Pelosi to demand this rush to war be stopped.
"... [Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security]. ..."
"... " Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them ." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of 9/11 Studies, Feb.2013). ..."
[False flag operations:] "The powers-that-be understand that to create the appropriate atmosphere for war, it's necessary to
create within the general populace a hatred, fear or mistrust of others regardless of whether those others belong to a certain
group of people or to a religion or a nation." James Morcan (1978- ), New Zealander-born Australian writer.
[Definition: A 'false flag operation' is a horrific, staged event -- blamed on a political enemy -- and used as pretext
to start a war or to enact draconian laws in the name of national security].
" Almost all wars begin with false flag operations ." Larry Chin (d. of b. unknown), North American author, (in 'False
Flagging the World towards War. The CIA Weaponizes Hollywood', Dec. 27, 2014).
" Definition of reverse projection: attributing to others what you are doing yourself as the reason for attacking them
." John McMurtry (1939- ), Canadian philosopher, (in 'The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State', Journal of
9/11 Studies, Feb.2013).
" That there are men in all countries who get their living by war, and by keeping up the quarrels of nations, is as shocking
as it is true; but when those who are concerned in the government of a country, make it their study to sow discord, and cultivate
prejudices between nations, it becomes the more unpardonable ." Thomas Paine (1737-1809), American Founding father, pamphleteer,
(in 'The Rights of Man', c. 1792).
" I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, and we stole . It was like -- we had entire training courses. It reminds
you of the glory of the American experiment." Mike Pompeo (1963- ), former CIA director and now Secretary of State in the
Trump administration, (in April 2019, while speaking at Texas A&M University.)
***
History repeats itself. Indeed, those who live by war are at it again. Their crime: starting illegal wars by committing false flag attacks and blaming other countries for their
own criminal acts. On this, the Donald Trump-John Bolton duo is just like the George W. Bush-Dick Cheney duo. It is amazing that
in an era of 24-hour news, this could still going on.
We recall that in 2002-2003, the latter duo, with the help of U.K.'s Tony Blair, lied their way into a war of aggression against
Iraq, by pretending that Saddam Hussein had a massive stockpile of " weapons of mass destruction "and
that he was ready to attack the United States proper. On October 6, 2002, George W. Bush scared Americans with his big Mushroom Cloud analogy. -- It was
all bogus. -- It was a pure fabrication that the gullible (!) U.S. Congress, the corporate media, and most of the American public,
swallowed hook, line and sinker.
Now, in 2019, a short sixteen years later, the same stratagem seems to being used to start another illegal war of aggression,
this time against the country of Iran. The masters of deception are at it again. Their secret agents and those of their Israeli and
Saudi allies, in the Middle East, seem to have just launched an unprovoked attack, in international waters, against a Japanese tanker,
and they have rushed to the cameras to accuse Iran. They claim that the latter country used mines to attack the tanker.
This time, they were unlucky. -- The owner of the Japanese
tanker , the Kokuka Courageous, immediately rebuked that "official" version.
Yutaka Katada , president of the Kokuka Sangyo shipping company, declared that the attack came from a bombing from above
the water. Indeed, Mr. Katada told reporters:
" The crew are saying it was hit with a flying object. They say something came flying toward them, then there was an explosion,
then there was a hole in the vessel ."
His company issued a statement saying that " the hull (of the ship) has been breached above the waterline on the starboard
side ", and it was not hit by a mine below the waterline, as the Trump administration has insinuated. -- [N. B.: There was also
a less serious attack on a Norwegian ship, the Front Altair.]
Thus, this time the false flag makers have not succeeded. But, you can be sure that they will be back at it, sooner or later,
just as they, and their well financed al-Qaeda allies, launched a few false flag "chemical" attacks in
Syria, and blamed them on the Syrian Assad government.
Donald Trump has too much to gain personally from a nice little war to distract the media and the public from the Mueller report and from
all his mounting political problems. In his case, he surely would benefit from a "wag-the-dog" scenario that John
Bolton and his friends in the Middle East could easily invent. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago, warmonger
John Bolton was coincidently
in the Middle East, in the United Arab Emirates, just before the attacks!
Besides the Japanese ship owner's denial, it is important to point out that at the moment of the attack on the Japanese tanker,
the
Japanese Prime Minister, Mr. Shinzo Abe , was in Iran, having talks with the Iranian government about economic cooperation
between the two countries about oil shipments. Since Iran is the victim of unilateral U. S. economic sanctions, to derail such an
economic cooperation between Japan and Iran could have been the triggered motivation to launch a false flag operation. It did not
work. But you can be sure that the responsible party will not be prosecuted.
Conclusion
We live in an era when people with low morals, sponsored by people with tons of money, can gain power and do a lot of damage.
How our democracies can survive in such a context remains an open question.
"... One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments. ..."
"... The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market. ..."
"... And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it, Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks. ..."
One of the first major confrontations with the US by
Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance
negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on
substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the
euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers
and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were
now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially
lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the
participating governments.
The crux of the proposal is regional and includes flagrant disregard of the US sanctions on
Iran.
However, the key to the extent of the commitment of both Beijing and Moscow lies in the
growing importance and centrality of the New Silk Road via Central Asia.
Persia had a crucial rôle in the ancient Silk Road, and both the PRC and Russia now
expect Iran to have a comparable key rôle in the New Silk Road.
The growing dominance of heritage-based dynamics throughout the developing world, including
the greater Central Asia and the greater Middle East, makes it imperative for the PRC to rely
on historic Persia/Iran as a western pole of the New Silk Road. It is this realization which
led both Beijing and Moscow to give Tehran, in mid-May 2019, the original guarantees that
Washington would be prevented from conducting a "regime change".
Therefore, even though both Russia and the PRC were not satisfied with the Iranian and
Iran-proxy activities and policies in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area, it was far more important
for them to support Iran, and also Turkey, in their confrontations with the US in order to
expedite the consolidation of the New Silk Road.
Tehran and its key allies in "the Middle Eastern Entente" -- Turkey and Qatar -- are
cognizant of the core positions of Russia and the PRC. Since mid-May, Tehran and, to a lesser
extent, Ankara and Doha, were appraised by Moscow and Beijing of their overall direction of
political decisions. Hence, since early June 2019, Tehran has felt confident to
start building momentum of Iranian assertiveness and audacity.
Tehran has been raising its profile in the region.
Tehran insists that it is now impossible to make decisions, or do anything else, in the
greater Middle East without Iran's approval. On June 2, 2019, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian
Armed Forces, Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, touted the new strategic posture of Iran. "The
Islamic movement has affected the entire world and on top of that, it has succeeded in
intimidating the American hegemony and Zionism," he said. Bagheri attributed the new influence
of Iran to the acquisition of regional strategic depth; that is, reaching the shores of the
Mediterranean
Mamdouh Salamehon June 18 2019
Some quarters in the West belittle the strategic partnership between China and Russia describing it as a “marriage of
convenience”. They even had the temerity to urge President Putin to make a choice between China and the West.
President Putin will never sacrifice his strategic partnership with China for the West. Both Russia and China rank their ties
as the “peak” in mutual history. This can be judged by two analytical frameworks: their converging visions of the future
world order and their harmonized national interests.
The Chinese view on the world order at this historical juncture is shared and dovetailed by Putin’s Russia. Both sides hold
the view that Washington’s alienation from both Beijing and Moscow is reflected by the deeply rooted fear of the US losing
hegemonic status as the “only indispensable superpower”. The indications of the US fear are plenty. From Beijing’s point of
view, they manifest themselves by the U.S. decision to restart a Cold War containment strategy of China and by the trade war
it is waging against it. From Moscow’s perspective, US fears manifest themselves by the US attempts to undermine Russia’s
dominance in global energy and also by the Western alliance pushing the Western sphere of influence towards the Russian
border.
In sharp contrast to mutual suspicion and deteriorating relationship between Washington and Beijing, the Chinese-Russian tie
has proved to be a stable strategic partnership built on mutual understanding, respect and national interests.
The Russia-China strategic alliance is destined to shape the global economy and the geopolitics of the world in the 21st
century converting it from a unipolar to a multipolar world.
Relations between China, the world’s largest economy based on purchasing power parity (PPP) and Russia, the world’s energy
superpower, are deepening at a time of profound change in the global geopolitical landscape.
Their tools are the petro-yuan and the Silk Road better known as the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and
the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude
oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market.
Right now, China is the number one exporter on the globe, the largest crude oil importer in the world and also the world’s
biggest economy. The Chinese would like to see global currency usage reflect this shift in global economic power. The
petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States. It increases global demand for US
dollars. It also increases global demand for US debt securities and it gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a
currency it can print at will. In geopolitical terms, the petrodollar lends vast economic and political power to the United
States. China hopes to replicate this dynamic.
The launching of the crude oil benchmark on the Shanghai exchange could mark the beginning of the end of the petrodollar.
It is probable that the Chinese yuan will emerge as the world’s top reserve currency within the next fifteen years with the
petro-yuan emerging as the top oil currency.
Another tool of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership is BRI. The BRI is a massive undertaking involving investments
programmes worth trillions of dollars, which will go toward connecting Asia and Europe by sea, rail, and road to promote more
trade between the continents.
And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China
strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability
to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved
to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it,
Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks.
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
As President Donald Trump was in Florida kicking off his bid for a second term, his national
security team was in Washington hatching plans that make that prospect much less likely.
The architects of the failed George W. Bush foreign policy rightly derided by Trump as a
"big, fat mistake" on the campaign trail today exercise undue influence inside this White
House. The end result could be a war with Iran.
Just as their last turn at the wheel wrecked the Bush presidency and eventually left Barack
Obama in power alongside three-fifths Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, the
Republican Party's wildest hawks could now ensure that Trump is a one-term president. The
president once understood this, telling Jeb Bush, "Your brother and his administration gave us
Barack Obama . Abraham Lincoln couldn't have won."
Trump defeated Jeb, Lindsey Graham, and Marco Rubio, running on a foreign policy of "America
First" and repudiating a decade and a half of unwinnable wars. He then won in an upset over
Hillary Clinton, who voted to invade Iraq, pushed "kinetic military action" in Libya, and
otherwise hasn't seen a war she hasn't liked since Vietnam.
Advertisement
Now Trump is on the precipice of ceding the war issue to his political opponents, as the
border crisis metastasizes and the suburbs turn blue. Joe Biden would be the third Democratic
presidential nominee to have voted for the Iraq war -- the exception, Obama, twice won the
White House -- just as Chuck Schumer is the third straight Senate Democratic leader to have
done so.
If Trump follows Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his Bush retread national security
advisor John Bolton into a preventive war with Iran, he will make Biden and Schumer look like
Tulsi Gabbard -- and perhaps pave the way for a different Democratic nominee against whom the
anti-Hillary playbook of 2016 will prove less useful.
The president began the year promising to end the war in Syria, which Congress never
authorized in the first place, and wind down the war in Afghanistan. Alongside low
unemployment, the job growth that followed deregulation and tax cuts, and remaking the Supreme
Court in Antonin Scalia's image, keeping ISIS at bay without launching a new war in the Middle
East -- though he has surely escalated some ongoing conflicts -- stands among his top
accomplishments.
Perhaps that is the soft bigotry of low expectations, to use a Bush-era phrase, but in an
era of forever war, it counts for something. That is, it will count for something until the
Trump team invokes the congressional authorization of force used for the Afghan war to start a
new one in Iran, a move too brazenly unconstitutional for even the Bush-Cheney contingent of
old.
The cakewalk crowd has reemerged to assure us that pinprick strikes against Iranian nuclear
facilities are possible and that the regime in Tehran will prove a paper tiger. But everywhere
their promises have turned to ash. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or
cheering throngs greeting America's finest as liberators. Groups ideologically similar to the
Islamists who attacked us on 9/11 emerged from Iraq and Libya as more powerful, not less.
Iran has long been the unprincipled exception to Trump's opposition to Middle Eastern
quagmires. His desire to undo the Obama presidency predisposed him to unraveling the nuclear
deal and led him to folly in Yemen. Now it might prompt him to redo the foreign policy mistakes
that toppled the Bush dynasty, paving the way for a socialist to become the next
commander-in-chief.
Still, there remains a powerful voice inside the White House who could halt this march to
war. "The president, who campaigned against getting the U.S. bogged down in unnecessary foreign
wars, is considered the primary internal obstacle to a counterattack," Politicoreports .
Not even Trump's opinion should matter most. The Constitution vests the power to declare war
in Congress. To justify a new war based on an outdated resolution passed nearly 20 years ago to
authorize retaliation against the 9/11 attackers would be an unconscionable power grab by the
executive branch that lawmakers should not countenance. Yet time and again, Congress has
shirked its constitutional duties.
The Democrats in the House have an opportunity to put their money where
their mouths are . But maybe they won't. An Iraq-like war in Iran would go a long way
toward accomplishing their main goal: making Donald Trump a one-term president.
"... There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies. ..."
"... Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is the real one : ..."
"... Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq: ..."
"... Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel – intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at Langley). ..."
"... Bolton and Pompeo are representative of Trump's rabid evangelical base and Israel. The kabuki friction towards the shared goals is just that. To the degree that we are hearing shrillness from these folk reflects the increasing failure of their tactics to maintain control of the global narrative. ..."
"... I'm definitely of the good cop/bad cop belief. It fits with the entirety of his campaign and presidency: say one thing, do another, and blame somebody else. Trump wanted Bolton for NSA since the campaign. Both Bolton and Trump have had a position of confrontation with Iran for a long time ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson is Trumps biggest doner "Adelson's promotion of Bolton dates back at least to the days immediately after Trump's November 2016 election. According to The New York Times, Adelson strongly supported Bolton for the position of deputy secretary of state as Trump was putting together his cabinet" https://lobelog.com/trumps-choice-of-bolton-satisfies-his-biggest-donor/ So Trump could find it difficult to sack Bolton. ..."
"... It just seems like Iraq deja vu: GWB was the ignorant, dumb public face masking Lukidniks controlling US policy then, DJT the face masking the same now. ..."
"... US bombs falling on Iran seems awfully close to Moscow in my view. I cannot help wondering if one of Putin's cards is his own red line: not allowing Likudniks to subjugate US military power for their "interests" wrt Iran. ..."
"... It's about 1500 miles from Tehran to Moscow. That's about equal to the distance between Kansas City and San Francisco. ..."
"... As B (and many other media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the truth, they would recover and identify the projectile. ..."
"... IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's "on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners (capitalists) ..."
"... Sadly, I find that I disagree with both of b's latest theories: the "Iranian stealth attack" theory and the "President Bolton" theory. IMO these are propaganda narratives. ..."
"... "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron". ..."
"... Now look at the U.S., the tanker was sitting their in broad daylight for about 10hrs and we couldn't even get ONE decent picture of an unexploded bomb sitting on the side of hull. And when the IRGC finally did show up, even our high resolution pictures were a joke and we are the SIGINT champions with hi-tech drones. Also, this means that the IRGC was able to slip into a port on the other side of the Persian Gulf and attack mines to 4 tankers undetected. ..."
"... By minimizing the Oman Gulf incidents, maybe it is way for the White House under Bolton's control to show that it is not impressed nor feeling threatened. it is also encouraging the perpetrators of the attacks to do more provocations and ideally to kill an American... ..."
"... That Iranian seaman who is alleged to have pulled off a possibly unstable, unexploded mine wearing nothing but a rubber life jacket thus endangering his life and all his crew mates and survivors in the small boat is the action of a lunatic. Or maybe it never happened. ..."
"... There's been a shift in the dialogue, to some degree, to a discussion of the overall US role in the Gulf area. ..."
"... A broadening of the security mission in the Gulf area would be a positive step. Imagine the navies of China, India and Japan taking a role! The price would be a removal of Iran sanctions, because these countries want Iran oil! . . .I can dream. ..."
Jeff Bezos' blog, the Washington Post ,
has some bits on the discussion and infighting in the Trump administration about the march
towards war on Iran. The piece opens with news of a new redline the Trump administration set
out:
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has privately delivered warnings intended for Iranian leaders
that any attack by Tehran or its proxies resulting in the death of even one American service
member will generate a military counterattack, U.S. officials said.
...
While such attacks were common during the Iraq War, Pompeo told Iraqi leaders in a message he
knew would be relayed to Tehran that a single American fatality would prompt the United
States to hit back.
That warning was sent in May when Pompeo visited Baghdad. The issue may soon become
critical. Throughout the last days there were rocket attacks in Iraq against targets where U.S.
personnel is present. The AFP correspondent in Baghdad lists six of them:
Maya Gebeily - @GebeilyM - 10:20 UTC - 19 Jun 2019
Timeline of attacks on US interests in #Iraq
Fri: Mortars hit Balad base, where US troops based
Sun: Projectiles hit #Baghdad mil airport
Mon: Rockets on Taji, where coalition forces based
Tues: Mortars on #Mosul ops HQ
Wed: Rockets on housing/ops center used by IOCs near #Basra
#IRAQ: @AFP learns there were at least *two* attacks near US oil interests in #Basra in
last 24 hours - ExxonMobil + Baker Hughes, a GE Company Their senior staff are being
evacuated.
At least some of these attacks came from areas where Islamic State underground groups are
still active. The weapons used were improvised and
imprecise.
That shows how stupid the red line is that Pompeo set out. He would attack Iran if an errant
ISIS rocket by chance kills some U.S. soldier? That is nuts.
Back to the WaPo piece:
Speaking during a visit to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa on Tuesday, Pompeo said
Trump "does not want war" but stressed the United States would act if assaulted. "We are
there to deter aggression," he said.
The U.S. violated the nuclear agreement and is waging an economic war on Iran. That was the
aggression that started the conflict. Anything that follows from that was caused by the Trump
administration.
Colonel Pat Lang
thinks that Pompeo was in Tampa to bring the military in line with his aggressive
policies:
Ole First in his Class is down in Tampaland today jawboning the leaders of CENTCOM (Mideast),
and SOCOM (badass commandos worldwide). Why is he there? The Secretary of State has no
constitutional or legal role in dealing with the armed forces. That being the case one can
only think that there is push-back from senior commanders over the prospect of war with Iran
and that Trump has been persuaded to let him do this unprecedented visit to wheedle or
threaten his way into their acquiescence.
WaPo again:
The sudden departure Tuesday of Patrick Shanahan, who has served as acting defense secretary
since January, could further sideline the Pentagon, which has campaigned to reduce the
potential for hostilities. Shanahan's withdrawal followed revelations of a complicated
domestic dispute.
The
'complicated domestic dispute ' is not so complicate at all and the case is undisputed. In
a several years long process Shanahan's ex-wife went crazy and physically attacked him and
their kids. Finally one of the kids hit back at her with a baseball bat. In court Shanahan
argued for a mild punishment for the kid. All the kids, mostly grown up now, are with him and
do not want to see their mother. All that was documented by the police and by courts. Shanahan
is not guilty of anything in that case. It was not a reason to resign.
Pat Lang
believes that the real reason was Pompeo's trip to Tampa:
Shanahan withdrew his name from confirmation process today. IMO he did it because DJT let
Pomp circumvent his authority.
The Pentagon was the last hold out against the aggressive anti-Iran policy says WaPo
:
Concerns about an escalation are particularly pointed at the Pentagon, where the absence of a
confirmed secretary has fueled worries that hawks in the White House and State Department
could push the military beyond its specific mission of destroying the remnants of the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria, raising the potential for conflict with Iran.
It has been reported several times and by different outlets that Trump is somewhat isolated
from anti-war opinions in his administration. All he sees and hears is Fox News , Bibi
Netanyahoo and John Bolton. The WaPo piece again confirms that:
Administration officials interviewed by The Washington Post said that national security
adviser John Bolton has dominated Iran policy, keeping a tight rein on information that gets
to the president and sharply reducing meetings in which top officials gather in the White
House's Situation Room to discuss the policy.
...
The intensification of [the "maximum pressure"] campaign has triggered internal debates over
how best to execute the president's orders. At the State Department this spring, an argument
among officials over how hard to squeeze Iran with sanctions ended with those favoring the
toughest possible approach prevailing. In particular, hard-liners at the White House
squelched waivers that would have allowed Iran to keep selling oil after a May 1 deadline.
White House aides also ended waivers that allowed Iran to swap its enriched uranium for
natural uranium, an integral part of the nuclear deal.
...
While State Department officials sought to achieve a "sweet spot" that would weaken Iran
through sanctions but not push so hard that Iran would withdraw from the nuclear deal, others
have argued that Trump's goal is to destroy the accord at any cost and pursue a more
expansive policy that seeks to cripple Iran's proxy forces throughout the region.
Pentagon and State Department officials have complained, however, about the difficulty of
getting an adequate hearing for these debates under Bolton. As a result, arguments about
policy frequently are not aired and do not reach the president. The process is "very
exclusionary, and Bolton has very sharp elbows," the senior administration official said.
...
At the Pentagon, officials have quietly voiced concerns for months that the current
trajectory might make military conflict a self-fulfilling prophecy.
...
One person familiar with the recent discussions said that Pentagon officials, including
Shanahan, have been "the ones putting the brakes" on the State Department and the White
House. "DOD is not beating the drums of war," the person said.
One can quibble with that. It is the regional military commander who always asks for more
troops. More ships and more troops increase the chance for "accidents" and make a war more
likely. That is why John Bolton uses each and every small incident to send more troops to the
Middle East:
"Does the president want to send more troops? No. Will he be convinced to do it? Yes," the
senior administration official said.
Trump, in contrast to some of his advisers, has seemed to downplay the significance of
Iran's actions. In an interview published Tuesday by Time magazine, he said the recent oil
tanker attacks were "very minor."
Trump is the president. He hired those people and is responsible for what they do. But does
he know what they do?
There are two possibilities. Trump wants a war with Iran and what we see is a good cop, bad cop strategy in which Trump
plays the good guy for his voters until some 'grave incident' happens that lets him says that
he has no choice but to 'hit back' at Iran. The other scenario is that Trump is a fool and that
the war hawks use him as their tool to implement their preferred policies.
Former MI6 agent Alastair Crooke says that the second scenario is
the real one :
The consensus on 'no conflict' unfortunately, may turn out to have been overly sanguine. This
is not because Trump consciously desires war, but because the hawks surrounding him,
particularly Bolton, are painting him into a corner – from which he must either back
down, or double down, if Iran does not first capitulate.
And here is the point: the main Trump misconception may be that he does believe that Iran
wants, and ultimately, 'will seek a deal'.
Crooke describes how Bolton, and Netanyahoo behind him, outmaneuver the U.S. intelligence
services over Iran. They stovepipe "intelligence" to the president and the media just like the
crew of then Vice President Dick Cheney did in the run up to the war on Iraq:
Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel
– intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the
Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to
Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the
credibility of the intelligence presented (shades of Cheney confronting the analysts down at
Langley). And Bolton too, will represent Trump at the 'security summit' to be held later this
month in Jerusalem with Russia and Israel. Yes, Bolton truly has all the reins in his hands:
He is 'Mr Iran'.
'Mr Anti-Iran' is a more precise moniker. Or one may just call him President Bolton.
Posted by b on June 19, 2019 at 02:20 PM | Permalink
The US is now saying that they will only protect ships in the gulf if the usual NATO suspects
come along for the ride. If they do, then when the US attacks Iran they are committed for the
regional war that follows. Bolton has done a great job of putting the band back together
again.
Its all on Trump. No excuses. When the bodybags start to flow and the gas prices go to 8 or 9
dollars a gallon he will be toast. He'll never be able to show his face in public again
without a small army around him. What a legacy.
The similarities, to me, are a poor pantomime of Nixon and Kissinger. Milhaus was always the
"madman" with his finger on the nuclear trigger which made the Nazi employment campaigner,
Kissinger, seem like one to reason with if you didn't want nuclear annihilation.
There is an interesting book, "The Fire And The Fury", that has some insight into the
administration. Trump never thought he would win and didn't intend to. He wanted to be
"Crooked Hillary's" victim. Also, the book makes a great case for Israeli collusion, not
Russia.
That said, the book makes a large showing of DJT's ignorance and indifference. Like many
ignorant presidential hopefuls, I think DJT thought he could make a difference but we all
know he's just a shill.
My favorite part of the book stated that DJT ate at Mickey D's because he's afraid of
being poisoned, not because of a great love of fast food.
The present goobermint can run Donald up and down the flag pole and blame everything in
the world on him and no one will know the difference.
The war on Iran will be different to other US/Western wars.
Previously, it has only become apparent after the war has been going for some time (they
never really end) that the war was a crime.
This time the whole of the US and the West knows full well that a war crime is being
perpetrated. This will mean a definite end of the illusions that the West has held about it's
self since WWII (or WWI). Can Empires and Civilisations continue if they no longer believe
the stories they tell themselves?
Trump has not been fooled or misled, neither have the American people, neither the
UK/European governments or peoples. We are destroying ourselves with this act.
Bolton has more brain cells than the entirety of the European peoples.
I bet soon we'll learn Shanahan was pushed out by the usual Bolton tactic of threats and
extortion -- both on the personal and familial level.
Shanahan should blow the whistle -- soon!
Thanks b. Trump is likely both a fool and a barking mad President with a narcissistic
personality. A dangerous mix open to malicious behaviour and vulnerable to manipulation. I
have no doubt that he revels in the gravitas of it all, the Napoleonic pomp and ceremony etc.
That the planet has to suffer this and Netanyahu and Pence Pentecostal ignorance is
appalling.
There wont be any summit meeting between Iran and Trump, the insult would be intolerable
and the outcome of no value to Iran. They know very well what the game is.
Bolton is just the killer for the job right where he is but will Trump find an equally
malign player for his army? I am sure there is no shortage of 'suitable' candidates.
One bright side for the planet could well be a calamitous rise in oil price and a chaotic
spin of global economic circumstances resulting in a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. On the
dark side small pockets of survival.
@uncle tungsten (8) One bright side for the planet could well be a calamitous rise in oil price and a chaotic
spin of global economic circumstances resulting in a drop in greenhouse gas emissions. On the
dark side small pockets of survival.
I am one of the supporters of the good cop/bad cop scenario.
While the existential question that has been on the table for some time is who owns the
world of finance, here we are again following the spinning of the Iran plate by late
empire.
Bolton and Pompeo are representative of Trump's rabid evangelical base and Israel. The
kabuki friction towards the shared goals is just that. To the degree that we are hearing
shrillness from these folk reflects the increasing failure of their tactics to maintain
control of the global narrative.
Something stupid is coming and it will be sad.....very sad if is our extinction instead of
difficult evolution.
thanks b... pompeo has the same agenda as israel with regard to attacks on the golan heights
or americans - same messed up logic.. nothing like having your (usa-ksa-israel-uae) proxy
army involved too.."these attacks came from areas where Islamic State underground groups are
still active." the 500 lb gorilla is ''there to deter aggression''.. right!
as for trump.. the guy is a self serving twit and fool... perfect person to represent the
usa at this point which is why so many hate him and like him, depending on where one lives..
whatever bolton does - it is on trump and the falling usa empire as i see it.. it can't fall
soon enough..
I'm definitely of the good cop/bad cop belief. It fits with the entirety of his campaign and
presidency: say one thing, do another, and blame somebody else. Trump wanted Bolton for NSA
since the campaign. Both Bolton and Trump have had a position of confrontation with Iran for
a long time. The fact that people still buy into the lies of *any* politician is a sad state
of affairs. It sure does make the job of lying far easier.
Trump's tactical nukes mounted on Trident missiles will be ready in October - end of
September according to the earlier news articles. I guess team Trump will be desperately
trying to provoke a reaction from Iran so Trump can reluctantly use his nukes. (NPR
specifically names Iran as a country that these may be used against).
Good cop bad cop is Trump's game at the moment. He needs to be judged by the people he
appoints and keeps on.
DG @1
Don't feel too sorry for the American fatality. It will probably be a US soldier who
volunteered to go overseas and kill for oil.
Might be a female soldier. That would make for better press.
Remember Nedā Āghā-Soltān? She was a beautiful Iranian woman, only 26
years old, shot in the head by a sniper in the 2009 Color (Green) Revolution attempt in Iran,
a few blocks from the actual protests.
For some odd reason, a photographer was there to take pictures, and within a couple of hours,
it was spread all over the world's media. We now call that "going viral". It takes a Mighty
Wurlitzer to make a viral spread, I've noticed.
Tucker Carlson has interviewed Tulsi Gabbard several times and has generally been anti-war
on many of his programs, and was certainly very anti-Russiagate. So, watching Fox News
isn't as horrible as say CNN, NBC, MSNBC to name the three worst.
Yes, as I wrote on the last thread, Trump's boxed into several corners, Iran not being the
only one. Really can't wait for the moment Pompeo clutches at his chest and crumples to the
ground a la Morsi. Pompeo's clearly forgotten what Putin told him. Speaking of Putin,
tomorrow he'll conduct the 17th edition of his Direct Line conversation with Russia's people
and press. Information in Russian here :
"The programme will be broadcast live by Channel One, Rossiya 1, Rossiya 24, NTV, Public
Television of Russia (OTR) and Mir TV, and by radio stations Mayak, Vesti FM and Radio
Rossii."
Unfortunately, the start time isn't provided. Questions in Russian can be submitted at the
above link.
Would never have guessed there existed a Foundation for European Progressive Studies, but
it does and its hosting a forum this
Friday:
"On Friday #21June, #IAIEvent with @FEPS_Europe in #Brussels to mark the completion of our
joint one-year research on #Europe-#Iran relations after the US withdrawal from the
#JCPOA.
"With the participation of Seyed Sajjadpour, Deputy FM of Iran."
As far as the damage done to the two tankers, if an actual limpet mine of the sort Iran
employs were used, the damage would be far more extensive than what was sustained. IMO,
continuing attacks by the sort of kamikaze drones employed would be impossible to stop; and
since the remains of the drone sink into the sea, virtually impossible to collect any
evidence that might link Iran to the attack.
The Outlaw US Empire has no cards to play other than bluff and bluster.
"That shows how stupid the red line is that Pompeo set out." Even b, one of the commenters I
respect most, falls for the canard "Yanks R stoopid LOL". If you feverishly want an
Iran war against the wishes of the majority of the planet, this is how it's done. Israel also
drops some dud mortar shells into an empty patch on the Golan (itself or by proxy) any time
it wants a mini casus belli in the Syria dossier.
I feel the Iranians have been pretty complicit propping up this image of Americans and
Israelis as untouchable demigods, who only kill and can never be killed even once. The US
should have gotten a steady stream of heroes coming home in boxes and wheelchairs the moment
they crossed the Syrian border. Then the war fevers would've cooled considerably by now;
that's how the Taliban made the orcs feel ... unwelcome in their slice of heaven. B opined at
the time "This occupation is unsustainable", but nobody has properly contested it apart from
a handful of ISIS holdouts. Eyes have been taken off balls it seems.
And again, no. That reminds of the old 'if the Führer knew'. No, Tronald is not - at
least not in this sense - a fool. He has promoted these people now said to trick him into
their respective position. Tronald is - and was - well informed about Boltons and Pompeo's
views.
No, it's the first possibility that applies. Any moment now Act 3 is staged, an 'Iranian
attack' on u.s. interests - and then Tronald will open Pandora's box - and suffer we will.
There were stories recently that Trump was about to sack Bolton. Whatever the truth of that,
there's a fundamental problem that Trump doesn't want to spend his nights in the war room. He
spends his time watching Fox News, tweeting, and his weekends at Mar-a Lago. A serious war is
beyond him, and I think he'll say no, beyond a one night big bang.
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some
heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionally used
a small one for this. What were doing the IRGC along the tanker if not removing something
from the hull. How do they even know there was something there of interest.
The US has no leadership,,, just a bunch of mafioso hoods vying to be at the head of the
Globalists table. The Europeons / West are little better going along to get a piece of the
action... picture a Viking feast a few thousand years ago. Difference is we are the food
they're devouring.
I am so happy 'b' explained the domestic violence attributed to Mr.Shanahan. I bit just
like MSM wanted thinking he somehow abused his family. I imagine it was because it would have
looked bad for the kind little woman.
Trump HAS drained the swamp,,, right into his administration. Look at what we in the US
have to look forward to,,, tyrants on the left,,, tyrants on the right. I suppose we deserve
this but it doesn't do well for my blood pressure.
Jeremy Hunt said that no other state or non state actor could possibly be responsible for the
tanker explosions. That is the most ignorant statement any potential Prime Minister could
make. There are so many potential culprits, any one of whom would find it more than tempting
to take Pompeo at his word and lob a bomb at a US base. The same scenario applied to Syria,
the US positively encouraged a gas attack by the head choppers by declaring such an attack
would mean US intervention. Sheldon Adelson is Trumps biggest doner "Adelson's promotion of
Bolton dates back at least to the days immediately after Trump's November 2016 election.
According to The New York Times, Adelson strongly supported Bolton for the position of deputy
secretary of state as Trump was putting together his cabinet" https://lobelog.com/trumps-choice-of-bolton-satisfies-his-biggest-donor/
So Trump could find it difficult to sack Bolton.
If this is mostly correct then the US is heading into a huge strategic catastrophe with epic
blow back. That many millions in the MENA will suffer is as usual of no consequence to
Americans but this time America will suffer a rapid irreversible decline and will deserve it.
b: Thanks for posting Lang's take on Shanahan being "outed" by Pompeo. Kind'a makes sense,
given bigger picture you paint of Israeli "interests" being "stovepiped" through Bolton to
DJT. Nothing I heard/read last night or this morning touched on this, it was all different
takes on poor/no Shanahan vetting.
The irony of Shanahan being "dumped" for what the record seems to support: he did nothing
wrong, maybe even showed noteworthy restraint vs. trump f***ing porn stars, stiffing
sub-contractors for years (etc. etc.) is mind numbing.
...
Madison James @ Jun 19, 2019 2:47:33 PM
Also, the book makes a great case for Israeli collusion, not Russia.
More like CEDING Iran policy authority to hard line Likud hawks, as B describes in this
post:
Bolton chairs at the NSC, the regular and frequent strategic dialogue meetings with Israel
– intended to develop a joint action plan, versus Iran. What this means is that the
Israeli intelligence assessments are being stovepiped directly to Bolton (and therefore to
Trump), without passing by the US intelligence services for assessment or comment on the
credibility of the intelligence presented ( shades of Cheney confronting the analysts
down at Langley ).
(my emphasis)
It just seems like Iraq deja vu: GWB was the ignorant, dumb public face masking Lukidniks
controlling US policy then, DJT the face masking the same now.
WRT war fears w/Iran: one little factoid rarely mentioned early on in Iraq
"liberation"(did B write about this?): the PNAC crowd was openly advocating for a
simultaneous military action towards Iran. Putin moved several battleships and destroyers
right off the Iranian coast in a clear signal he would defend Iran. And that was the end of
that.
Putin always holds his cards very close to his vest, but when he acts he does so
decisively and with precision (aka his Syria military maneuvers). US bombs falling on Iran
seems awfully close to Moscow in my view. I cannot help wondering if one of Putin's cards is
his own red line: not allowing Likudniks to subjugate US military power for their "interests"
wrt Iran.
psycho @ 10 opined;"I am one of the supporters of the good cop/bad cop scenario."
Add me, to the believers column.
ADKC @ 5 said;"Trump has not been fooled or misled, neither have the American people,
neither the UK/European governments or peoples. We are destroying ourselves with this
act."
james @ 11 said;" it is on trump and the falling usa empire as i see it.. it can't fall
soon enough.."
Yes, absolutely, to both above statements..
And I'll add another major player, to the joke, the U$A has become, the corporate MSM for
it's failure to honestly inform the public of reality..
...the IRGC along the tanker...
Could s/o kindly point-out a confirmation from Iran that [1] subject boat was operated/manned
by the IRGC? I'll check back for your input; thanks in advance.
"This is a very balanced approach to the #US-#Iran crisis in the Gulf from an #EU point of
view."
It links to a short CNN produced video. The few comments show the intensely high level of
ignorance of my fellow Americans that are educational all by themselves.
It's about 1500 miles from Tehran to Moscow. That's about equal to the distance between
Kansas City and San Francisco.
It is not in Russia's interest to have Iran attacked. Iran is a piece that offers a twofer
to the Anglo Zio empire. It follows the edicts of the Yinon Plan and it antagonizes
Russia.
If a war with Iran is orchestrated I will be very disappointed if Tel-Aviv is not destroyed.
At some point in time Israel must pay for its' crimes.
I read today that an Egyptian news agency blamed Israel for the recent attacks on the 2
tankers. I find this heartening. However, I fear Israel is not beyond sinking an US naval
vessel. re: USS LIBERTY. and albeit with Bolton's foreknowledge.
Shanahan was forced out. His family troubles pre-date today.
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some
heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionaly
used a small one for this.
As B (and many other
media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an
air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the
truth, they would recover and identify the projectile.
Just for shits and giggles, a brief reminder of some of US "evidence" and false flags (all
lies) in service of these "endeavors" previously:
- reading the several excellent books and released CIA docs of the CIA engineered
Mosaddegh coup, among other things was CIA bombs set off in Mosques (this was before the
Ayatollahs were political), then flooding media with "accesssments" Mosaddegh was
responsable. Kermit Roosevelt literally boasted about this.
- Collin Powell's "clear and convincing" evidence of Sadam's mobile missile lauchers (aka
mobile weather balloons). And the GWB admin's attempts to literally destroy Hans Blix'
reputation, and as it turned out Blix was right about everything.
- Fake Satellite photos of Sadam's troops on Saudi border.
- "Incubator baby" lies to US Senate, swaying Desert Storm I approval by 1 vote (many
senators said that fabrication was the difference in their vote). And this after Sadam's
incursion into Kuwait was after 18 months of US vetoing Iraq UN resolutions seeking to
condemn Kuwait's angle drilling into Iraq's largest southern oil fields.
That's just a few from memory. At what point do US lawmakers finally put all this together
(especially given Bolton's association with those who drove GWB's Iraq invasion) and refuse
to even consider the non persuasive evidence (not to mention contradictory... aka crew says
air borne attack), remind their colleagues and America of the cost of these lies just in last
20 years, and DEMAND proof that can be verified with THEIR OWN EYES.
Judging from the headline and the quoting approvingly from "Former MI6 agent Alastair
Crooke", I'd say b believe in the "President Bolton" theory.
Like other commenters, I believe in the bad cop/good cop theory. In fact I wrote of this
only yesterday (
here and
here , and
here ):
The media promote Doublethink ...
... the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct,
often in distinct social contexts. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy
and neutrality... Doublethink is notable due to a lack of cognitive dissonance -- thus
the person is completely unaware of any conflict or contradiction.
... such that Trump is both peace-loving nationalist and empire-loving
antagonist. Except that the latter is expressed as a positive: "staunch ally", "tough
negotiator", "protector", etc instead of a negative. Some people fall for it (Kool-Aid
drinkers) and MSM ignores those that talk about the meta issues of MSM complicity.
And it's not just Trump. Whenever a President does things that might cause cognitive
dissonance, apologists and the feckless press explain it away as a positive or blame
subordinates for "sabotaging" the hero President .
= = = =
IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's
"on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls
the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners
(capitalists)
= = = =
I sense that there's now an effort to essentially 'shout down' or otherwise sideline
those that argue that the attacks are more likely to be a false flag by an anti-Iranian
organization (probably connected to Mossad or CIA) and question the efficacy of a
Iranian strategy stealth attacks.
karlof1 and Peter AU 1 described the likely subterfuge of the US claim that Iran
attached a "limpet mine". But I haven't seen much desire to discuss or spread their theory.
Reporting by Israeli media (picked up worldwide) about USA plans to bomb Iran (really
just rumors) have worked their magic and turned the page on the question of who attacked
the ships. How convenient!
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Sadly, I find that I disagree with both of b's latest theories: the "Iranian stealth
attack" theory and the "President Bolton" theory. IMO these are propaganda narratives.
there is some confusion amongst commenters here; as to what the Iranian boat was doing next
to the tanker? The first thing one should ask is; what is the source of the video? and when
was it taken? Next, the Iranians have been credited with rescuing the crew from at least 1
tanker, if not both. Which explains the large # of persons on a boat that usually operates
with a crew of 5.
Except the 2007 "Iranian proxy" attacks on US forces illegally occupying Iraq were never
proven.
Meaning the fable of Iranians being behind attacks in Iraq is hardly new. The infamous Michael Gordon--the lead "reporter" on the "Judith Miller" fall 2002 Iraqi
WMDs "reporting" in the NY Times--claimed that such "attacks" were proven in the pages of the
NYT in March 2007. (He wasn't fired–only leaving the NYT after 30 years in 2017.)
Except his "reporting" made bogus claims like the Iraqis weren't able to follow armor
penetrating shell designs that had been worked out in the 1920s.
In early 2007, there was a push by Cheney to strike Iran, the rumor is that W said
"no". So Pompeo can't even lie as well as Cheney, in that the NY Times' main Pentagon reporter
reported the 2007 events as fact at the time. (A secondary reporter, James Glanz also in Iraq in 2007, did manage to point out that the
"Iranian" shells were marked in English and the US commanders provided nothing more than
unsupported assertions regards the shells' origins. Glanz only writes for the NY Times about
once every 6 months now.)
Houthis attack Jizan--on Red Sea just North of Yemen -- power plant with cruise missile causing
large fire to erupt. Yemeni Armed Forces
Spokesman :
"There are big surprises coming soon, God willing, with higher sensitive impact on the
Saudi regime, if its aggression continues."
Expect renewed attacks on oil infrastructure.
Not so long ago, it appeared the Saudi/UAE/Merc coalition had the initiative and was
winning. That no longer appears to be the case with the invasion of Saudi territory by ground
forces accompanied by missile and drone assaults that have reached as far as Riyadh. Earlier
today,
Southfront posted videos of two successful Houthi assaults that destroyed 11 armored
vehicles and additional technicals--attacks Saudi appears incapable of stopping.
"IMO President's are just members of the Deep State team. Presidents lead the team that's
"on the field" - like a quarterback in American football. But the Deep State 'coach' calls
the plays. And the 'coach' is, in turn, ultimately responsible to the owners
(capitalists)"
IMO, the perfect analogy. Maybe the U$A posters will "get it."
Bolton is Trump's Colonel House. House was influential in plucking Woodrow Wilson out of
academia and getting him elected President in 1912 and then he moved into the White House
with Wilson. He became in Wilson's words his "alter ego." House was right next to Wilson when
he signed the Federal Reserve Act, something Wilson later said he bitterly regretted doing.
House was a most shadowy figure – he wasn't even a real colonel -, having performed
similar roles with various governors of Texas as if in preparation for his moment on the big
stage – and a long moment it was with an allegedly decisive role in Versailles in 1919.
I saw warning signals back on the campaign trail when Trump was asked who he admired in
politics and he replied after a pause John Bolton. Then I thought of Obama and Rahm Emanuel,
his chief of staff. It struck me that maybe all of us are susceptible to somebody who can get
a hold on us, who can grasp our insecurities and ingratiate themselves into our thinking
processes. The elites work on this. Jack Kennedy had his brother as his sort of alter-ego so
there was no opportunity there – which is maybe why he got shot.
Trump's father became so frustrated with Donald's bullying and reckless behavior that he
packed him off to military academy to learn some manners and self-control. Legend has it that
Trump thrived in that environment and graduated in 1964. He also studied economics and has a
Law degree. One imagines that a military academy graduate must have learned something about
governance, leadership, pecking orders, power plays and the US Constitution.
Anyone who assumes DJT is stupid or naive probably needs to do some homework...
Hoarsewhisperer "Anyone who assumes DJT is stupid or naiive probably needs to do some
homework". I think prospective Private Donald 'bone spurs' Trump would have made a good
General, [too late now, he is too old] maybe one of the greatest Generals in history. If only
he had signed up. /S
Seems Rex Tillerson was right about Trump and agrees with this HL Mencken quote.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the
inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will
reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright
moron".
The Middle East a smoking ruin. Floods of Arab refugees pouring into Europe. Russia and China
sitting back and waiting to pick up the pieces. Do those people actually think beyond the
next step? I wouldn't want to be a European Jew for the next few decades. You can be burnt
from the bottom up, as easily as from the top down. Lets just go kick the hornets nest, cause
we are tough guys. Where. Are. The. Brain. Cells?
Promotion of War Crimes: Wheat as a Weapon :
"A fellow at a think tank bankrolled by the US gov, NATO, and arms industry insists that
'wheat is a weapon' that can 'be used to apply pressure on the Assad regime.' "The impact this would have on civilians was not mentioned, of course."
Now we know what nation's responsible for the recent firing of wheat and other
agricultural fields in Syria--The Outlaw US Empire of course: Never met a War Crime it didn't
want to employ itself as current and historic evidence proves. Such people ought to be
lobotomized.
Iran did it, they are competent, we can't find our rear end
CENTCOM gave a scenario that finally made sense, they said that an IRGC boat approached
the two tankers at night and attacked the 'mines'. This would explain why it was above the
waterline and it would take great skill to do this with no injury and without being
detected.
Now look at the U.S., the tanker was sitting their in broad daylight for about 10hrs and
we couldn't even get ONE decent picture of an unexploded bomb sitting on the side of hull.
And when the IRGC finally did show up, even our high resolution pictures were a joke and we
are the SIGINT champions with hi-tech drones. Also, this means that the IRGC was able to slip
into a port on the other side of the Persian Gulf and attack mines to 4 tankers
undetected.
Prediction: if we do get into a fight with the Iranians we are in for a very rude
awakening. All of this talk about their rusted out military is total BS. If ONLY that fool
Tom Cotton would be the one to pay the price instead of some 20 yr old kid.
Perhaps the admin senses that the end is approaching and are trying to wreak maximum havoc
and damage while they are able. Like Bolton will serve in next admin.
By minimizing the Oman Gulf incidents, maybe it is way for the White House under Bolton's
control to show that it is not impressed nor feeling threatened.
it is also encouraging the perpetrators of the attacks to do more provocations and ideally to
kill an American...
It is an open invitations to whoever wants to harm Iran to come out more brutally.
". . . [Trump] studied economics and has a Law degree."
He has a BA in economics and was given an honorary law degree from Liberty so-called
"University," a diploma mill dedicated to churning out brain-dead, right-wing religious
fanatics.
Yes, it does matter. Millions of American are ready to send their loved ones to die for
"freedom and democracy" that propaganda claims USA champions. Trump as "useful idiot" just
means that they elected the wrong guy. Trump as complicit in the dog and pony show means
there is no democracy.
Smart people have already described how the system is rigged so that we have a "managed
democracy" that mostly works for the "those that matter". Research from Princeton economists
have described America as a plutocracy with an "inverted totalitarian" form of government. I
have written many times at MoA of a adjunct to that theory: the faux populist
leadership model. Obama and Trump are the poster boys for this, though it was mostly
developed in the Clinton years.
That Iranian seaman who is alleged to have pulled off a possibly unstable, unexploded mine
wearing nothing but a rubber life jacket thus endangering his life and all his crew mates and
survivors in the small boat is the action of a lunatic. Or maybe it never happened.
What is the particular childish naïveté of Americans who believe that learning
a system inevitably leads to a willingness to support and uphold it instead of exploiting it
for personal gain?
>> Posted by: blues | Jun 19, 2019 6:52:22 PM | 53
Do tell!
With trillion dollar deficits pre-recession, the fiscal situation looks dire. Once
recession hits, tax revenue will plummet. Then, either they QE even more trillions or they
cut the MIC (measured in terms of purchasing power, if not nominally). Or both. But, the rest
of the world will suffer nominally as well. So, the dollar might remain a "cleaner dirty
shirt".
It's a difficult environment to invest in. Everything seems pricey. But, with currency
depreciation via QE, everything might become even pricier.
Life jackets aren't rubber! Try and get the story straight! Plus, you missed that the
limpet mine comes with a cloaking device that once placed onto the deck of any Iranian boat
it's rendered invisible! Honestly, we spend a lot of time dreaming up these narratives, so
the very least you can do is copy/paste properly!
On a serious note, I scanned a great many pictures of small boats and didn't come up with
one example of the one shown in the video. Finding one ought to be easy since it has numerous
unique features, most of which I commented upon. Has USN released a complete undoctored video
of the limpet removal yet? I thought not. As with the incident with the Russian ship where
USN didn't release the entire video taken from the stand-off helo because it proved USN at
fault, there won't be any release of this other video for the same reason--it proves zip,
nada, nothing.
Otherwise, I'd like to get myself one of those Iranian boats, minus the machine gun, as it
looks like an excellent fishing platform, although it lacks a cuddy and below deck stowage
room.
There's been a shift in the dialogue, to some degree, to a discussion of the overall US role
in the Gulf area.
Speaking to TIME, Trump argued that the Gulf of Oman[sic] is less strategically important
for the United States now than it used to be, citing China and Japan as nations that still
rely on the region for significant proportions of their oil. "Other places get such vast
amounts of oil there," Trump said. "We get very little. We have made tremendous progress in
the last two and a half years in energy. And when the pipelines get built, we're now an
exporter of energy. So we're not in the position that we used to be in in the Middle East
where some people would say we were there for the oil." . . here
Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters
at a roundtable that countries that benefit most from the movement of oil through the Gulf
need to take an active role in its security. . . ."The circumstances are very different now
than they were in the 1980s," Selva said. "If you think back to the reflagging operation, the
'Tanker War,' as it was nicknamed, where we reflagged and escorted tankers so that they could
flow in and out of the Strait of Hormuz, we got a substantial amount of our oil from the
Persian Gulf.. . ."We are now in a position where the bulk of that oil goes to countries in
Asia, and none of those countries have shown any predilection to pressing Iran to stop what
they are doing. What was true in the 1980s, is not true today. We are not wholly dependent on
the movement of Saudi, Kuwaiti, Qatari and Emirati oil in and out of the Gulf to sustain our
economy.". .
here
A broadening of the security mission in the Gulf area would be a positive step. Imagine
the navies of China, India and Japan taking a role! The price would be a removal of Iran
sanctions, because these countries want Iran oil! . . .I can dream.
In the current circs (esp after announcement of the latest Red Line) why write only about the
possibility of an ISIS missile landing on a US position being that it wd be "errant"?
After reading WL's comments, I had a vision of the photographer contacting the sniper by
mobile phone and berating the fellow for killing Neda Agha Soltan in the head and telling him
to find another beautiful young Iranian woman protester and to shoot her in the chest.
There is so much disinformation that it is difficult to judge the Israeli news report below
that the US is planning a military attack on Iran. Israel wants the US to attack Iran and the
report could be an attempt to push events in that direction.
There is no valid reason for Washington to serve Israeli interests.
It would be extremely irresponsible for Washington to risk starting another war.
As Russian and Chinese interests could be threatened by a US war with Iran, the situation
could become uncontrollable.
If there is a real prospect of a US attack on Iran, it would be a responsible action for
Russia and China to block it in advance by taking a firm position.
U.N. officials: U.S. planning a 'tactical assault' in Iran
By SHLOMO SHAMIR/MAARIV ONLINE
06/17/2019
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
Is the US going to attack Iran soon?
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western
diplomat.
Neocon donors ask Trump for favors and he can't refuse... Trump foreign policy is a direct continuation of Bush II and Obama
foreign policy and is dominated by neocons, who rule the State Department. Pomeo is a rabid neocon, to the right of
Condoleezza Rice, Hillary and John Kerry. Actually anti-Iranian and pro-Israeli bias was clearly visible even during 2016
campaign, but few voters paid any attention. Now they should.
It is clear that Trump is the most pro-Israel President after Johnson.
Notable quotes:
"... In contrast, in the Middle East the president has been extraordinarily bellicose. In April, the Administration revoked waivers that allowed certain countries to buy oil from Iran without violating U.S. sanctions [ U.S. Won't Renew Sanction Exemptions For Countries Buying Iran's Oil , by Bill Chappell, NPR, April 22, 2019]. In early May, the president imposed new sanctions on Iranian metals, a direct threat to the regime's economic viability. ..."
"... The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War , by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign Policy, June 14, 2019]. ..."
"... Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation. ..."
"... But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War . There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the "intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories After Tanker Attacks , RedState, June 14, 2019] ..."
The most optimistic explanation: Trump intends to use immigration as an election issue in
2020. Yet his fecklessness in office will be as unappealing to many voters as the Democrats'
extremism. [ Trump Is
Vulnerable to Biden on Immigration, by Michael Brendan Dougherty, National
Review, June 11, 2019] After all, Trump
began his campaign vowing to solve the immigration problem almost exactly four years ago --
but essentially nothing has been done.
Later that month, the president said a fight would mean "the official end of Iran" [
Trump threatens Iran With 'Official End' by Kenneth Walsh, US News and World
Report, May 20, 2019].
The "maximum pressure campaign," as it has been called, puts Iran in the position of either
accepting a humiliating surrender or striking out where it can [ Maximum
pressure on Iran Means Maximum Risk of War, by Ilan Goldenberg, Foreign
Policy, June 14, 2019].
Why Iran would do this is questionable, unless it's just a move of desperation.
But did Iran actually do it? Washington has a credibility gap with the rest of the world and
its own people thanks to the disaster of the Iraq War
. There were, it turned out, no "Weapons of Mass Destruction." So now many Americans openly
question whether Iran attacked these tankers. This includes some MSM reporters who trusted the
"intelligence community" when it was attacking Trump but now want an "international
investigation of the incident". [ Ben Rhodes, CNN, And Others Purposefully Fuel Pro-Iranian "False Flag Conspiracy Theories
After Tanker Attacks, RedState, June 14, 2019]
This is not the same country that re-elected George W. Bush in 2004. The trust in
institutions is gone; America is war-weary.
There is also a deeper fundamental question. Our country is crumbling. The border is
non-existent; entire communities are being overrun. There's something perverse about even
entertaining a dangerous and costly military intervention halfway around the world. It's akin
to a Roman emperor declaring he will conquer India while barbarians are crossing the Rhine.
"... Monochromatic simplifications of this type suit multiple purposes. In the present US-Iran crisis, they supposedly provide official "proof" of nefarious intent. They can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative. They place pressure on reluctant allies to fall in behind the advancing American columns. Most of all, since democratic consent apparently still counts for something, they are intended to rally public support. ..."
"... We have seen this badly made movie before. And today, as in 2003, it presents a shadowy, unconvincing picture that no amount of White House manipulation and rhetoric can clarify. The fact is, the current crisis was conceived, manufactured and magnified in Washington. It has been whipped up by a group of hawkish policymakers around Donald Trump whose loathing for the Tehran regime is exceeded only by their recklessness. ..."
"... Yet the problem for Pompeo, and fellow Iranophobe, national security adviser John Bolton, is that while most western governments probably believe that hardline elements within Iran, or Iranian-backed proxy forces, initiated last week's tanker attacks and similar incidents last month, they also believe gratuitous US provocations may have forced Iran's hand. They don't believe Trump when he says he merely wants Iran to act "normal" . But they do suspect the ultimate Bolton-Pompeo aim is a putsch. ..."
"... Iran is highlighting the unintended consequences of any conflagration, and the precedent-setting illegitimacy, both legal and moral, of threatened US actions. And then, more dangerously, there is its apparent, increasing willingness to employ a measure of physical resistance, be it through military proxies or, for example, hardliners in the Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is potentially explosive. ..."
"... Iran's is a society under extreme duress. Sanctions are undoubtedly biting deep and patience with the west is waning. ..."
"... Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US policies have once again brought the Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an urgent responsibility to talk it down – and drag it back from the abyss. ..."
President Trump claims he doesn't want conflict, but his actions could accidentally trigger another Middle East
war
Grainy video images can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might previously have appeared unreasonable
and provocative.'
Washington, at times of stress, international
crises play out in black and white. As in a flickering newsreel from a former age, complex events are reduced to
symbolic emblems of right and wrong. Grainy video images of "evil-doers", George W Bush's favoured term, purport to
show faceless Iranians acting suspiciously around a burning oil tanker in the Gulf last week. As new
Middle East troop deployments
are announced, US battleships are pictured bravely patrolling freedom's frontline.
Monochromatic simplifications of this type suit multiple purposes. In the present US-Iran crisis, they supposedly
provide official "proof" of nefarious intent. They can be seen to justify escalatory US actions that might
previously have appeared unreasonable and provocative. They place pressure on reluctant allies to fall in behind the
advancing American columns. Most of all, since democratic consent apparently still counts for something, they are
intended to rally public support.
We have seen this badly made movie before. And today, as in 2003, it presents a shadowy, unconvincing picture
that no amount of White House manipulation and rhetoric can clarify. The fact is, the current crisis was conceived,
manufactured and magnified in Washington. It has been whipped up by a group of hawkish policymakers around Donald
Trump whose loathing for the Tehran regime is exceeded only by their recklessness.
That's not a risk most people or states are ready to countenance. And so far, at least, Washington's parallel,
virtual battle for consent and support is not going the way American hawks hoped.
Mike Pompeo
, the bully-boy evangelist who doubles as US secretary of state, rarely loses an opportunity to
demonise Iran. Aware of post-Iraq scepticism over US intelligence claims, he noisily insists, with a creeping tinge
of panic, on the accuracy and veracity of his "evidence".
Yet the problem for Pompeo, and fellow Iranophobe, national security adviser John Bolton, is that while most
western governments probably believe that hardline elements within Iran, or Iranian-backed proxy forces, initiated
last week's tanker attacks and similar incidents last month, they also believe gratuitous US provocations may have
forced Iran's hand. They don't believe Trump when he says he merely wants
Iran to act "normal"
. But they do suspect the ultimate Bolton-Pompeo aim is a putsch.
The foreign secretary
Jeremy Hunt, to Britain's shame
, has tamely applauded Washington's dodgy video dossier. But the Europeans,
rightly, don't buy it. The
EU backs diplomacy
, not sabre-rattling, and is still pursuing alternative barter arrangements to circumvent US
sanctions. Russia, naturally, opposes the US. But China, in an unusually outspoken rebuff, said Washington's
destabilising, unilateral behaviour "has no basis in international law".
Iran's neighbours have serious misgivings too. The impulsive and autocratic crown princes who run Saudi Arabia
and the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Salman and Mohamed bin Zayed, are the local equivalent of Bolton and
Pompeo. Like them, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is egging the Americans on. But next-door Iraq has zero interest in a
renewed conflict, likewise Turkey and weaker Gulf states.
Nor is the US public, despite years of White House fearmongering, fully aboard the "Get Iran" bandwagon. A
Reuters/Ipsos survey
last month found that nearly half of Americans – 49% – disapprove of Trump's handling of
Iran. Just over half – 53% – saw Iran as a "serious" or "imminent" threat. But 60% said they wouldn't support a
pre-emptive US military strike on the Iranian military.
Resistance to the US hawks' pell-mell rush to confrontation is coming most strongly from within
Iran
itself. Its foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, cuts a cool and thoughtful figure in contrast to
Pompeo. He stresses how unilateral US sanctions, especially on oil exports, do unjustifiable harm to Iran's people
and the international economy. His is an effective pitch to global opinion.
Iran also points out that, unlike the US, it is in full compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal. This week's
warning from Tehran that it may soon breach enrichment limits is a calibrated response. It's unfortunate. But it
does not amount to "nuclear blackmail", as the US claims, since Iran has no bomb and, according to the UN,
is not seeking one
. What it does amount to is diplomatic leverage with third-party states fearful of more Middle
East chaos.
Iran is highlighting the unintended consequences of any conflagration, and the precedent-setting illegitimacy,
both legal and moral, of threatened US actions. And then, more dangerously, there is its apparent, increasing
willingness to employ a measure of physical resistance, be it through military proxies or, for example, hardliners
in the Revolutionary Guards Corps. This is potentially explosive.
It would be a mistake to think Iran is totally in control of its responses to this unfolding crisis any more than
the US. There are bellicose hawks in Iran's national security council, clerical establishment and the supreme
leader's office, just as there are in the White House. Hassan Rouhani's pragmatic presidency, the
majlis
(parliament), the merchant class and state-controlled media all represent rival power centres with differing views
on what to do next.
Iran's is a society under extreme duress. Sanctions are undoubtedly biting deep and patience with the west is
waning. The risk is growing that, in extremis, some regime elements will hit out forcefully – and there is no doubt
they have the ability to do so, in the Gulf, in Lebanon, in Gaza, and on the Israel-Syria and Saudi-Yemen borders.
US hawks would say that's exactly why Iran must be contained, and very possibly it should. But do they really
believe, after serial past failures, they have the power, the will, the backing and the mandate to do so?
Reducing conflict to black and white images of good and evil is not only misleading. It is also delusional. Some
now recall the Gulf "
tanker
war
" during the Iran-Iraq conflict that culminated, in 1988, with brief US "surgical strikes" on Iranian oil
rigs and ships. In US lore, those strikes taught Iran a swift lesson, obliging it to back off. In truth, Iran was
already on its knees after eight years of war with Saddam Hussein. That is absolutely not the situation now.
Unnecessarily aggressive, ill-considered – and deceptively presented – US policies have once again brought the
Middle East to the brink of an accidental war very few want. America's European friends, including Britain, have an
urgent responsibility to talk it down – and drag it back from the abyss.
"... Labour leader urges UK to ease tensions in Gulf after Foreign Office links blasts to Tehran ..."
"... The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, had said earlier that the US "immediately jumped to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence". ..."
Labour leader urges UK to ease tensions in Gulf after Foreign Office links blasts to Tehran
US military claims shows Iranian patrol boat removing limpet mine from tanker – video
Jeremy Corbyn
has called for the government to abstain from escalating tensions with Iran without "credible
evidence" that Tehran was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers.
The Labour leader said Britain risked
increasing the threat of war after the
Foreign Office (FCO) said it was "almost certain"
in its assessment that "a branch of the Iranian military
attacked the two tankers on 13 June".
Corbyn
tweeted
: "Britain should act to ease tensions in the Gulf, not fuel a military escalation that began with US
withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement.
"Without credible evidence about the tanker attacks, the government's rhetoric will only increase the threat of
war."
The foreign secretary,
Jeremy Hunt
, described Corbyn's comments as "pathetic and predictable".
The FCO had said: "No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible," and pointed to a
"recent precedent for attacks by
Iran
against oil tankers".
Hunt, who had said the attacks built on "a pattern of destabilising Iranian behaviour and pose a serious danger
to the region", criticised Corbyn for his comments.
"Pathetic and predictable," Hunt tweeted. "From Salisbury to the Middle East, why can he never bring himself to
back British allies, British intelligence or British interests?"
Later on Saturday, the UK Foreign Office also said a report from the semi-official ISNA news agency that the
British ambassador to Tehran had been summoned to a meeting with an Iranian foreign ministry official was
incorrect.
But the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, accused the US of "carrying out an aggressive policy and posing a
serious threat to regional stability".
The foreign minister, Javad Zarif, had said earlier that the US "immediately jumped to make allegations against
Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence".
Corbyn
was criticised
last year for warning against rushing to "hasty judgments" after the former Russian spy
Sergei Skripal
and his daughter, Yulia, were poisoned with a nerve agent in the UK.
The shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, warned on Saturday against the UK becoming "enmeshed in a war".
She said "independent evidence" should be established over who was responsible for the attacks, but cautioned
that the severity of the situation and "the scale of what it is we may be about to get dragged into" should be the
main focus for politicians.
"These are extremely dangerous developments and we really have to pause and think about where we are going
next," she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Refusing to either back or reject Corbyn's comments, Thornberry insisted the main issue was avoiding "British
forces being drawn into a conflict of that size".
The trade in oil, gas, gems, metals and rare earth minerals wreaks havoc in Africa. During
the years when Brazil, India, China and the other "emerging markets" have transformed their
economies, Africa's resource states remained tethered to the bottom of the industrial supply
chain. While Africa accounts for about 30 per cent of the world's reserves of hydrocarbons and
minerals and 14 per cent of the world's population, its share of global manufacturing stood in
2011 exactly where it stood in 2000: at 1 percent.
Shaxson's introduction and preliminary chapters immediately prove that he is a bona fide
Africa expert. Having extensively lived and worked there, getting closely acquainted with the
politicians, industrialists and average joes, he knows his topic better than any ivory tower
academic or think tank regional "expert." His anecdotes and insights are accurate, concise
and reasonably centrist. His writing is excellent. And yet he failed to earn 5 stars because
the book itself delves too far into specific biographies of pivotal politicos and activists.
Shaxson is sharp and experienced enough to produce a country-by-country analytical handbook
documenting oil's impact on 21st Century Africa but instead he chose to take the
conversational, journalistic feature-article format. For professionals and novices seeking
accurate and timely information on Africa, this is a good start. Lutz Kleveman's "New Great
Game" was equally readable and informal but a far more informative example for Shaxson to
follow in his next book.
The book is very well written.It documents the authors expereinces with various African
countries in relation to the oil business and provides an insightful analysis of the impacts
of the sleazy dealings within the oil industry on the continent. An excellent read!!
Read more
Of the current crop of "what is wrong with Africa" books including "The Shackled
Continent", "The White Man's Burden" and "The Trouble with Africa", Nicholas Shaxson's
analysis and prescriptions for change are the most radical and on-the-money. Shaxson's book
should be widely read and discussed. Unfortunately, too much invested in the status quo by
all concerned to see much likelihood of change within the next few decades.
Every responsible reader and serious seeker of "enlightenment" usually applies a
"credibility check" to new information.
When author Nicholas Shaxson, in the opening chapter of his book, "Poisoned Wells," badly
mischaracterized the Biafra-Nigeria War of 1967-1970, I could not read any further.
In trying to support his assertion that Oil is the root cause (or at least, a major cause) of
post-colonial Africa's problems, he force-fits that terrible war into "Oil" context. How do I
know? Well, I was there: was old enough to live in Nigeria up to the War, live through that
War fighting in it on the Biafran side, and live after the war in Nigeria, until decided that
I am truly Biafran, not Nigerian.
This book has failed a critical credibility test.
Please send my comments to this author.
Oguchi Nkwocha, MD.
Nwa Biafra
A Biafran Citizen.
In this informative book, journalist Nicholas Shaxson looks at some African countries that
have suffered the curse of foreign-owned oil - Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, Gabon, the
Congo Republic and São Tomé e Principe. In 1970, before the oil boom, 19
million Nigerians were poor; after $400 billion of oil earnings, 90 million (of a 130 million
population) were poor.
Each week sub-Saharan Africa's oil fields produce more than $1 billions' worth of oil. But
the oil money promotes not investment and development but capital flight and poverty. Greedy
foreign oil corporations ally with corrupt rulers.
The struggle of rival imperialisms for oil strips Africa bare. In 2005 the USA imported
more oil from Africa than from the Middle East, and it is intervening in Africa to control
its supplies, as now with its illegal attack on Libya. Oil comprises 87 per cent of US
imports from Africa. Angola is China's biggest source of imported oil.
France too is scheming and warmongering to keep its hold on Africa. France's former
colonies have to keep two-thirds of their reserves in France's treasury. Their central banks'
HQs are in Paris. Much EU `aid' funds French companies in Africa.
Shaxson also looks at the curse of tax havens. More than half of world trade passes
through tax havens. Over half of all banking assets and a third of foreign direct investment
by giant corporations are routed offshore. Terrorists and drug smugglers use the same
offshore system that corporations use.
Offshore finance is centred on Britain, the EU and the USA. The City of London runs half
the world's tax havens and holds more than $3.2 trillion in offshore bank deposits, half the
world total. When the Labour government signed the UN Convention against Corruption in 2000,
it exempted all the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.
The West's banks, mainly from the USA and Britain, take their cut too. They force
countries further into debt by making them take out new loans to pay off old ones, at ever
higher rates. The bankers make private gains out of public losses.
Well, this is a book that has all the attributes of a well researched book. It is
informative, entertaining but didn't dwell well enough on the historical perspectives that
gave rise to Africa's debilitating circumstances. The author's privileged upbringing may not
have accorded him the opportunities of seeing things with the eyes of the ordinary
dispossessed, repressed and oppressed African whose life is badly structured within the bogus
and fraudulent concept of Nation State. A concept that has robbed him of his due place and
left him stranded in cyclical malady of frightening dimensions! On the whole, the book is
worth reading!!
When I decided to read this book, I did so with the expectation of learning something only after wading through a great degree
of partisan political rhetoric. It did not take me long to realize that Mr. Roberts' book is not what I had expected.
He makes this complex issue accessible to the layman looking to familiarize himself with not only oil, but the energy economy.
Rather choose a side and engage in partisan sniping, he tells the good, the bad, and the ugly of the policies advocated by every
party involved in the energy debate. Not only does he analyze our present situation, but he also studies our several possible
ways forward into a new energy economy.
If I were pressed to make a complaint, it would be that I read the original hardcover edition of the book. A lot of the speculation
regarding "worst case" scenarios involve $50 a barrel oil. Now that we are nearly $100 past that worst case, the educated speculation
portrayed in the book should be coming to pass in the market. I would like to see either a completely updated 2008 edition or
at least one with an updated preface.
A prequel to "The End of Food", this is a most informative book that discusses our dependence on oil; its history, its politics
and its economics. After reading this piece there is much that is more easily understood. Much of international politics and economics
is more clear. The development of new energy sources and their tardiness, and the dependence of many sectors of the economy on
oil is more transparent.
Roberts' sequel, "The End of Food" is highly recommended after you read this book as the interdependence of these two great
industries is amazing.
Paul Roberts does an excellent job in not only telling about the coming troubles with oil, but doing so with an, at times,
humorous style.
He makes no assumptions about the reader's knowledge, and spends the first part of the book explaining how the world got to
be in this mess we are in, by deliniating the different energy eras throughout human history.
Common themes arise, in each era, and they combine to help the reader gain a perspective upon why things are they way they
are.
Mr. Roberts did his research well, with an extensive foot note and bibliography section, yet in the course of this research
he did more than just peruse reports and other books on the matter. He managed to gain access to the indutry leaders, talking
and touring the facilties of the Russians and the Saudis.
If there is any fault, it is that the last chapeters of the book, wherein he extrapolates from his knowledge and research what
he forsees occuring, seems a little less well developed than the earlier chapters. True, they are based upon fact and not prgnostication,
but the writing seems at times rushed, and not up to the level of some of the earlier chapters.
Regardless, this is a book that I highly recommend reading, and is one that I have bought extra copies of for insertion into
my "lending library" of books I share and recommend to friends.
I read this good book, here in Brazil.This book has many excellent parts.To example, about Hirohito, on page 39, this tells
the true:Hirohito was Japan's Hitler and ordered the attack to Pearl Harbor, China and rest of Asia.
On page 176, this book tell that more than 90% of new power plants in the USA burn gas.About american culture, the page 263 has
writen:"By contrast, although car manufactures offer more than thirty car models with with fuel economy of thirty miles for gallon
or better, the ten most fuel-efficient models sold in the United States make up just 2 percent of the sales."
Americans love the SUVs, but to combat the blood of islamic terrorism, the petro-dollars, has no place in american hearts.
About the corrupt and also supporter of terrorism Saudi Arabia, this book is correct.
**************************************************************
This book is weak, when forgets Brazil, that only on page 56 is remebered only one time, without no detail at all.I don't agree,
with this failure only because I'm a brazilian, but also because Brazil is among the world's leaders in oil reserves.See to example,
the site [...] to read about this fact.
About nuclear energy, this book is very weak.On part III, there's talks about replacement of coal and gas for electric energy,but
there's nothing about the fact that France, more than 20 years ago, closed all its coal and gas power plants an replaced all of
them for nuclear power plants.
About ethanol, there's almost nothing.Only on page 340, ethanol is remebered, without any detail.I'm an agronomist and I think
that biofuels are the answer for oil , at least on transportation.My family uses ethanol cars for more than 25 years, without
no problem.
Very readable....Roberts does an excellent job of presenting opinions fairly and from many pro/contra angles. He has fully
immersed himself in his topic and the book is chocked-full of fascinating energy facts.
What to do about our energy future has become as politically polarized as abortion - Conservatives favor fossil fuels and the
Moderate - Liberal folks want to go Renewable.
Roberts is bare-knuckled about what he feels the agendas are behind the current debate, which leads him to a (slightly) reserved
pessimism about our chances of making it out of the mess we've made, by putting all our energy eggs in one basket. He does not
hide his contempt for later-day politicians who can't see the forest for the trees and won't take action to avert the coming energy
drought.
"... "A century after World War I, the great war for oil is still raging, with many of the same fronts as before and also a few new ones. Throughout it all -- whether waged by realists, neoliberals, or neocons -- war has been extremely good for business" (225). ..."
The premise of this book is to say what most of the world's public has probably been thinking since the War on Terror began,
or that it is a "war for natural resources -- and that terrorism has little to do with it. Once the military became mechanized,
oil quickly became the most sought-after commodity on the planet, and the race for energy was eventually framed as a matter of
national security."
John Maszka argues that the "oil conglomerates" are the real "threats to national security". Demonizing "an entire religion"
is a repercussion of this policy. My own research in Rebellion as Genre a few years ago also attempted to point out the misuse
of the term terrorism in its current application, or as a weapon against one's enemies rather than as a reference to a type of
attacks intended to terrorize. Governments that accuse others of terrorism while legitimizing their own "acts of violence" as
"retributive" are clearly breaking human rights agreements and their stated commitments to freedom.
Maszka's perspective is of particular interest because he teaches this subject at the Higher Colleges of Technology in Abu
Dhabi, and has published widely his criticisms of the War on Terror, including Terrorism and the Bush Doctrine.
Many of the books I have read on terrorism from American supporters of this pro-War on Terror doctrine are troubling in their
references to spreading Christianity and other similarly questionable ideologies, so it is refreshing to hear from somebody with
a fresh perspective that is more likely to bring about world peace. The preface acknowledges that this book contrasts with the
bulk of other books in this field. It also explains that it focuses primarily on two "Islamic militant organizations -- al-Qaeda
and the Islamic State".
He explains that perception has a lot to do with who a country is willing to commit violence against, giving the example of
Nazis being able to commit violence on Jews in the Holocaust because of this blindness. Thus, violence against Muslims by the
West in the past two decade is shown as possibly a new Holocaust where the militaries are carrying out orders because Muslims
have been demonized.
Terrorism has historically been the work of a few extremists, or terms like "war" or "revolution" is employed to describe large
groups of such fighters; so it is strange that the West has entered the War on Terror with entire Muslim-majority countries, killing
so many civilians that it is not a stretch to call these Holocaust-like.
The Islamic State targets Muslims as well, also showing dehumanized traits that are even harder to explain (x-xi). The preface
also acknowledges that the author will be using "contractions and anecdotal digressions" as "intentional literary devices", shooing
the standard scholarly style (this is troubling for me personally, as I'm allergic to digressions, but at least he tells readers
what to expect).
As promised, Chapter One begins with a poet's story about the Tree of Life, then discusses the Boston Marathon bombings from
the perspective of the author as he worked in Kyrgyzstan, and goes off on other tangents before reaching this conclusion -- the
marathon's bombers were not terrorists: "They had no political aspirations. They weren't attempting to obtain concessions from
the government or provoke a reaction. They simply believed that they were 'wave sheaves' -- first fruits of God -- and that they
would be instrumental in ushering in the apocalypse" (5).
This conclusion explains the relationship between all of the digressions across this section, so these digressions were necessary
to prove this point, and thus are suitable for a scholarly book. And this is exactly the type of logical reasoning that is missing
in most of the oratory on terrorism. The entire book similarly uses specific acts of supposed terrorism to explain what really
happened and working to understand th motivations of the actors.
Since the author's digressions into his own life are typically very relevant to the subject, they are definitely helpful: "I
was stationed in Riyadh at an American military base that was attacked by an al-Qaeda suicide bomber" (135).
It would actually be unethical if Maszka did not explain that he has been personally affected by al-Qaeda in this context;
and since he has seen this War as a civilian living in the affected countries and as a member of the military that is attaching
these "terrorists", his opinions should be trustworthy for both sides. Given how emotional writing this book with detachment and
carefully crafted research must have been for somebody who has been bombed, it is only fitting that the final chapter is called,
"The Definition of Insanity."
And here is the final chapter:
"A century after World War I, the great war for oil is still raging, with many of the same fronts as before and also
a few new ones. Throughout it all -- whether waged by realists, neoliberals, or neocons -- war has been extremely good for
business" (225).
Very powerful words that are justly supported. I would strongly recommend that everybody in the West's militaries who is responsible
for making decisions in the War on Terror read this book before they make their next decision. Who are they shooting at? Why?
Who is benefiting? Who is dying? Are they committing war crimes as serious as the Nazis? If there is any chance these allegations
are true what kind of a military leader can proceed without understanding the explanations that Maszka offers here? This would
probably also work well in an advanced graduate class, despite its digressions, it will probably help students write better dissertations
on related topics.
The world is about to run out of cheap oil and change dramatically. Within the next few years, global production will peak. Thereafter,
even if industrial societies begin to switch to alternative energy sources, they will have less net energy each year to do all the
work essential to the survival of complex societies. We are entering a new era, as different from the industrial era as the latter
was from medieval times.
In The Party's Over , Richard Heinberg places this momentous transition in historical context, showing how industrialism
arose from the harnessing of fossil fuels, how competition to control access to oil shaped the geopolitics of the twentieth century
and how contention for dwindling energy resources in the twenty-first century will lead to resource wars in the Middle East, Central
Asia and South America. He describes the likely impacts of oil depletion and all of the energy alternatives. Predicting chaos unless
the United States -- the world's foremost oil consumer -- is willing to join with other countries to implement a global program of
resource conservation and sharing, he also recommends a "managed collapse" that might make way for a slower-paced, low-energy, sustainable
society in the future.
More readable than other accounts of this issue, with fuller discussion of the context, social implications and recommendations
for personal, community, national and global action, Heinberg's updated book is a riveting wake-up call for human-kind as the oil
era winds down, and a critical tool for understanding and influencing current US foreign policy.
Richard Heinberg , from Santa Rosa, California, has been writing about energy resources issues and the dynamics of cultural
change for many years. A member of the core faculty at New College of California, he is an award-winning author of three previous
books. His Museletter was nominated for the Best Alternative Newsletter award by Utne in 1993.
Well, how to describe something that is so drastic in predictions as to make one quiver? Heinberg spells out a future for humans
that is not very optimistic but sadly, is more accurate than any of us would like. The information and research done by the author
is first rate and irrefutable, which is as it should be. The news: dire. This is my first in a series of his work and indeed,
it's a love/hate experience since there is a lot of hopelessness in the outcome of our current path. Be that as it may, this is
a book to cherish and an author to admire.
Surprizingly its not about the rising cost of the energy that you personally use. Its about the whole economy that has been
built on using a non-replenishable energy supply. You know how those economists always count on the 3% growth in the GDP. Well
the book argues that this long term growth is fundamentally driven by our long term growth in energy usage, which everyone knows
will have to turn around at some point.
The other surprizing fact is that the turning point is long before you run out of oil. Heinberg shows data that indicates that
half of the oil is still left in the ground when the returns start to diminish. And it appears that that we are within a few years
of reaching that point.
So we've used up about half the "available" ( i.e. feasible to extract from an energy perspective ) oil. Now oil production
starts to decrease. What happens next is anyone's guess, but Heinburg presents some detailed discussions on the possiblities.
Don't assume that a coal, nuclear, or "hydrogen" economy are going to be as easy and profitable as the petroleum economy we are
leaving behind.
I've read lots of books about energy and the environment, and this is definitely one of the best.
Part history and part prophesy, this book is an outstanding summary of many major issues facing Western industrial society.
Author Richard Heinberg provides a scholarly critique of modern industrialism, focusing on its current use of energy, and a sobering
forecast based on predictable trends.
The key point of the book is that the Earth's crust can provide mankind with an essentially finite amount of fossil fuel energy,
with primary reference to oil. Drawing on the relatively unknown, and oft-misunderstood, concept of "peak oil," the book addresses
the imminent shortfall of petroleum that will not be available on world markets. That day of reckoning is far closer than most
people think. "Peak oil" is a global application of Geologist M. King Hubbert's (1903-1989) studies of oil production in "mature"
exploration districts. That is, exploration for oil in sedimentary basins at first yields substantial discoveries, which are then
produced. Additional exploration yields less and less "new" oil discovered, and that level of discovery coming at greater and
greater effort. Eventually, absent additional significant discovery, production "peaks" and then commences an irreversible decline.
This has already occurred in the U.S. in the 1970's, and is in the process of occurring in oil-producing nations such as Mexico,
Britain, Egypt, Indonesia and Malaysia. Ominously, "peak" production can be forecast in the next few years in such significant
producing nations as Saudi Arabia and Iraq (in addition to all of the other problems in those unfortunate nations.)
Much of the rise of industrial society was tied to increasing availability of high energy-density fuel, particularly oil. Western
society, and its imitators in non-Western lands, is based upon access to large amounts of energy-dense fuel, and that fuel is
oil. With respect to the U.S., the domestic decline in oil production has been made up, over the past thirty years, by increasing
imports from other locales, with concomitant political risk. When the world production "peaks" in the next few years, the competition
for energy sources will become more fierce than it already is. This book addresses issues related to what are commonly thought
of as "substitutes" for oil, such as coal, natural gas and natural gas liquids, and shatters many myths. The author also delves
deeply into energy sources such as "tar sand," "oil shale," nuclear and renewable sources. And thankfully, the author offers a
number of proposals to address the looming problem (although these proposals are probably not what an awful lot of people want
to hear.)
A book like this one could easily descend into a tawdry level of "chicken-little" squawks and utter tendentiousness. But thankfully
it does not do so. This is a mature, well-reasoned and carefully footnoted effort. I could take issue with some of the author's
points about "big business" and how decisions are made at high political levels, but not in this review. Instead I will simply
congratulate Mr. Heinberg for writing an important contribution to social discourse. I hope that a lot of people read this book
and start to look at and think about the world differently.
Maybe the most important book since Charles Darwin's "The Origin of Species". This volume represents THE wakeup call for a
world society quite literally addicted to crude oil for its continuation, and, in most cases, it's very survival.
Heinberg has done his homework, and this volume should be required reading for anyone in an industrialized nation, or one just
getting started down that road. It is a proven scientific fact that within a few years, we will begin to run out of oil, and it
will be pretty much gone within 5 or 6 decades. Considering that we have built our entire society around an oil economy, the implications
are dire - far, far beyond not being able to drive through the coffee shop with the kids in your SUV on the way home from the
mall. Alternative energy sources? Dream on - read on.
The book is thoroughly researched, well-thought and organized and presents the often dissenting views at every side of this
hugely important issue. It is also delightfully written and composed, and is fun and quick to read.
I highly recommend this book, and I hope at least one person reads what I'm writing and buys this book. And I hope they tell
someone, too.
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack
a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in
https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions
were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most
powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far
fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.
This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they
are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.
You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character...
pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG
Then there are the many problems of their "proof".
Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location
of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high
boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv
The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after
the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!
The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this
false flag mission.
But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A
mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel.
"We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.
Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".
Finally, there is the question of "why"?
What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one
establishment source that tried to rationalize.
Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag
operation by Israel's Mossad.
If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would
still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.
To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the
regime in Tehran is a rational actor.
The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even
for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.
Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under
hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place,
but that seems to only be true with our allies.
As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories
involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.
Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through
waters within reach of the IRGC.
The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers,
then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.
There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining
chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran
was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently
threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.
Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the
sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.
This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the
U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?
US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians
who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism
-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239)
June 14, 2019
The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are
that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative
theory .
For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing
Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom
"the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't
have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something
about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels,
or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division,
discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other
horrible thing you can think of.
Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.
That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo,
Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?
The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation.
The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible
weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.
My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.
But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but
this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.
"... The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in Southeast Asia. ..."
There have always been people who have tried to gain power and control. The only
distinction was the mechanism through which they planned to achieve it: brute force or
something more original. For example, researchers manipulate data to attain the results they
want, while traders try to manipulate and influence market prices by disseminating erroneous
information. Some go even further by conducting so-called "false flag" and "fake news"
operations.
However, it is a gradual process. First, the technique of misinformation is implemented
– as you may remember, in 2016, the Internet was filled with fake news aimed at
distorting public opinion and helping one of the candidates to become president of the United
States of America. This year, intelligence agencies and non-government entities have decided to
use similar ploys to influence oil prices.
According to Wikipedia, a
false flag is "intentional misrepresentation or covert operation designed to deceive; the
deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for
some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility." Recently it became popular for
countries to "organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations
or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign
military or economic aggression."
Recently there were news report that two oil tankers had been damaged in a suspected attack
in the waters between the United Arab Emirates and Iran as they were leaving the Persian Gulf.
And predictably, the United States claimed that Iran was responsible for
damaging the vessels in the Gulf of Oman. This was the second such incident in four weeks.
The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from
saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the
consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took
place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in
Southeast Asia.
Iran has already accused the US of lying about a "torpedo attack" on an American-linked oil
tanker. "The US and its regional allies must stop warmongering and put an end to mischievous
plots and false-flag operations in the region," Iran's mission to the United Nations said .
As history has shown, the Americans won't back down. Does it mean that Iran is next on its
target list for war? Only time will tell.
Nevertheless, without waiting for the results of an investigation, Brent prices spiked after the reports
of the attacks on tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.
The Brent
crude quote won 4.45% on Thursday, shortly after news of the attacks broke, but it has
since slightly decreased, or, should we say, corrected. Without any doubt, someone managed to
put up a really good million-dollar front.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called on Friday for an independent
investigation to establish the facts and who was responsible for attacks on two oil tankers
this week in the Gulf of Oman.
The United States blamed Iran for the attacks on Thursday, a charge Tehran rejected. Amid
the rising tensions, Guterres said he was available to mediate if the parties agreed, however
he added that "at the present moment we don't see a mechanism of dialogue possible to be in
place."
"It's very important to know the truth and it's very important that responsibilities are
clarified. Obviously that can only be done if there is an independent entity that verifies
those facts," he told reporters, adding that he believed only the Security Council could
order a U.N. investigation. . .
Tensions between the United States and Iran are flaring -- and possibly headed toward war if
left unchecked.
Attacks against Japanese and Norwegian tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, which the United
States has blamed Iran for despite skepticism from European allies, coupled with Iran's
announcement that it would violate the 2015 multinational nuclear deal that the Trump
administration withdrew the United States from in 2018 and President Trump's move to deploy an
additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East, have created sky-high tensions between the two
countries.
Should the Trump administration take military action against Iran, officials have suggested
that the president already has authorization from Congress to attack Iran, which has drawn
intense skepticism and outrage from members of Congress and legal experts.
"We always have the authorization to defend American interests," said Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo on CBS' Face the Nation on Sunday, when asked whether the administration had
the legal authorization to strike Iran.
Lawmakers have said that the administration in private has stated it does not need their
backing, and it has floated using the same legal authority that the Bush administration used
after September 11, 2001, in Afghanistan, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran
was involved in the terrorist attacks.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA analyst, said on June 13 that Sec. Pompeo
presented to members on "how the 2001 AUMF [Authorization to Use Military Force] might
authorize war on Iran." Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) on May 21, referring to the Pompeo
briefing, also confirmed that the
administration felt it could attack Iran without authorization: "What I heard in there makes it
clear that this administration feels that they do not have to come back and talk to Congress in
regards to any action they do in Iran."
(The State Department did not return a request for comment from Fortune on whether it
thought the 2001 authorization applied to Iran; Pompeo did not answer the question before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying he
would rather "leave that to lawyers.")
Pompeo and Trump administration officials have repeatedly said that they do not want a war
with Iran. Nevertheless, Pompeo said there is "no doubt" a connection
between Iran and al-Qaeda,
despite doubts from experts who analyzed al-Qaeda documents that there have been close
ties, and no evidence that Iran and al-Qaeda cooperated in terror attacks.
Legal experts and members of Congress from both parties said that the 2001 authorization did
not apply.
Heather Brandon-Smith, legislative director for militarism and human rights at the Friends
Committee on National Legislation and an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,
told Fortune that there was "definitely not" a provision to use force against Iran in
the authorization.
"That is quite a stretch and it's something we've never seen before. It's certainly not what
members of Congress intended when they authorized the president to go after those who attacked
the U.S. on 9/11 and those who harbored them," she said.
"The 2001 AUMF does not authorize the use of force against Iran. Iran was not implicated in
the 9/11 attacks, Iranian forces are not al Qa'ida or the Taliban or their associated forces,
nor are they a 'successor' to any of those forces," wrote Brian Egan, former legal adviser to
the State Department, and Tess Bridgeman, former deputy legal adviser to the National Security
Council,
in the legal blog Just Security.
Members of Congress have also said that the 2001 authorization does not apply to Iran. Rep.
Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee, said on June
13 that he did not think that the authorization applied to the "state of Iran." Lawmakers,
including
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Sen. Rand Paul
(R-Ky.) , have said that the administration needed to go to Congress to militarily attack
Iran.
Further, Pompeo's comments on CBS about defending "American interests" signaled a legal
authority for the president to act militarily as commander in chief under Article II of the
U.S. Constitution, which experts doubted applied in the current standoff with Iran.
Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, tweeted , "I must've
missed the clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the President to
unilaterally use military force in defense of commercial vessels flying foreign flags in
international waters "
Nevertheless, despite
recent efforts in the House to repeal the authorization , Brandon-Smith said that Congress
bore blame as well for repeatedly balking at repealing it, which has led to a situation where
the administration has signaled at an interpretation beyond its intended scope.
"The administration -- in three presidents -- have interpreted the 2001 AUMF to apply to
groups and in places that Congress never intended, and Congress hasn't done anything to stop
that. They've continued to appropriate funds for these wars. They'll criticize what the
president does, but they haven't passed legislation to repeal the 2001 AUMF," she said.
"Instead, Congress has ceded its authority to the executive branch."
The Iranian Ambassador to the UK Hamid Baeidinejad warned that the United States and Iran
are "unfortunately headed toward a confrontation which is very serious for everybody in the
region."
In an interview with Christiane Amanpour, the Ambassador reacted to rapidly escalating
tensions between the two countries - late on Monday the US announced it was sending another
1,000 troops to the Middle East - as the United States continues to blame Iran for an attack on
two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.
Ambassador Baeidinejad, a senior Iranian official within the Foreign Ministry, denied the
allegations, and cautioned the White House would be "very sorry" to underestimate Iran, should
a military conflict ensue. Baeidinejad stopped short of predicting the possibility of U.S.
plans for a limited strike in the Persian Gulf, but argued that such plans may already be
underway in a bid to spark a fight.
"I'm sure this is a scenario where some people are forcefully working on it, they will drag
the United States into a confrontation. I hope that the people in Washington will be very
careful not to underestimate the Iranian determination," Baeidinejad told CNN. "If they wrongly
enter into a conflict, they would be very sorry about that, because we are fully prepared by
our government and our forces that we would not be submitting to the United States."
He explained that Iran was not opposed to negotiations but that the U.S. should "not
interfere" Iran's economic relationships with other countries, a tactic he referred to as
"economic terrorism."
When asked who else could be responsible for the attack, Baeidinejad pointed to other
countries in the region " who have invested heavily, billions and billions of dollars to draft
the United States into a military conflict with Iran ."
And since everyone knows who they are, he didn't even have to name them.
People wont consider this but with the grave danger that Zionist empire has put every
nation in, a first strike by China and Russia is entirely possible.
In big fights the first one to strike has the best odds. This is the street fighters
rule.
Its not like they didnt plead and attempt to reason with these psychopaths and the western
peoples. They are being backed into a corner. Dont be surprised if Iran is the red line that
you didnt know about.
Once Saud and Israel get hit in response to an attack on Iran, a whole lot of things could
start going down very quickly, or even instantly.
I have zero doubt that they have had generals advise them of throwing everything they have
at the empire right there. That feasibly could be their best chance of survival. They of
course wouldnt inform anyone of this.
Russia and China have to be resigned to the near inevitability of WWIII. They simply have
to be. They know who they are dealing with. Short of collapsing on themselves, they will not
stop.
China's been building up their military at a mind boggling pace, especially their Navy. I
just read that Russia is going to repair their sole carrier and it should be ready by 2021.
Originally the Russian Navy have been toying with the idea of scrapping her.
Thank you brother. Nailed it. But I think if they have one or more they will wait for our
attack and Israel will be wiped away like an inadvertent cum shot.
Trump is a narcissist; Fort Trump in Poland, Trump Heights by Israel. The guy needs to be
loved and that's common to most politicians. Trump wants a better economy and his neocons
want war. Bolton is forcing him to choose which isn't smart but Bolton is a fanatic, not a
good thinker. If Trump backs off from war then he'll be made to look weak as Pompeo piles on
the make-believe offenses of Iran. If he starts a skirmish then Bolton will add a blowtorch
and off we go. Trump's statement that he knows who did 9/11 just might be his ace in the
hole. Expose the perpetrators and for what they've did 18 years ago. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld
need to testify. Might be Trump's only way to avoid a war and win re-election.
They may not have the military power that the U.S./Israel/SA have, but their Ambassador,
in the above video, looked determined to me. His face set and hardened as he spoke during
that part (about their readiness for war) revealing, to my mind, that Iran is more than ready
for war with the U.S. The countries which will suffer will be SA and Israel if the skirmish
goes badly. Maybe Iran has a missile or bomb no one knows they have. Who knows? Anything's
possible. SA will be taken out. If Iran feels pressed against the wall, they'll take out
SA.
The way for Iran to avoid war is simple: they need an IBS controlled central bank, and to
give all their resources over to western corporations, but I repeat myself.
Honey...unfair. I don't think that Iran is incompetent; they are simply being pressured by
the most powerful military force in the world. Look at what we spend!!! Equals the top next
six countries in the world.
The Ambassador said that Iran simply wants the U.S. to leave them alone. No economic
sanctions. No throwing around our weight. A fair enough request. (I don't believe in our
economic sanctions for any country. Studying the Magnitsky debacle showed me how conditions
upon which the U.S. bases arguments for sanctions are more than likely fabricated and
manufactured. The Magnitsky Affair was a travesty of the highest order.)
Let's consider this argument. Suppose Iran is proven guilty of spreading terrorism.
Instigating terrorist activities. Is not the U.S. also guilty of spreading terrorism? Who
funded and supplied al Qaeda/al Nusra? Protected them? Who toppled Iran and Libya's leaders?
Who was running guns through Benghazi? For whom? The U.S.A. has spread terrorism. If anyone
reads for even 15 minuts a day from sources outside the U.S....i.e., they're not governed by
U.S. media...they will get a sharply different viewpoint.
The only reason Iran is being pressed is because the U.S. has the might and power to do so
and Iran doesn't. Really simple, Honey. Really simple.
Throw in some shadowy "Russians" and it'll be a two-fer. Russia to be sanctioned out of
existence as the US tries to stiffarm the entire world at the UN and throws Iran against the
wall like a doll.
At least that's what Pentagon City and Langley thinks. But every empire has an expiration
date and it's not too much of a stretch to see the irony of a fall during Pride Month.
Too many people in this country think the US has the mandate of heaven to do whatever it
wants on earth. And many more think they live on an island in the sky, untouchable and
inviolate. If the war doesn't work out, oh well, life goes on!
Too many in this country don't think. Increasingly it's not by choice: the skills required
are quickly escaping them - being sapped by "smart" phone itis.
I know what you mean, Groot. This warmongering seems endless. They constantly drum up a
new conflict. Another dastardly episode from a U.S.-designated terrorist. I feel like the
figure the painting The Scream.
I feel like I live on another planet. The US has been banging the drums against Russia for
three years because they hacked our sacred election and we've learned the basis for that was
completely fake. Not one word about that from D.C. and here we are days later gearing up to
fight Iran.
Damn it's almost like our resident deep-state bootlickers never heard of operation ajax or
the how the shah came to be. People are born ignorant and it's sad but not surprising to see
so many so utterly uniformed.
Me, I thought that the Iranian announcement that it's going to go beyond the limits agreed
was provocative. Why did they do it? It's not necessary for them. So, is there a necessity we
don't know about, or are they pushing the Americans a bit? Pushing the Americans is a
dangerous game. Are they desperate?
I was in Iran a month ago. I didn't think they were desperate. But the collapse of the
riyal was having an effect. I'm not quite sure what's pushing this risky announcement.
I continue to believe that history will show that we are in WWIII already. The Iran gambit
fits within a bigger ME strategy that sits aside the EU/NATO one.
And then there is the private banking cartel part of the war. This part effects all of the
gambits and strategies and its do or die in their eyes.
The steamroller of China/Russia and aligned continues apace.
Seems I need to relearn a few things. The current enrichment regime goes to 3% except for a
small amount that's enriched to 20% to derive medical isotopes. To produce a nuclear weapon,
80-85% enrichment's required which means building a very large number of new centrifuge
cascades. Plus, you don't just leap from 3% to 85%; it takes quite some time, but I can't
recall the number of centrifuges or the time required. You can bet the old debunked to death
warning "Iran's only a month away from making a bomb" will resurface with a vengeance.
As b, myself, and many others have noted, the Outlaw US Empire is the one in violation of
everything as usual but isn't being called out for it thanks to its command of BigLie Media.
As I reported in the open thread, Putin's continuing remarks call out illegal actions and
continual bullying by the Outlaw US Empire, and I imagine the joint consensus statements from
the SCO and CICA forums will contain similar language as has recently become commonplace. The
EU continues to act like its helpless. It doesn't even do the bare minimum by calling out the
Empire for its gross illegal behavior. I don't understand why, if indeed it did, Russia
ceased its importation of Iranian nuclear material. The Arak plant is being developed with
Chinese financing and engineering help.
Spicing the situation further is Iran's reported
busting of another CIA spy ring: "Iran has dismantled a CIA-run 'large US
cyber-espionage' network."
re Karlof1. I think everyone understands that Iranian enrichment is not actually very great.
The question is why Iran put it in a way that was likely to provoke a reaction.
Do you really think that the EU will start a trade war with the US over Iran? Now that
economic crisis is near? Nope, it is not going to happen. Too many naive people.
It is because the US knows with whom they are dealing with. Merkel "i support the Iraq
war", Macron the cuck, Scandinavian/Eastern European "please USA, protect me from Russia", UK
"i'm your biggest Poodle, don't you like it?" and Italy "oh my god, our economy will implode
at any moment".
The EU, generally speaking, in a political way, is a joke.
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response
to the tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday .
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an
Iranian facility linked to its nuclear program , the officials further claimed.
" The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target ," said
a Western diplomat.
reply to
" The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
"The bombing will be massive but will be limited to a specific target," said a Western
diplomat."
Posted by: Zack | Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15
I read somewhere that Iran bought S-300's a while ago and that they were heavily
customized. As Russia has been involved with Iran my guess is Iran has an S-400 equivalent
defensive capability. And as Iran now has a heads up regarding a pending US attack, we may
finally see how well US weapons/planes perform against S-400s as well as Iran's formidable
missiles.
We may also see how well Israel's Iron Dome does against an assault by both Hamas and
Hezbollah. Trump is going down a dark road if he attacks Iran.
Here's
the Anna News report about Iran's air defense capabilities I posted last week.
It's in Russian but is easily machine translated. Where Iran's strength lies is in its
retaliation ability combined with target vulnerabilities, which we've been over and back
about in detail. Last week after the tanker attacks, CENTCOM issued a statement saying the
Outlaw US Empire doesn't seek war with Iran, which I also posted here.
Well, make that happen then. I have been waiting for a long time.
Btw it is not only that they think like that, they don't sit on their hands, they work
actively to make that EU dependence happen.
Posted by: Zack | Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15
Its psychological war. Posturing. What happens if Iran fires back and a salvo of
ballistic/cruise missiles destroy a US base in the Middle East? Or the Taliban gets manpads?
US bases in Iraq under fire by shia millitias just like in 2007? EFP IEDs work great against
US armored vehicles..
The US military consistently resisted the push for war against Iran. I don't believe a war
with Iran will happen. Especially not now, with the already shaky global economy and Brexit
ongoing.
"So Iran stands alone, with the other Countrys daring to defy the US supremacy.
Will be hard next 5 years."
Depends on the severity of the economic crisis coming. The US was very nice and quiet in
2008-2009 right after the financial crisis. It even wanted a reset in relations with
Russia.
When the US or the EU have it bad, they become very very nice. Like kittens. Look at how
bankrupt Italy is seeking better trade relations with Russia and China.
So i expect a decrease in geopolitical tensions in the next several years as the crisis
bites and countries are forced to concentrate on internal problems. I also think there will
be too much debt around and that will force decrease in military budgets as well.
If the crisis is big, the trade war against China and the EU sanctions against Russia will
end. More EU countries will join OBOR.
So it all depends on the severity of the crisis and who will be hit the most.
Good points by Clueless Joe and DBEP-- #18 and 19.
And underlines just how dangerous it's going to be going forward. For Iran to have a shot
at changing the current dynamic, it has to generate a situation that is more economically
threatening than the threats that the US has made to isolate Iran. Active hostilities, with
the first shots preferably fired by the US, setting the stage for Iranian action
significantly reducing the amount of energy exported from the region and generating a global
economic crisis may be required. That's why, as I have said repeatedly, it's a very risky
strategy. But as I have also asked, what are the alternatives?
The EU won't start a trade war with the US mainly for two reasons:
1) its economy is in a much more fragile state, so it wouldn't be able to withstand a
Fabian war; as a peripheral region, its survival depens on never fully taking one side
between the superpowers (USA vs China-Russia);
2) NATO.
There's also an ideological reason: since the post-war, the Western Europeans developed an
ideology called Atlanticism, which states that the USA is a continuation of the European
empire/civilization, therefore the continuation of Western Civilization itself. Therefore,
the USA must be protected as if it was Europe, even if just culturally.
Indeed, this is a big problem the European far-right will have to face: until now, they
are using a narrative of a "sovereign and pure" Europe ("Europe for Europeans"). When the
time comes and they are in power, they will have to face the reality Europe now is just an
American pet: will they budge and, at the end of the day, strenghten the USA's position in
the peninsula, or will they go all in and seal its fate?
JPOST:U.N. OFFICIALS: U.S. PLANNING A 'TACTICAL ASSAULT' IN IRAN
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
...
Posted by: Zack | Jun 17, 2019 3:49:59 PM | 15
Trust the "Israelis" to publish meaningless "He said - She said" claptrap about Iran.
J-Post's gullible audience is way too dumb to realise that a US announcement of US unilateral
military action, delivered from the steps of the UN, does not mean that the idiocy is
condoned or endorsed by the UN Security Council.
Apart from anything else, if there was a genuine likelihood that the US was going to bomb
Iran, J-Post would be telling "Israelis" to check the food and water in their bunkers and
stay the Hell away from Dimona and "Israel's" other nuke sites.
The elites distract us from finding out who they are and what they do by continually throwing
up scenarios for us to ponder over. Since 2011 it's been Syria, then Ukraine, then back to
Syria, a rumble with Kim in NK, a sort of mini-scenario with Venezuela then back to Iran.
It's been more or less non-stop. Add in Trump and Brexit and we have more than enough bones
to chew on. We focus on that tiresome old sub-entity the military-industrial complex when it
is just a glorified cop enforcing the interests of its master – global capital.
We consider countries and regions as separate – the EU and the US for example
– but the elites don't. The Bank of International Settlements – the world's
central banks' bank is in Basel, Switzerland. The elites are interested in one thing and one
thing only and that is getting a return on the $80 trillion in AUM or assets under
management. When global GDP is just a little less than that figure that's a lot of money
chasing around looking to earn a buck or two. It requires that every sector of every economy
be "in play." Remember Trumps comment about privatizing the NHS in Britain after Brexit?
That's because it's all Britain has left of what they call low-hanging fruit. Everything else
has been downsized, rightsized or fucksized.
What we need to focus on is not the G7 or G20 but the G30 or Group of Thirty – a
group of extremely powerful bankers. Check out the members on their website if you want to
know who controls things. It only came to notice because Mario Draghi, the head of the ECB,
used to be a member. Some fine individual complained to the EU Ombudsman that the ECB is
supposed to supervise the banks, not conspire with them, and Draghi was forced out. Two
members are ex-governors of the Bank of China!
The big fish of the G30 – Jacob A Frenkel - is someone probably nobody has ever
heard of. A stint at the IMF, then governor of the Bank of Israel (1991-2000), before moving
on to head Merril Lynch International and membership of the CFR (Council on Foreign
Relations), the Trilateral Commission and the New York FED – which effectively controls
the FED. He even has his grubby little hands in China as a member of the Advisory council of
the China Development Bank. China again! Oh, and lastly he is Chairman of J P Morgan
International. He is joined there by the scum Tony Blair and the eternally corrupt ex UN
chief Kofi Annan, as well as the chairman of China's soverign wealth fund, among many others
whose names and careers we should all be familiar with.
Iran might consider going this way to encourage Europe to act:
The JCPOA set a limit of 3.67 percent enrichment and a stockpile limit of around 660
pounds for 15 years with 5,060 older centrifuges. But that will change. Considering the
wrongful actions taken by the US to end the international agreement affirmed by the UN
Security Council, this is now the Iran position:
Iran's options include:
--increasing the number of centrifuges to 20,000
--surpassing the 3.67 percent limit to 5 percent to provide fuel to the Bushehr power plant,
and to twenty percent for the Tehran research reactor
--the possibility of further enrichment percentages
--halting the redesign of the Arak reactor which would eliminate plutonium production
--non-participation in any policing of terror attacks in the Gulf region
Yeah, he is stupid enough and moreover very easily swayed. Remember he's got Sheldon
Adelson, Kushner, Bibi, Bolton, Pompeo, Cotton and even Adam Schiff telling him to bomb bomb
bomb bomb bomb Iran.
Here're some of those newly
released/doctored photos , thus begging the question, why was the grainy video released
when such clear photos were available? Oh, and they don't prove anything either--unless--one
looks closely at the boat. 7 people have very obvious life vests on while 3 don't. There's no
flag/standard flying from the boat anywhere whereas in all other photos of similar Iranian
vessels, the Iranian flag is proudly displayed. The vessel's design is quite interesting for
a boat-guy like myself--I've never seen anything like its cockpit. Besides the two chests,
there's nothing aboard that resembles a limpet mine. The crew all seem to be wearing the same
uniform, but a variety of life vests--3-4 different types--plus the life ring lays on the
deck improperly stowed. No hull markings or registration numbers are seen. And as I noted on
the previous thread, the boat type seems unique. The seam on the hull appears where? And so
on....
USN has zero credibility and that hasn't improved one iota with this release. There ought
to be 100s of photos, not just these few. And how about an undoctored video! Ought to check
what sorts of ship's boats USN has as this one's very specific.
Well, that's a few more photos than from my link. The caption clearly states the overhead
shot of the boat was after the supposed mine removal--again, where is it?!?! There's no
stowage area anywhere on that vessel. IMO, given its cockpit's arrangement, it's meant to
ferry personnel--note all the places to sit along the gunwalls. The previous video showed it
to have a specific hull type designed to be both seaworthy and stable--a difficult
combination to attain--but at the cost of any stowage space below deck.
Ha! Maybe they decided to just drop it into the sea! Otherwise, where is it in that
overhead photo?!
@ karlof
Yes, an IRGCN ferry boat, outside of its Persian Gulf AOR, in the Gulf of Oman. I can't get
that out of my head. I would think that IRGCN would be unwelcome in IRIN territory.
Thanks....Anyone knowledgeable about the bomb mounting pictures they show at the
bottom?
The first and second picture seem to show the same hull face but they don't agree with the
fourth picture showing damage. Take the length of the white hull height numbers/markers on
the right as a ruler and measure out the same distance on the 1/2 versus number 4 pics and
see the difference.
Is it humanities karma to die on the basis of a poor lie? What a bunch of losers the elite
are. They talk big but when it comes to actual merit they have none...only undeserved
faith
>Downing Street spokesperson said at a briefing Monday that if Iran breaches its
low-grade uranium stockpile limits, which was agreed under the nuclear pact, then the UK
would look at "all options."
> French President Emmanuel Macron said that the Iran announcement was regretful, adding
that France "encourage(s) them to adopt a patient and responsible behavior."
> German government spokesman Steffen Seibert and the European Union's foreign policy
chief Frederica Mogherini both said that they expect Iran to live up to its obligations as
laid out in the deal.. . here
I'm late to this party, so your close-up images are the first I've seen. If they're not
"doctored", then somebody has a really interesting new weapon. Here is what
Julian Borger in Washington wrote in the UK Guardian:
One of the images is said to show the remnant of a limpet mine that had been removed
– a small jagged piece of green metal, as well as holes made by nails used to hold
the mine in place.
Yes, Borger 'was told' that the explosives were nailed to the steel hull of the
tanker. Now I don't know the thickness of a tanker's hull, but wouldn't it be at least half
an inch of good steel? Was Bolger born with a fishhook through his lip?
It's my WAG (wild-ass-guess) that what the Iranians were removing was an unexploded
lightweight devices which had been delivered to the side of the ship by some kind of
projectile or drone. If it was theirs, they'd not want the US to inspect it so they went
after it themselves. Of course an alternate viewpoint is that they took down a US device to
carry home and study.
"We focus on that tiresome old sub-entity the military-industrial complex when it is just
a glorified cop enforcing the interests of its master – global capital."
Do you really believe those bankers with their terminals and wingtip shoes are telling the
boys with the billion dollars of weaponry what to do? At best they share mutual consideration
at times, and when push comes to shove between them, those bankers are going to be looking
down the business end of those armaments. Nice little villa you've got there...shame if
something were to happen to it.... They are going to work together until they don't.
It is not a secret that the USA have a very powerful MIC lobby that by-and-large defines the USA foreign policy. Israel can be considered
as a yet another MIC lobbyist. This lobby in interesting in launching the war (especially pro-Israel faction of the MIC lobby)
The USA can definitely crush Iran military, but the cost might be higher that in case of Iraq. Also without occupation of the country
that will not be anything like a decisive victory. In Iraq, the USA was helped by the fact that military quickly crumbed and was undermined
by betrayals of several high ranking generals. Whether the same will be the case in Iran is difficult to predict.
Theocratic regimes tend to became more fragile with time, so at that stage is Iran now is difficult to predict without being in
the country. So counting on the fragility of the regime might be a valid consideration. But the war typically unites nations so to exploit
those weaknesses with war is more difficult task, then just waiting for the regime collapse.
That USA has at least two firm allied in such a war: Israel and Saudis.
Notable quotes:
"... It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large as
Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.
..."
"... Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This was
followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization. ..."
"... U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands, including
an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen. ..."
"... Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack that
injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility. ..."
"... Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks, helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false
flag" attacks to instigate a war. ..."
"... Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down a Fragile
Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash, and a war with
Iran would be a cakewalk. ..."
"... "Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most part,
adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan." ..."
"... This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and the
Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse? ..."
"... Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and who
oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars. ..."
"... Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked region
that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that. ..."
Such a war, no matter how long, would be fought in and around the Persian Gulf, through which a third of the world's seaborne
oil travels. It could trigger a worldwide recession and imperil Trump's reelection.
It would widen the "forever war," which Trump said he would end, to a nation of 80 million people, three times as large
as Iraq. It would become the defining issue of his presidency, as the Iraq War became the defining issue of George W. Bush's presidency.
And if war comes now, it would be known as "Trump's War."
For it was Trump who pulled us out of the Iran nuclear deal, though, according to U.N. inspectors and the other signatories
– Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China – Tehran was complying with its terms.
Trump's repudiation of the treaty was followed by his reimposition of sanctions and a policy of maximum pressure. This
was followed by the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "terrorist" organization.
Then came the threats of U.S. secondary sanctions on nations, some of them friends and allies, that continued to buy oil from
Iran.
U.S. policy has been to squeeze Iran's economy until the regime buckles to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's 12 demands,
including an end to Tehran's support of its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Sunday, Pompeo said Iran was behind the attacks on the tankers in the Gulf of Oman and that Tehran instigated an attack
that injured four U.S. soldiers in Kabul though the Taliban claimed responsibility.
The war hawks are back.
"This unprovoked attack on commercial shipping warrants retaliatory military strikes," said Senator Tom Cotton on Sunday.
But as Trump does not want war with Iran, Iran does not want war with us. Tehran has denied any role in the tanker attacks,
helped put out the fire on one tanker, and accused its enemies of "false flag" attacks to instigate a war.
If the Revolutionary Guard, which answers to the ayatollah, did attach explosives to the hull of the tankers, it was most likely
to send a direct message: If our exports are halted by U.S. sanctions, the oil exports of the Saudis and Gulf Arabs can be made
to experience similar problems.
Yet if the president and the ayatollah do not want war, who does?
Not the Germans or Japanese, both of whom are asking for more proof that Iran instigated the tanker attacks. Japan's prime
minster was meeting with the ayatollah when the attacks occurred, and one of the tankers was a Japanese vessel.
Writing in The Wall Street Journal Monday were Ray Takeyh and Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for
the Defense of Democracies, a neocon nest funded by Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson. In a piece titled, "America Can Face Down
a Fragile Iran," the pair make the case that Trump should squeeze the Iranian regime relentlessly and not fear a military clash,
and a war with Iran would be a cakewalk.
"Iran is in no shape for a prolonged confrontation with the U.S. The regime is in a politically precarious position. The sullen
Iranian middle class has given up on the possibility of reform or prosperity. The lower classes, once tethered to the regime by
the expansive welfare state, have also grown disloyal. The intelligentsia no longer believes that faith and freedom can be harmonized.
And the youth have become the regime's most unrelenting critics.
"Iran's fragile theocracy can't absorb a massive external shock. That's why Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has, for the most
part, adhered to the JCPOA (the nuclear pact) and why he is likely angling for negotiation over confrontation with the Great Satan."
This depiction of Iran's political crisis and economic decline invites a question: If the Tehran regime is so fragile and
the Iranian people are so alienated, why not avoid a war and wait for the regime's collapse?
Trump seems to have several options:
Negotiate with the Tehran regime for some tolerable detente.
Refuse to negotiate and await the regime's collapse, in which case the president must be prepared for Iranian actions that
raise the cost of choking that nation to death.
Strike militarily, as Cotton urges, and accept the war that follows, if Iran chooses to fight rather than be humiliated
and capitulate to Pompeo's demands.
One recalls: Saddam Hussein accepted war with the United States in 1991 rather than yield to Bush I's demand he get his army
out of Kuwait.
Who wants a U.S. war with Iran? Primarily the same people who goaded us into wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and
who oppose every effort of Trump's to extricate us from those wars.
Should they succeed in Iran, it is hard to see how we will ever be able to extricate our country from this blood-soaked
region that holds no vital strategic interest save oil, and America, thanks to fracking, has become independent of that.
"... The US initially granted waivers to eight allied importers of Iranian oil for its sanctions instituted in November of last year but has since revoked them, making matters worse for the flailing Iranian economy. In turn, Tehran has raised the long-threatened prospect that it could close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow outlet of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil passes. "Iran has made these threats for the better part of the last 20 to 30 years. ..."
"... It hasn't followed through on it because it would also inhibit its ability to ship its oil abroad, so closing it would be counterintuitive," said Esfandiary. "However, given that the US is deliberately trying to shut off all avenues of Iran exporting its oil, it doesn't stand to lose as much if it closes the strait." Rather, the Gulf monarchies would be at the greatest risk should a conflict break out. ..."
"... "This is why the Emiratis have been urging for restraint since the last tanker attacks a few weeks ago," she said. ..."
"... The captain of the Japanese ship has already called out American *LIES*! The tanker was hit by a flying object, not a mine underwater, directly contradicting the liars looking to plant another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Since the US lost so badly in Vietnam, you'd think that they'd think twice before starting a war with Iran. ..."
"... This article, along with the entire Western media is promoting the line that Iran most likely was responsible for this affair. This is absurd on many levels. First, has Iran gained anything from this? Has anyone? Of course! The US and its allies are creating a huge propaganda campaign. ..."
Evacuation of two ships off Oman drives home potential fallout from US 'maximum pressure' campaign against Iran By Alison Tahmizian
Meuse , Beirut
The attacks on two tankers laden with petroleum products in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday may have been designed to highlight the
risks of the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran, analysts told Asia Times on Friday. The US accused
Iran of being behind the attacks, a charge Tehran has vehemently denied. But this kind of non-lethal warning, which caused a spike
in oil prices, has been in the hardline Iranian playbook since the Trump administration signaled it would take steps to squeeze the
Islamic republic's ability to sell its petroleum.
"It was being debated even before the oil waivers were revoked [in November], but largely as a possible response to an attempt
to zero [eliminate] Iran's exports," an Iranian source told Asia Times on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak
on the matter. "The idea was to raise costs for global markets and the Gulf states to get them to more directly intercede with Trump"
and to drive home the potential fallout of US sanctions, the source said.
President Donald Trump's administration sees the Saudi heir to the throne, Mohammed bin Salman, and the Emirati de facto ruler
Mohammed bin Zayed, or MBZ, as the pillars of American policy – and arms deals – in the region, and the goal would have been to make
them feel economic pain. "If MBZ tells Trump that it's time to slow down the maximum pressure policy that is very different than
[Japanese President Shinzo] Abe calling for negotiations," the source said.
The Japanese leader – who visited Tehran on a mission to reduce tensions – instead got a front-row seat to the rising risks of
the shipping business, in which the G-7 nation has a major interest. Just as news surfaced that the Japan-operated Kokuka Courageous
was forced to evacuate its crew, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was telling Abe that he would not be dignifying Trump with
talks.
Limits of pressure
The latest attacks came exactly one month after a similar non-lethal incident against four tankers off the coast of the United
Arab Emirates. Washington also blamed Iran for those attacks, though a Security Council report earlier this month stopped short of
naming the Islamic republic.
The latest incidents have yet to be independently investigated. However, US Central Command released
video footage on Thursday which
purports to show an Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' patrol boat removing a limpet mine from the side of the Kokuka Courageous
– ostensibly to maintain plausible deniability and prevent an American military escalation. Iran does not want the situation
in the region to escalate, but it is increasingly being forced into a corner by US economic pressure, according to Dina Esfandiary,
an Iran expert and fellow at The Century Foundation.
If the latest attacks were found to have been carried out by Iranian forces, it would be consistent with their modus operandi
, she said: "The damage was done above the hull of the ship, so clearly the point was to avoid death, but [ ] show that it is
capable of doing something like this, and won't hesitate to do it if it needs to." Indeed, the crew members of both ships were safely
evacuated on Thursday, some by the US and others by Iran. But the vessels were carrying hundreds of thousands of barrels of petroleum
products, and one of them burned for hours after the attack.
The US initially granted waivers to eight allied importers of Iranian oil for its sanctions instituted in November of last year
but has since revoked them, making matters worse for the flailing Iranian economy. In turn, Tehran has raised the long-threatened
prospect that it could close the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow outlet of the Persian Gulf through which 20% of the world's oil passes.
"Iran has made these threats for the better part of the last 20 to 30 years.
It hasn't followed through on it because it would also inhibit its ability to ship its oil abroad, so closing it would be counterintuitive,"
said Esfandiary. "However, given that the US is deliberately trying to shut off all avenues of Iran exporting its oil, it doesn't
stand to lose as much if it closes the strait." Rather, the Gulf monarchies would be at the greatest risk should a conflict break
out.
"This is why the Emiratis have been urging for restraint since the last tanker attacks a few weeks ago," she said. The Eurasia
Group, a political risk consultancy, also acknowledged the possible strategy behind the attacks. "The latest incidents appear aimed
at demonstrating the vulnerability of Gulf shipping while damaging confidence in the US ability to protect freedom of navigation,"
it said. In an interview on Friday, Trump said he was seeking talks with Iran: "We want to get them back to the table if they want
to get back. I'm in no rush."
The captain of the Japanese ship has already called out American *LIES*! The tanker was hit by a flying object, not a mine
underwater, directly contradicting the liars looking to plant another Gulf of Tonkin incident. Since the US lost so badly in Vietnam,
you'd think that they'd think twice before starting a war with Iran.
This article, along with the entire Western media is promoting the line that Iran most likely was responsible for this affair.
This is absurd on many levels. First, has Iran gained anything from this? Has anyone? Of course! The US and its allies are creating
a huge propaganda campaign.
Abe was on a delicate mission, one which he had extensively discussed with Trump the Iranians to discuss whether there are
any grounds for negotiations. Is there anyone sane out there who think Iran would create such a crisis at this time? Of course
not, but we all know who is trying to sabotage any normalization between the US and Iran.
Then there was the video perporting to show an Iranian boat REMOVING a mine from a ship, but the Iranians claim they had fished
the sailors out of the water. Is this what the video shows? Can't say, but it is all over CNN, NBC, FOX etc as "proof" We have
been here before, haven't we.
All told, this is a very unconvincing attempt to frame up Iran.
"... Cotton unwittingly proves that there are other states that have a motive to attack shipping in order to provoke a war with Iran. The Saudis, Israel, half the U.S. govt, and the UAE. The UAE is an interesting case because they hired a former U.S. navy Seal as a General to conduct their war in Yemen. ..."
"We have to change the culture in America to one in which warmongering renders one unfit to hold public office"
Yet again, changing the culture in America requires smashing the Cult of Military Exceptionalism in the U.S. The sanctified
Generals are part and parcel of the war-monger cabal. They turn the warped fear-monger gears with abandon, yet are immune
from public criticism.
The war-monger views of atrocious Tom Cotton are afforded special consideration because he is a "Warrior-Hero" who wasted
taxpayer money in Iraq. The retired Generals fronting for the Pentagon on network news are treated with obsequious deference by
the feckless MSM hacks .
The combined effect is a massive beat-down of the realism and restraint that the public says it actually wants. When push comes
to shove, the propaganda saturated public surrenders to the pathological "wisdom" of the Generals.
As long as the massively dominating influence of the Pentagon is fenced off from criticism, America's economically, politically
and morally bankrupt foreign policy will not, and cannot change.
"First they make intervention seem cheap and easy to gain support, and then when things don't go as planned and public opinion
turns against them they insist that they can't stop until we 'finish the job,' and then when things go really wrong they say we
have to 'stay the course[...]'"
If Iran has one over-riding policy goal today, it is surely to isolate the USA, maintain normal relations with the rest of the
world and convince other countries it is being treated irrationally and unfairly by America. Nothing could be more inclined to
defeat that policy than Iran making random attacks against merchant ships with no connection to America.
Needless to say this is not conclusive. People often do stupid things and the leaders of Iran are presumably no exception.
However in the absence of hard evidence, one has to assume these attacks were the work of actors hostile to Iran. If the USA wants
to convince people to the contrary, they'll have to come up with evidence a lot more persuasive than we've seen so far.
What's the point... You notice that right on cue, as it were, the Saudis want protection. They already have a substantial naval
presence in the Persian Gulf, and a large and experienced air force. They do not need our help. We will have another pretty little
war if we want it or not.
We need to stop this constant intervention. Americans are tired of the blood and treasure we continue to donate to these stupid
war neocons! Nobody in their right mind wants constant conflict all over the world!
The Saudis are willing to fight to the last American. Cotton, Pompeo and company are radical, right wing Christians. Until we
are willing to be politcally incorrect and see that radical Christianity is in control of our foreign policy, we will forever
be in warfare.
Cotton unwittingly proves that there are other states that have a motive to attack shipping in order to provoke a war with Iran.
The Saudis, Israel, half the U.S. govt, and the UAE. The UAE is an interesting case because they hired a former U.S. navy Seal
as a General to conduct their war in Yemen.
I would think that the threshold for kicking off a new war should be higher than a couple of dented foreign tankers. Show me several
hundred dead Americans and then maybe.
Neocons remain obsessed with foreign interventions and democracy propagation for multiple reasons. One is to avoid the catastrophe
that is today's US and that Republicans and other "conservatives" have ignored and surrendered to since before the "Golden Age
of Reagan".
"... Under these circumstances and given the endless history of US manufactured incidents used to justify the start of another war, most people rightfully thought that this has been just another false flag operation. ..."
"... And it makes sense actually. Why the hell Iran would attempt to blow up its relations with Japan in the midst of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe visit in the country? Only the US empire would have reasons to do it in order to force one of its key allies to cut ties with Iran. ..."
"... According to the company , its crew spotted "flying objects" before the attack in the Gulf of Oman, contradicting US claims that the vessel was damaged by a naval mine. ..."
"... Yet, despite company's alternative story of what happened, at the time we were finishing this report, many major Western media insisted to circulate the scenario that an Iranian 'naval mine' was responsible for the attacks against the oil tankers. Trump's statements, who immediately rushed to blame Iran, and media reports, were based exclusively on a video showing Iranian special forces removing a mine which had failed to explode. ..."
"... The question is, why the US has been so anxious to stick to the 'naval mine' scenario? A probable answer would be that it wants to clear the path for a military invasion. According to a 2009 Stratfor analysis : [key part highlighted red] ..."
"... The US imperialists know that an all-out war with Iran would equal a suicide. The goal is probably a 'surgical' invasion on the south shores of the country that would last just as long as to permit the US and allies to control the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore, the global oil market. The first step towards such an operation would be the mine-clearing of the strait. ..."
"... The US doctrine has changed. The imperialists are only interested to achieve goals, not to win wars, no matter how long will it take and what will it cost in the end. The winners are always the big companies and the losers are those who will lose their lives no matter which side they fight for. ..."
The incident of the recent attack against two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman elevated the
heat between the US and Iran. Naturally, the attack also produced some level of turmoil in the
oil global market.
Trump's hostile attitude against Iran was clearly evident even before his election. His
totally unjustifiable and completely incomprehensible action to kill the Iran nuclear deal,
destroyed any remnants of US reliability. Consequently, even the US Western allies refused to
follow this evidently counterproductive strategy.
Under these circumstances and given the endless history of US manufactured incidents used to
justify the start of another war, most people rightfully thought
that this has been just another false flag operation.
And it makes sense actually. Why the hell Iran would attempt to blow up its relations with
Japan in the midst of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe visit in the country? Only the US empire would
have reasons to do it in order to force one of its key allies to cut ties with Iran.
Everything shows that the US effort to make its allies fully align against Iran is failing
for the moment. Iranian President, Hassan Rouhani, said that he saw Japanese interest in continuing to buy oil as a "guarantee"
for the ongoing development of bilateral ties. Japan immediately throw the ball to the private
sector in order to leave an open door for oil purchases from Iran. Takeshi Osuga, the spokesman
for Japan's foreign ministry said that deciding on oil purchases was the domain of private
companies.
Indeed, the Japanese company that owns 'Kokuka Courageous', one of the tankers that were
attacked in the Gulf of Oman, refused to adopt the US scenario.
According to the
company , its crew spotted "flying objects" before the attack in the Gulf of Oman,
contradicting US claims that the vessel was damaged by a naval mine. Yutaka Katada, president
of Kokuka Sangyo, told reporters on Friday that sailors on board the ill-fated oil tanker
observed "flying objects" just before the incident in which the ship caught fire and was badly
damaged. The giant vessel was hit twice, first near the engine room and then on its starboard
side. He suggested that those flying objects could have been bullets, and called reports of
striking a mine "false." Both points at which the ship was damaged were above her
waterline, which couldn't be so if it had struck an underwater mine.
Yet, despite company's alternative story of what happened, at the time we were finishing
this report, many major Western media insisted to circulate the scenario that an Iranian 'naval
mine' was responsible for the attacks against the oil tankers. Trump's statements, who
immediately rushed to blame Iran, and media reports, were based exclusively on a video showing
Iranian special forces removing a mine which had failed to explode.
The question is, why the US has been so anxious to stick to the 'naval mine' scenario? A
probable answer would be that it wants to clear the path for a military invasion. According to
a 2009 Stratfor analysis : [key part highlighted red]
The initial shock to the global economy of
a supertanker hitting a mine in the strait [of Hormuz] would be profound, but its severity
and longevity would depend in large part on the extent of the mining, Iran's ability to
continue laying mines and the speed of mine-clearing operations. And, as always, it would
all hinge on the quality of intelligence. While some military targets -- major naval
installations, for example -- are large, fixed and well known, Iran's mine-laying
capability is more dispersed (like its nuclear program). That, along with Iran's armada of
small boats along the Persian Gulf coast, suggests it may not be possible to bring Iran's
mine-laying efforts to an immediate halt. Barring a cease-fire, limited, low-level mining
operations could well continue.
Given the variables involved, it is difficult to describe exactly what a U.S. mine-clearing
operation might look like in the strait, although enough is known about the U.S. naval
presence in the region and other mine-clearing operations to suggest a rough scenario. The
United States keeps four mine countermeasures ships forward deployed in the Persian Gulf. A
handful of allied minesweepers are also generally on station, as well as MH-53E Sea Dragon
helicopters, which are used in such operations. This available force in the region
approaches the size of the mine-clearing squadron employed during Operation Iraqi Freedom
to clear the waterway leading to the port of Umm Qasr, although it does not include a
mine countermeasures command ship and represents a different clearing scenario.
The US imperialists know that an all-out war with Iran would equal a suicide. The goal is
probably a 'surgical' invasion on the south shores of the country that would last just as long
as to permit the US and allies to control the Strait of Hormuz, and therefore, the global oil
market. The first step towards such an operation would be the mine-clearing of the strait.
This probably explains why the Western media insisted to circulate the scenario of the 'naval
mine'. They want to drag Western leaderships behind US in an operation to clear the mines in
the Strait of Hormuz, in the name of global energy security.
Also, already since 2017, the US announced that it will increase the
number of US troops in Afghanistan , and one reason probably has to do with Iran. A
significant number of US troops on the Iranian eastern border would be very useful. It will be
used to keep the Iranian forces busy and gradually weaken the Iranian operational capabilities
in an extended attrition war. This will permit the US to gradually secure and establish their
presence in the Strait of Hormuz.
This attrition war could be held - and probably would be more effective - through proxy
forces, or mercenaries of private armies, or a combination of them in the front line together
with the US forces in the background.
The US doctrine has changed. The imperialists are only interested to achieve goals, not to
win wars, no matter how long will it take and what will it cost in the end. The winners are
always the big companies and the losers are those who will lose their lives no matter which
side they fight for.
There is a
report that the Trump administration may be preparing an attack on Iran:
Diplomatic sources at the UN headquarters in New York revealed to Maariv that they are
assessing the United States' plans to carry out a tactical assault on Iran in response to the
tanker attack in the Persian Gulf on Thursday.
According to the officials, since Friday, the White House has been holding incessant
discussions involving senior military commanders, Pentagon representatives and advisers to
President Donald Trump.
The military action under consideration would be an aerial bombardment of an Iranian
facility linked to its nuclear program, the officials further claimed.
If this report is true, that would mean that the worst of the Iran hawks in the
administration are prevailing once again. The report goes on to say that "Trump himself was not
enthusiastic about a military move against Iran, but lost his patience on the matter and would
grant Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is pushing for action, what he wants." If that is
true, that is an absurdly casual way to blunder into an unnecessary war. Trump should
understand that if he takes the U.S. into a war against Iran, especially without Congressional
authorization, it will consume the rest of his presidency and it should cost him his
re-election. Starting an unnecessary war with Iran would go down as one of the dumbest, most
reckless, illegal acts in the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Congress must make absolutely clear that the president does not have the authority to
initiate hostilities against Iran. Both houses should pass a resolution this week saying as
much, and they should block any funds that could be used to support such an action. There is no
legal justification for attacking Iran, and if Trump approves an attack he would be violating
the Constitution and should be impeached for it.
The risk of war with Iran is greater than it was six months ago, and it is much greater than
it was two and a half years ago when Trump took office. The U.S. and Iran are in this dangerous
position solely because of the determined efforts of Iran hawks in and around this
administration to drive our country on a collision course with theirs. Those efforts
accelerated significantly thirteen months ago with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and the
reimposition of sanctions, and things have been getting steadily worse with each passing month.
It is not too late to avert the collision, but it requires the U.S. to make a dramatic change
in policy very soon. Since we know we can't count on the president to make the right decision,
Congress and the public need to make him understand what the political price will be if he
makes the wrong one.
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has a term of endearment
for Iran's enemies, "The B-Team."
The "B-Team" consists of U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton, Israeli Prime
Minister (nee Dictator) Benjamin Netanyahu, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman and the UAE's
Mohammed bin Zayed.
When we look seriously at the attacks on the oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman this week
the basic question that comes to mind is,
Cui bono?
Who benefits?
And it's easy to see how the B-Team benefits from this attack and subsequent blaming Iran for
it. With Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Tehran opening up a dialogue on behalf of U.S.
President Donald Trump the threat of peace was in the air.
And
none of the men on the B-Team profit from peace in the Middle East with respect to
Iran.
Getting Trump to stop hurling lightning bolts from the mountain top the B-Team
guided him up would do nothing to help oil prices, which the Saudis and UAE need/want to remain
high.
Bin Salman, in particular, cannot afford to see oil prices drop back into the $40's per barrel.
With the world awash in oil and supply tight, even with OPEC production cuts, Bin Salman is
currently on very thin ice because of the Saudi Riyal's peg to the U.S. dollar, which he can't
abandon or the U.S. will abandon them.
Falling oil prices and a rising dollar are a recipe for the death of the Saudi government,
folks. Iran knows this.
Netanyahu and Bolton don't want peace because the U.S. fighting
a war with Iran serves the cause of Greater Israel and opens up the conflict in the hopes of regime
change and elimination of Iran.
Bolton, as well, is finally feeling the heat of his incompetence and disloyalty to Trump,
according to
John
Kirakau at Consortium News
.
Of course, a more rational person might conclude that Bolton has done a terrible job, that
the people around him have done a terrible job, that he has aired his disagreements with Trump
in the media, and that the President is angry about it. That's the more likely scenario.
Here's what my friends are saying. Trump is concerned, like any president is near the end of
his term, about his legacy. He said during the campaign that he wanted to be the president who
pulled the country out of its two longest wars. He wanted to declare victory and bring the
troops back from Afghanistan and Iraq. He hasn't done that, largely at the insistence of Bolton.
Here we are three years later and we're still stuck in both of those countries.
Second, my friends say that Trump wants to end U.S. involvement in the Yemen war,
but
that Bolton has been insistent that the only way to guarantee the closeness of the U.S.
relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is to keep providing those
countries with weapons, aerial refueling planes, and intelligence support.
So, couple the attacks on these tankers with the timing of Abe's visit and the vote on
Rand Paul's bill to end selling arms to the Saudis in support of their war in Yemen (which flew
through the Senate thanks to this attack getting a number of senators to change their vote at the
last second) and we have a perfect
cui bono.
That's the entire B-Team's motives distilled down to a couple of drones flying in to create a
casus
belli
which saves Bolton's job, keeps the weapons flowing to the murderous Saudis and creates
an opportunity for Netanyahu to feed Trump bad information via his 'intelligence' services.
The rush to judgment by the usual suspects in the Trump administration should be all the proof
you need that we're looking at a set up to get Trump to fly off the handle which he, so far, hasn't
done.
To say that the attacks were provocations by the U.S. or its Middle East allies is made
easier by their evident ruthlessness. Any accusations by the Trump administration of Iranian
culpability will be easily dismissed because
everyone
knows
that
Trump and his crew
are
notorious liars
.
This cat and mouse game will now continue and steadily gain pace.
More tankers will
get damaged or even sunk. Saudi refineries will start to explode. UAE harbors will experience
difficulties. Iran will plausibly deny that it is involved in any of this. The U.S. will
continue to blame Iran but will have no evidence to prove it.
Insurance for Middle East cargo will become very expensive.
Consumer prices
for oil products will increase and increase again. The
collateral
damage
will be immense.
All this will gradually put more pressure on Trump.
Don't forget that the U.S.'s sanctions on Iran make it difficult for Iran to insure its
cargoes. So, even if a company or country wanted to still do business with NIOC, they can't because
they can't get insurance on the cargo.
It's been a real problem that Iran had to solve by having its own fleet of tankers which it also
insures domestically to keep what oil it can export flowing. So it only makes sense to begin
hitting the rest of the world via the same weapons being used against Iran.
But as Trump has ratcheted up the pressure he's put Iran in the exact position that makes them
the most dangerous. Acting through deniable proxies Iran can now drag this out as a low-grade
conflict far longer than Trump can bear politically.
They don't need to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They just have to screw with its
enemies' ability to make a living.
The political pressure that will come to bear on a
global economy imploding because of instability in the flow of oil is not something a butcher like
Bin Salman of Saudi Arabia is capable of handling.
Bernard calls Trump's administration 'notorious liars' and that's the key. People can look no
further than the ludicrous and inept handling of the regime change operation in Venezuela and see
the mendacity first hand.
That operation was so bad, culminating in the pathetic "Bay of Fat Pigs" coup attempt, that it
has left every country that backed Bolton and Pompeo's play there, including Trump himself, looking
like morons.
You don't embarrass the narcissists who inhabit high-level government offices and not suffer in
some way. This is why
I give a lot of credence to John Kirakou's conclusion that Bolton
being one approved candidate away from unemployment.
Firing Bolton and having Abe and German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas go to Tehran are good will
gestures. But Trump has let his B-Team badly mismanage this situation in the same way that he let
Bolton and Pompeo mismanage Kim Jong-un and North Korea.
No one believes he's capable of peace or showing shame. He's left himself in no position to
climb down from this position without the help of Iran itself.
This is exactly the argument I made in April of 2017 after his missile strike on Syria over a
"beautiful piece of chocolate cake." He revealed himself to be both tactically and strategically
incompetent.
He has to come groveling to them now. But he won't. And Iran and its benefactors, Russia and
China, have no incentive to come to him. He can't keep his promises since he's not really in charge
of policy. As Ayatollah Khamenei pointed out on Twitter (oh, the irony):
Trump thought the B-Team was giving him negotiating leverage. But what happens to your
leverage when the other person takes his chips, walks away from the table and says, "No. I won't
deal with you."
So now the screws will be put to everyone. Trump pushed Erdogan of Turkey away over the S-400
and Putin called in his marker forcing Erdogan to end his support for Al-Qaeda in Idlib. That
campaign will be slow and excruciating but it will eventually grind them out.
Iran has been handed all the cards they need to become the exact thing Pompeo, Trump and the
B-Team have been accusing them of being but now with the cover of deniability and asymmetry. All of
the things Moon of Alabama laid out are now going to happen even if Trump fires Bolton, pulls
troops out and lifts the oil embargo on Syria, etc.
Netanyahu will scream bloody murder and up the ante until Putin slaps him down. Because now that
Trump has made it clear he doesn't want war with Iran we know there's a limit to what Bibi can
incite.
If Trump was serious about war with Iran it would have already been declared. The smoke,
however, is blowing in a different direction.
Iran will retaliate here just to make the point that they can. They will make Saudi Arabia and
the UAE pay the biggest price directly while Trump finally has to start thinking things through or
his presidency will end badly next year.
The war of attrition against the fragility of the Western financial system will enter
the next stage here.
Iran, China and Russia will now, sadly, activate the weapons they
have been holding back for years, hoping that Trump and his B-Team would come to their senses.
This is what happens when you let the B-Team overplay your hand for you against people
who are 1) smarter and 2) more patient than you are.
And, frankly, I don't blame them one bit. Because as the only thing that American power brokers
understand is strength. And you have to hit them between the eyes with a stick to get them to
respect you.
Trump doesn't need Seth Adelson to tell him what to do....Seth can
rely completely on Jared to do that. When Kelly was Chief of
Staff and Mattis headed DOD, there was a semblance of chain of
command.
Acting toady at DOD Shanahan won't be a check on Trump or
Bolton. Bolton reportedly can by-pass chain of command to talk
directly to any General he wants.
The Iranian people will never accept another US backed puppet
government no matter how many of them DC, Tel Aviv, and Riyadh
kills. Best these fuckers can hope for is total chaos and war
spilling over borders
Trump set this in motion when cancelling the nuclear control
treaty, and imposing tough new sanctions on Iran.
He then hand
picked very bad neocon actors like Pompeo and Bolton. Now it all
hinges on his preference for peace and his ability to understand
that these guys are playing him. God help us all, and help the
president to see through this ruse.
Trump's one term will be remembered by the political
divisions being brought to the absurd level of sitting POTUS
undoing everything that the previous POTUS from the opposing party
have accomplished.
1. Trump brought Bolton
on board because Trump's biggest donor, Sheldon Adelson,
instructed him to do so
.
2. Note that the Israeli Lobby were Trump's biggest donors. Let
that sink in.
3. Trump doesn't do research. He has trouble reading memos. He
can't read briefing papers. (eg, the
CIA daily brief
).
4. Trump doesn't need to research the neocons. He *is* a
neocon. Up to his eyeballs.
5. Trump is an obvious Israel-Firster if ever there was one.
Far more than any other U.S. president. Or world leader.
6. Trump is the one making the decisions. Not Bolton. Not
Pompeo. Trump. He's in charge.
7. Trump uses distractions such as 'Q', "disloyal
subordinates", leaks and incoherent Twitter tweets as ropeadope to
confuse his critics and avoid taking responsibility for screwups.
If something breaks, Trump blames a subordinate. That's his
pattern. Look how many we've seen come and go. Bolton will surely
become another of Trump's scapegoats. Just a matter of time.
And what happened?
New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders
To Kill 294 Americans
Fresh evidence presented in an exclusive Al Jazeera
investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that
killed 34 Americans proves the incident was not a mistake
Newly Released FBI Docs Shed Light on Apparent Mossad
Foreknowledge of 9/11 Attacks
New information released by the FBI has brought fresh
scrutiny to the possibility that the "Dancing Israelis," at
least two of whom were known Mossad operatives, had prior
knowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center.
👉History's Dire Warning: Beware False-Flag Trigger for
Long-Sought War with Iran
Israel's "false flag" attack on the U.S.S. Liberty in
1967 cost 34 American lives. **** Cheney planned to disguise
U.S. troops as Iranians to fire on American ships to start a
war. With Bolton and Israel on the warpath, the risk of another
similar act is higher than ever.
It's conclusive, damning, and comprehensive, so, knock
yourself out..
terrorists in tel aviv deliberately attacked the USS
LIBERTY, and the crime was covered up by the US government,
even till date..the US Military said so. It's their ship,
and their sailors, take it up with them, cheers...
The UK, Israel, and Saudis have substantial control over US
foreign policy and are trying to spill more American blood and
treasure in the Middle East. But they have met their match in
Russia, China, and Iran and the rest of resistance to the West.
A good start to stopping these vipers in the US would be to throw
out of government service all the dual passport holders from those
countries.
Someone posted a link recently to the history of arch neocon
Irving Kristol , Bill Kristol's pa and upon further exploration I
realized Saint Reagan opened the door to a myriad of dual citizen
zionists who became the backbone of the neocon movement and that
most of those same individuals have popped up in pretty much every
Republican administration in some capacity since then and some
even appeared in Obama's admin. ie Cheney's girl Vicky Nuland /
Kagan. The Kagan's being big neocon Republican movers and shakers
in the past and they never really go away.
trump's idea of
draining the swamp was to inject his regime with a large number of
those very same neocons many whose names are infamous now and were
major players in every organized cesspool of so called right wing
thinkers such as PNAC, American Enterprise Institute and even the
rank Gatestone Institute.
Once I read this article I did laugh so much I spat wine all over
the keyboard. So many false and misleading facts and arguments I
don't even know where to begin.
In this post I'll start with a
small thing
Israeli Prime Minister (nee Dictator) Benjamin Netanyahu
So this Tom Luongo guy, who is completely in bed with Iran's
Muslim extremist regime, calls the PM of Israel dictator. A PM
that was elected in a free democratic election, in a country with
separation of powers, free press, free speech, independent
judicial system, Etc. Etc.
OK so now let's see how Iran's democracy works, the beloved
of our great author, Mr. Tom Luongo.
One supreme leader that is not elected. He controls the
military and the economy and practically everything.
Nobody can be elected to the parliament or prime minister
unless he gets permission to run for office from the supreme
leader.
No civil rights, no freedom of press, no freedom of speech.
women that do not dress as instructed get punished (but not men).
Women are being executed for adultery (but not men). Gays are
being executed. Anyone who expresses opposing opinions is being
executed without trial, or at best imprisoned and tortured.
So you can have any political system/constitution you like but
the Iranians must have your choice of political
system/constitution ? Are they ought to play the second class
citizens in their own country ?
but the Iranians must have your choice of political
system/constitution?
No, you are right, I think the Iranians should have the
political system of their choice. And how would we know what
the Iranians want? How about allowing them to choose in a
free election? that anyone can run for office? Are you in
favor?
Every country has the government it deserves that
Includes Saudi Arabia too.
Also, could that call to
"fair election" be anything like Libyan liberation ?
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia ? Do you have
any idea the level of comfort the Saudi citizen
live in ?
As for Iran, the financial problems
there are courtesy of The Zionist filth that you're
the member of.
Your opinion is of jackshit. The troubled
countries in the ME are the ones that have
democracy. The monarchies are doing just fine.
Do you have any idea the level of comfort the
Saudi citizen live in?
Did you know that until recently Saudi woman
were not allowed to drive? do you know that man
have total control over the life of their daughters
and wives? Do you know that anyone that
criticize the regime on tweeter is immediately put
to prison? do you know that foreign workers are
treated like slaves? and this can go on and on...
As for Iran, the financial problems there are
courtesy of The Zionist filth that you're the
member of.
Not really. The Iranian extremist Muslim regime
is directly responsible for the sufferings of the
Iranian people. They spend billions of Dollars on
their proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Etc.
at the expense of the well being of common Iranian
people. All this money is deprived from their own
people, cutting food and gas subsidies. Iran has
abundance of oil reserves but a large chunk of the
oil revenues goes to support insurgent groups in
other countries while Iran's citizens live in
misery and hunger.
And what is this money used for? Encouraging one
sect of Muslims (Shia) to kill members of another
Muslim sect (Sunni). Just in Syria Iran's money and
soldiers allowed Assad's regime to
commit
terrible atrocities
against civilian
population, including the massacre of thousands
upon thousands Sunni Muslims, men women and
children; while millions others were forced to fled
the country and become refugees.
Why do you assume the Saudi women to value the
liberal lifestyle ? Maybe they themselves don't
want to drive eh ? The rest of the points are based
on the same assumption, default starting point
which is liberalism is good, conservatism is bad.
Just because you think liberalism is good doesn't
mean anyone else has to abide with your values.
I
understand you attempt to appeal to the western
audience in painting Iran as bad actor so you talk
along the same lines. YOU WILL LOOSE ISRAEL. The
best part is you'll live to see the day ;]
Ddin't read any of your horseshit about Iran but
I can bet with my eyes closed it will be a similar
attempt.
That doesn't negate the counter argument I made in
response to the usual hasbara propaganda. How many
citizen in the US have given their citizenship up
because of the rouge crimes their government
commits ? How many protests held in Paris and
Barcelona ? Have you ever heard anything from this
Jewish shill about that ? How about the financial
crimes of bibi and his wife ?
what you describe is a Jewish system of keeping the
power. what about to use iranian system? means what
they have today?, why should they follow yewish system?
He [Trump] can't keep his promises since he's not really in
charge of policy.
This is so ******* obvious it's become ridiculous yet we still
have people out there saying Trump is going to drain the swamp and
other some such ********. Face it, no president in the last 100
years has control of anything and if they decide to try to change
that they get the JFK, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter or Ronald
Regan treatment.
Who is attacking oil tankers in the Gulf between Oman and Iran? So far, the answer is still
a mystery. The US, of course, accuses Iran. Iran says it's the US or its local allies Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Magnetic mines are blamed for the damage, though there have been claims of torpedo use. Last
month, four moored tankers were slightly damaged, though none seriously. This time the attacks
were more damaging but apparently not lethal.
A few cynics have even suggested Israel may be behind the tanker attack in order to provoke
war between Iran and the United States – a key Israeli goal. Or maybe it's the Saudis
whose goal is similar. The Gulf is an ideal venue for false flag attacks.
One thing appears certain. President Donald and his coterie of neocon advisers have been
pressing for a major conflict with Iran for months. The US is literally trying to strangle Iran
economically and strategically. By now, Israel's hard right wing dominates US Mideast policy
and appears to often call the shots at the White House and Congress.
However, this latest Iran `crisis' is totally contrived by the Trump administration to
punish the Islamic Republic for refusing to follow American tutelage, supporting the
Palestinians, and menacing Saudi Arabia. Most important, the Gulf fracas is diverting public
attention from Trump's war with the lynch mob of House Democrats and personal scandals.
Many Americans love small wars. They serve as an alternative to football. Mussolini's
popularity in Italy soared after he invaded primitive Ethiopia. Americans cheered the invasions
of Grenada, Haiti and Panama. However, supposed 'cake-walk' Iraq was not such a popular
success. Memories of the fake Gulf of Tonkin clash used to drive the US into the Vietnam War
are strong; so too all the lies about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Curiously, Trump's undeclared war against Iran has had unanticipated effects. Japan, which
relies on Iranian oil, is furious at Washington. Last week, Japan's very popular prime
minister, Shinzo Abe, flew to Tehran to try to head off a US-Iranian confrontation and assure
his nation's oil supply – the very same reason Japan attacked the US in 1941. Abe warned
an accidental war may be close.
Canada used to have warm relations with China. They are now in shambles. Canada 'kidnapped'
Chinese bigwig Meng Wanzhou, the crown princess of technology giant Huawei, at Vancouver
airport while changing planes on a US arrest warrant for allegedly trading with wait for it
Iran. Canada foolishly arrested Meng on a flimsy extradition warrant from the US.
This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders. If they had
been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left Canada, or they
could not find her. Now Canada's relations with Beijing are rock bottom, Canada has suffered
very heavy trade punishment and the world's biggest nation is angry as a wet cat at Canada, a
nation whose state religion is to be liked by everyone.
Now, Japan's energy freedom is under serious threat. China mutters about executing the two
Canadians it arrested for alleged espionage. Meanwhile, US-China relations have hit their nadir
as Trump's efforts to use tariffs to bully China into buying more US soya beans and to trim its
non-trade commerce barriers have caused a trade war.
The US-China trade war is badly damaging the economies of both countries. President Trump
still does not seem to understand that tariffs are paid by American consumers, not Chinese
sellers. Trump's nincompoop foreign policy advisers don't understand how much damage they are
doing to US interests. Putting gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson in charge of US foreign and trade
policy is not such a good idea.
A good way to end this growing mess is to fire war-lover and Iran-hater John Bolton, send
Mike Pompeo back to bible school, and tell Iran and Saudi Arabia to bury the hatchet now.
Instead, the White House is talking about providing nuclear capability to Saudi Arabia, one of
our world's most backwards and unpleasant nations. Maybe Trump will make a hell of a 'deal' and
have North Korea sell nukes to Saudis.
And now we wait the all-time bad joke, the so-called 'Deal of the Century,' which Trump and
his boys hope will get rich Arabs to buy off poor Palestinians in exchange for giving up lots
more land to Israel. It's hard to think of a bigger or more shameful betrayal by Arabs of
fellow Arabs, or a more stupid policy by the US. But, of course, it's not a made-in-the-USA
policy at all.
A bit splattered by the blood of thousands of its
"collateral" victims, the old, tattered "Re-election Playbook" is being actively consulted once
again. Back in 1787, Thomas Jefferson had adamantly insisted that the new U.S. Constitution
stipulate only one presidential term, but his prescient warning was ignored.
(Fortunately his other requirement, that a Bill of Rights be appended, was approved.) Like so
many well-read 18th century politicians (including the young Napoleon), Jefferson looked to the
history of the Roman Republic for cautionary precedents. He knew well that political
opportunists like Julius Caesar had won their early mass popularity through their exploits as
military conquerors. In the early stages of his political career, victorious general Caesar
would march into Rome, leading a "Triumph" -- an endless procession of chained war-captives and
cartloads of plunder – before the admiring crowds of plebeians. His renown was such that,
when he was off on his Gallic campaign, he convinced the Senate to pass a special edict
allowing him to run for election as Consul in absentia (successful). His older rival
Crassus, financier and slumlord ("the richest man in Rome"), even re-invented himself as a
conquering general for political advantage (but he was fortunately, as Plutarch relates, led to
his own destruction in Parthia–now Iraq).
Turning to U.S. political history, one could draw up quite a list of military generals who,
celebrated by the public as heroes, sought greater political power by running for president
(often successfully). And, of course, such cynical manipulation of the electorate continues up
to the recent present. One major, if not the major, objective for waging war against
non-threatening Iraq was to secure this, almost invariable, political advantage as the election
year 2004 loomed ahead. As far as the timing of the attack was concerned (March 19, 2003), the
self-impressed Rumsfeld had assumed that "victory" would be attained in a matter of weeks. And
such "victory," in the aftermath of the vicious "Shock-and-Awe" bombing campaign, was indeed
soon proclaimed, thus enabling Rove and his ilk to plan a gala, Roman-style "Triumph," with the
military-attired and swaggering Bush landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln , to a national
frenzy of celebration and under a presumptuously boasting "Mission Accomplished" banner (May
1). Allowing for such a hugely popular, "patriotic" kick-off for an 18-month re-election
campaign, the timing of May 1 seemed advantageous. (That Iraq had never been a threat, and that
the alleged WMDs were never found, barely moderated this wellspring of popular acclaim for the
"war hero" -- at least for some months.)
In any event, we may now jump exactly eight years hence -- to on or about May 1, 2011. Now
it was Obama's turn to play military hero -- in his own kick-off for re-election! So far,
despite his escalation of the war in Afghanistan, as well as his well-publicized "kill list"
(drones), he hadn't yet demonstrated the kind of ruthlessly unprincipled crushing of a
"foreign" people which the majority of potential voters seem to relish. But he had a perfect,
quicker, and far less expensive alternative: "take out" Osama bin Laden! Although the majority
of Americans passively or willingly understood little or nothing about the geopolitical
distinctions between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, they had been certain that "Saddam Hussein" -- this
moniker repeated over and over by Bush! -- was the personification of all-that-is-evil. But by
2011 Saddam was dead -- having been hanged after a kangaroo-court conviction -- and Americans
could once again redirect their hate toward an alternative Satan ("Goldstein" of Orwell's
1984 being unavailable). Obama's political handlers, like Bush's, agreed that an
18-month halo of heroic triumph would help considerably in the long march toward
re-election–and they were right. Of course, Obama, in announcing "the killing of Osama
bin Laden" to an awestruck citizenry (May 1, 2011), lied about the actual circumstances, as
Seymour
Hersh and others
have noted. (E.g., the non-existent "fire-fight" which was claimed in order to re-sell the
assassination team as heroic commandos.) And, of course, with the universally impressed and
fawning media adding to the "Triumph," Obama virtually coasted, with only a few bumps, to
re-election in November 2012.
As aforementioned, this "Re-election Playbook," however old and frayed, has nonetheless
proven its ongoing usefulness to the recent crop of lying, opportunistic and murderous
presidents. For Trump -- as for virtually all insatiably ambitious presidents -- political
advantage will always trump any practical strategic (or even economic) considerations. Thus,
deceptively cooking up the usual "justifications" for imminent war, this time with Iran, a
nation which, as attested by the EU and other agencies had abided by the signed agreement only
to see the U.S. under Trump unilaterally withdraw. Trump's hand-picked "national security"
advisers are offering him huge political dividends: immense re-election financing from the
likes of billionaire casino-mogul Sheldon Adelson (AIPAC), as well as the usual Big Oil
industry funders (such as the Kochs, conspicuously represented in policy by their protege
Pompeo).
If May 1, 2019 has come and gone, Trump may still have ample time -- with the enthusiastic
support of his flag-waving base ( and the reliably acquiescent media) -- to ride the
crest of a trumped-up Iranian war, into re-election in November of next year. But if
that scenario doesn't quite materialize, there is always the tried-and-true fallback: the
venerable "October Surprise"!
Caleb Maupin is a widely acclaimed speaker, writer, journalist, and political analyst. He
has traveled extensively in the Middle East and in Latin America. He was involved with the
Occupy Wall Street movement from its early planning stages, and has been involved many
struggles for social justice. He is an outspoken advocate of international friendship and
cooperation, as well 21st Century Socialism.
"... The U.S. military late Thursday released blurry, black-and-white video footage that it claimed -- without any underlying analysis or further details -- to show an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous, one of the oil tankers damaged in attacks in the Gulf of Oman. ..."
"... Iran has denied any involvement in the attacks, and Yutaka Katada -- the owner of the Kokuka Courageous -- contradicted the Trump administration's account during a press conference on Friday. ..."
"... "Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Katada said. "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship." ..."
"... Independent critics were quick to call for extreme skepticism in the face of U.S. government claims, given the quality of the "evidence" and the warmongering track records of those presenting it. ..."
If there were any lingering hopes that the corporate media learned from its role in
perpetuating the lies that led to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and would never again help start a Middle East war on the basis of
false or flimsy evidence, the headlines that blared across the front pages of major U.S. news websites Thursday night indicated that
such hopes were badly misplaced .
The U.S. military late Thursday released blurry, black-and-white video footage that it claimed -- without any underlying analysis
or further details -- to show an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded limpet mine from the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous,
one of the oil tankers damaged in attacks in the Gulf of Oman.
Iran has denied any involvement in the attacks, and Yutaka Katada -- the owner of the Kokuka Courageous -- contradicted the Trump
administration's account during a
press conference
on Friday.
"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Katada said. "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object
attached to the side of the ship."
Independent critics were
quick to call for extreme skepticism in the
face of U.S. government claims, given the quality of the "evidence" and the warmongering track records of those presenting it.
I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran
would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was
sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation that can help
Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.
The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed
above the water line . That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation being
touted by the neo-cons.
The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others
being Filipinos). It is owned by Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has
a specific
record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil despite sanctions.
It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control.
That Iran would target a Japanese ship and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous
allegation. They are however very much the targets that the USA allies in the region –
the Saudis, their Gulf Cooperation Council colleagues, and Israel – would target for a
false flag. It is worth noting that John Bolton was meeting with United Arab Emirates ministers
two weeks ago – both ships had just left the UAE.
The USA and their UK stooges have both immediately leapt in to blame Iran. The media is
amplifying this with almost none of the scepticism which is required. I cannot think of a
single reason why anybody would believe this particular false flag. It is notable that neither
Norway nor Japan has joined in with this ridiculous assertion.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
First let me be clear; I greatly admired the principles that Americans used to espouse, in
my lifetime; I am very fond of the majority of the people; I've spent in total some of years
living there, in different States; it is I suppose mostly the silent majority, the 'middle
Americans' that I am most fond of certainly not the 'elite', the super rich 1% 'ters it has as
a Country dramatically changed since 9/11 .and sadly the Catch 22 that defines America today is
best summed up thus:
"The United States is exceptional, just like every country is. But it has problems just like
every other country has. It ought to be able to learn from other countries but it refuses,
because it believes it's exceptional "
The above is a recent quote by eighty one year old Jared Mason Diamond, an American
historian.
Let's talk specifics.
According to a Middle Eastern English language newspaper of 12 June, "the US appears
confident that boosting its military presence in the Gulf is having an impact on Iran's
behaviour in the region but insisted that the end goal is still to bring Tehran to the
negotiating table".
What does it mean when the US, at its most arrogant, says, "it is having an impact on Iran"?
What bullshit. Iran, ancient Persia (the second oldest civilisation on the planet after China)
doesn't give a damn what America says or does; never did since its 1979 revolution. Nor does
China for that matter.
Who is threatening who?
In the case of Iran, is Iran in the Gulf of Mexico with its Navy or is the huge American
Navy in the Persian Gulf supported by numerous US Military Bases in the region threatening
Iran?
Now yesterday new very serious news, a lie, was confirmed by Pompeo: "It is the assessment
of the United States that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks."on the
two oil tankers the other side of the Strait of Hormuz, in the Gulf of Oman.
Why would Iran?
Without any doubt this is a false flag operation to blame Iran in order to create
circumstances for Neocons like Pompeo and 'President Bolton' to start a war with Iran.
Where and what is President Trump? Does he really know what's going on?
Let American madmen Neocon Zionists have their wish (as dictated by Netanyahu); let the US
attack Iran .and then see what happens!
While the US attempts to start yet a new war also ask yourself why there are upwards of
nearly a thousand US Military bases around the world?
There is no doubt that US, with Israel, are the two most dangerous terrorist States that
exist today in the world and that they both threaten world peace, even nuclear Armageddon, more
than any countries on earth. Yet anyone who says the truth is labelled 'a conspiracy theorist '
or 'a Russian sympathiser'. I am neither.
America is today like a wounded animal as it faces its gradual decline as an Empire, much
like the Roman, Ottoman and British Empires did.
But let's forget at this time Iran (also Syria and Venezuela et al and regime changing), how
about talking of this US Administration's threat to British democracy?
The Guardian reported on the 9th June: "Labour has accused Donald Trump's top official, Mike
Pompeo, of trying to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, after he was caught on tape
telling Jewish leaders that he would "push back" against the party's leadership. In a recording
leaked to the Washington Post, the US secretary of state was asked what he would do if Corbyn
were to be elected as prime minister, after sustained criticism over Labour's handling of
accusations of antisemitism within the party."
Pompeo added "It could be that Mr Corbyn manages to run the gauntlet and get elected," he
said on the recording. "It's possible. You should know, we won't wait for him to do those
things to begin to push back. We will do our level best. It's too risky and too important and
too hard once it's already happened."
Is this not the most serious threat ever to the world's oldest parliamentary democracy, that
has been in existence from the early 13th century. America as an independent country has been
around since only the latter part of the 18th Century!
That said, America is today singularly the most powerful State on earth with a military
bigger than the rest of the world's countries combined; She spends trillions of dollars a year
on defence, security and wars; with a global state surveillance reach that can see and hear
anyone with a phone and a laptop at any time, and we Brits, our precious BBC in particular,
remain silent despite the US's top diplomat implying that the US will act to undermine a
potential democratically elected leader of the UK if needs be.
If needs be for who?
What happened to British reporters and media? Why is this not front page news? Why are their
few protestations?
The crimes of the United States have been recorded in history. Abd is the empire of
persecution, He will be tried by history. History and god will not forgive.
US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UK Who Is Behind the False Flag in Gulf of Oman
They all are. Even if they weren't directly operationally involved in the actual
attacks, they are all clearly involved in the propaganda. It is impossible that anyone with
functioning critical faculties can honestly claim to be convinced that the Iranians did the
attack.
As chief diplomat Pompeo's comments on Corbyn don't particularly surprise me -- monumental
arrogance, hypocracy & contempt, just another day . That Zionists are behind it all? Big
fucking surprise. That their (the UK Zionists') behaviour amounts to some kind of
constructive treason, but will remain invisible is also no surprise.
What does surprise me a little (it shouldn't but I suffer bouts of irrational optimism ) is
the muted British response. This should go way beyond Party politics. It is a national
insult, a display of casual disdain & utter contempt for the sovereignty of another
nation -- & this nation is said to be the US's greatest ally!
The UK should be frothing at the mouth with anger!
The UK has sold it's collective soul .
"... Trump's National Security Advisor is the equally unhinged John Bolton. It is no secret that Bolton is itching for war with Iran, something even Trump has been hesitant to do. But what if a ship of the sacred United States, in an area of the world where it has no legitimate business to be, were to be attacked? Then, of course, U.S. retaliation would be swift and harsh. ..."
The world awoke today to the alleged 'news' that U.S. authorities were investigating attacks on two ships in the Gulf of Oman.
For anyone paying attention, this is déjŕ vu all over again. Let's put this in the context of current world politics as directed
through the skewed lens of that self-proclaimed stable genius, United States President Donald Trump. The man who so considers himself,
and has commented in the past on his own good looks, has stated that, regardless of what his advisors tell him, he rules by his 'gut'
feelings. In 2017, against the advice of all allies except Israel, and also against the advice of his closest advisors, he withdrew
from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
This was an international agreement by which sanctions against Iran would be withdrawn, in exchange for Iran making adjustments
to its nuclear program. By so violating this agreement, and threatening sanctions against the other signatories if they continued
to abide by it, the U.S. basically nullified it, yet expected Iran to comply. Iran has done so for over a year, with the hope, if
not the expectation, that the other parties to the agreement would figure out a way to bypass U.S. threats. This has not happened.
The U.S. wants Iran to return to the bargaining table; why on earth it would is beyond the comprehension of any reasonable person.
If Iran signed another agreement with the U.S., Trump could decide in a month, or a week, or even a day, that that, too, was 'the
worst deal ever'.
Trump's National Security Advisor is the equally unhinged John Bolton. It is no secret that Bolton is itching for war with
Iran, something even Trump has been hesitant to do. But what if a ship of the sacred United States, in an area of the world where
it has no legitimate business to be, were to be attacked? Then, of course, U.S. retaliation would be swift and harsh. MORE...
Recently, there was alleged sabotage against U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf. Nothing came of that smoke screen. But today, a new
violation of U.S. sanctity is alleged. While time alone can tell how this will play out, it is not without deadly and devastating
precedence. On August 4, 1964, a U.S. ship, the Maddox, was in the Gulf of Tonkin, off the coast of China and northern Vietnam. That
night, instruments on the Maddox indicated that the ship was either under attack or had been attacked. The Maddox and another U.S.
vessel, the C. Turner Joy, fired into the darkness with support from U.S. warplanes. The Navy notified Washington that naval vessels
in the Gulf of Tonkin were being attacked. Washington launched Operation Pierce Arrow (where oh where do these stupid names originate?):
sixty-four sorties from nearby aircraft carriers pounded North Vietnam that evening. When the so-called retaliatory attack concluded,
President Lyndon Johnson appeared on American television to announce that "gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North Vietnam"
had been attacked by American aircraft. Had U.S. ships actually been attacked? Personnel on both vessels soon " decided they had
been shooting at 'ghost images' on their radar; the preponderance of available evidence indicates that there was no attack." [1]
But this was just what Congress wanted, so its members could prove their anti-Communist credentials, as important than as anti-terrorism
hubris is today; it was the perfect ploy to escalate the war. Yet like the personnel on the ships, U.S. government officials knew
very quickly that there had been no attack. Just a few days later, Johnson, upon learning the truth said this: "Hell, those dumb,
stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish." [2] The truth did nothing to stop violent U.S. escalation. By the end of the following
year, the number of U.S. soldiers invading Vietnam increased from 23,000 to 184,300. Eleven years later, with over 55,000 U.S. soldiers
dead, hundreds of thousands wounded, and, by conservative estimates, 2,000,000 Vietnamese dead, the U.S. fled Vietnam in defeat.
Fast forward fifty-four years, an eternity in terms of U.S. governance. An independent nation (Iran) is minding its own business,
protecting its borders and assisting its allies (including Syria), but it refuses to kowtow to U.S. demands. The mighty U.S., whose
actions are not to be questioned by any nation that wants to survive, must determine some reason to invade it that will fly with
the U.S. public. In 1964, its desire to invade Vietnam was given legitimacy by the lies of the Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. In 2019,
will its desire to invade Iran gain U.S. support because of the Gulf of Oman non-incident? If so, one can only hope that, unlike
the devastation that the U.S. wrought on Vietnam before that country was victorious over the U.S., Iran will be able to defeat the
U.S. more quickly, and with fewer Iranian casualties. There really isn't much that the United States needs to do to diffuse the tension
between it and Iran. Simply abide by its own international agreement, the JCPOA. But in for this to happen, Trump would have to find
some reason to say that the sanctions were successful; he will never admit to making a mistake. But the workings of his brain are
a conundrum; it's possible he could invent and believe such a scenario. For the sake of the U.S., Iran, and much of the world that
could easily be dragged into a major war should the U.S. invade Iran, it is to be hoped that Trump does, indeed, invent such a reason.
Endnotes [1] Chambers, (John Whiteclay II. ED. 1999. The Oxford Companion to American Military History . New York: Oxford
UP). Jian, Chen. China's Road to the Korean War: The Making of the Sino-American Confrontation, P. 151. [2] Donald E. Schmidt, The
Folly of War: American Foreign Policy, 1898-2005 (New York: Algora, 2005), 265.
Gulf of Oman Incident
Where Oman differs from Tonkin is today we are facing a far more dangerous scenario. We could all 'be dragged into a major
war should the US invade Iran'. Vietnam did not lead to nuclear Armageddon, nor did any other confrontation of the Cold War. There
is much talk of a new Cold War. But the Cold War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we now live in a pre-world war environment.
Humanity has experienced long periods of peace (or relative peace) throughout history. The Thirty Years Peace between the two
Peloponnesian Wars, Pax Romana, Europe in the 19th century after the Congress of Vienna, to name a few. The Congress System finally
collapsed in 1914 with the start of World War One. That conflict was followed by the League of Nations. It did not stop World
War Two. That was followed by the United Nations and other post-war institutions. But all the indications are they will not prevent
a third world war.
https://www.ghostsofhistory...
I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at
the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in Tehran on economic cooperation
that can help Iran survive the effects of US economic sanctions.
The Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous was holed above the water line. That rules out a torpedo attack, which is the explanation
being touted by the neo-cons.
The second vessel, the Front Altair, is Norwegian owned and 50% Russian crewed (the others being Filipinos). It is owned by
Frontline, a massive tanker leasing company that also has a specific record of being helpful to Iran in continuing to ship oil
despite sanctions.
It was Iran that rescued the crews and helped bring the damaged vessels under control. That Iran would target a Japanese ship
and a friendly Russian crewed ship is a ludicrous
TOKYO ( with NHK) – June 14, 2019 – The Japanese state news agency
NHK has revealed that workers on the tanker saw a plane flying toward the tanker before the
explosion. United States is pinning the blame for the tanker attacks on Iran. Tehran denies the
accusation.
The Japanese state media agency has taken the line: "Tanker hit by flying object, not mine",
in quoting Japanese workers on the vessel. Now the Japanese operator of one of the tankers is
providing new details about what happened, in a major revelation which refutes the claims of
the U.S's Mike Pompeo.
The president of the Tokyo-based shipping firm Kokuka Sangyo says its tanker was hit by an
incoming projectile. He says several crew members witnessed the source of the second blast.
Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo said,
"I've received reports that they saw something come flying toward them, then there was
an explosion, and then there was a hole in the vessel."
He denied that the tanker was hit by a floating mine, torpedo or an attached explosive as
had been previously reported. He said the damage was way above sea level.
This version of events entirely refutes the claims made by the U.S's Mike Pompeo, who says
that Iranian mines are to blame:
"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise
needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact
that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such
a high-degree of sophistication,"
Pompeo for his part has not released any evidence to back his claims.
"Kokuka Courageous" and another tanker owned by a Norwegian shipping company were attacked
on Thursday in international waters near the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil shipping route, as
reported by FRN.
Crew-members from both vessels were rescued, but one person was injured. The Japanese tanker
is now on its way to the United Arab Emirates.
The US is blaming Iran. Its military has released a video which allegedly shows the
country's Revolutionary Guard removing an unexploded mine from one of the tankers. It's
believed to be a limpet mine which can be detonated remotely.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said, "This assessment is based on intelligence, the
weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian
attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources
and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication."
Tehran is denying any involvement. The Iranian Foreign Minister tweeted that the US is
making allegations without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence, accusing the US of
"sabotage diplomacy."
The UN Security Council held an emergency closed-door meeting on Thursday at the request of
the US.
Acting US Ambassador Jonathan Cohen said, "I've asked the Security Council to remain seized
of this matter. And I expect that we will have further conversations about it on how to respond
in the days ahead."
Kuwait's ambassador, currently the rotating president of the Council, told reporters that
they "didn't discuss any evidence" that may have shown Iran was behind the action.
The attacks came as Japan's prime minister was in Iran to try and ease tensions between
Tehran and Washington.
Experts speculate that the U.S was behind the attack, and pushed it through in order to sour
Japan-Iran relations, and to create a cause for war or further hostile action against the
Islamic Republic.
In Tokyo, Japanese ministers are debating what to do next. Transport Minister Keiichi Ishii
said, "We do not know details of the attack, including who is responsible. we are gathering
information from the people concerned and we have alerted the Japanese vessels sailing in the
region through a related business association."
Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya said, " At this moment, we haven't been asked to send Japan's
Self Defense Forces. So, we don't have a plan to send the units to the region near the Strait
of Hormuz to respond to this incident."
Iwaya added that Japanese citizens are not at risk right now, but if that changes the
government would make a different judgment.
NHK's position in itself reveals that Japan-US relations are strained, as Japanese
authorities would neither encourage NHK nor allow workers of the vessel to make public
reportage and claims which contradict those of Pompeo and the American administration.
The manner in which the Japanese media-intelligence sphere has handled this event so far
lends credence to Japanese Prime Minister Abe's claim that his mission to Tehran was to look
for real solutions, and not to deliver a list proposed or desired by the United States.
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The UK vassal state will spout any peice of crap in their assigned role as vassal state.
Australia is just as gushingly sycophantic and cravenly jellified.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
William HBonney
Yeah, well I'm not a great fan of those who would appease Assad, Putin, Hussein, Gaddafi
You must be so proud.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
axisofoil
You must be a big fan of CNN and the NYT. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
"... A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant. ..."
"... Probably a 50/50 chance it was an American-Saudi-Israel false flag. ..."
"... Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the Enabling Act all ready to go. ..."
"... If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel! ..."
"... Remember the USS Liberty! Never Forget! ..."
"... This updated post from "Moon of Alabama" is definitely worth reading: "Today's Attacks On Ships In The Gulf Of Oman Are Not In Iran's Interest – Or Are They? (Updated)": https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/06/todays-attacks-on-ships-in-the-gulf-of-oman-are-not-in-irans-interest.html#more ..."
"... Maybe Colin Powell can come out of retirement and deliver the US/neocon presentation at the UN Security Council: https://www.youtube.com/embed/Rp6WuTSTyS8 ..."
"... The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now. ..."
"... As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'. ..."
"... Who wants war? Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble? Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC? Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military contractor donors? Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists? Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran? ..."
"... I forgot one more who wants war: Bolton because he is an immoral idiot who wants to strut. ..."
Back in the 1960's as the Cuban missile crisis was brewing, JFK conferred with then French
president Charles DeGaulle and offered to show him the reconnaissance pictures showing the
Russian missiles in Cuba. DeGaulle is said to have replied "No, I do not need to see
pictures. The word of the President of the United States is enough."
It's impossible to imagine anyone saying that today, unless they still believe in the
tooth fairy.
It very well could an act by a state that according to an elite Army warfare college, is
"known to disregard international law to accomplish mission" and also a
"wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a
Palestinian/Arab act."
What state? See "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study," Washington Times, September 10,
2001.
A few years ago, Sheldon Adelson wanted the US to drop a nuke on Iran. Video below. What
Sheldon wants, Trump the errand-boy delivers. The fact that the US public is overwhelmingly
against a war with Iran is completely irrelevant.
Yes, Iran is to be blamed! Absolutely true, US President himself said so!
Let's look at some facts and then deductions. So, the US drone was following the Iranian
boat. Iranians saw the drone, fired at it and missed. Regardless, they continued their
"journey" to the tanker, all the while their supreme leader was trying to persuade Abe to
help Iran.
Tump: It was Iran the terrorist nation, not leaders but the nation. Not long ago Trump lauded
Iranians as very nice people. If the drone was there, why don't we see the beginning of the
boat's journey and then where that boat with the mine went? According to Mr Pompeo and Mr
Bolton, the nation of terrorists is not only evil but stupid too. Yet no other actor in the
region has the sophistication to perform such an act (that is stupid act) – according
to Mr.Pompeo.
Hm who else, I wonder would be interested in bringing down Iran? I can't think even of one
such actor.
Lest we forget. Gen. Wesley Clark's revelation. This was first revealed to General Wesley
Clark in 1991 by neo-con Paul Wolfowitz. The seven countries which were to be invaded and
blessed with regime change were Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, and the big
prize, Iran with its wealth of resources and potential market of over 70 million persons.This
same plan was revealed again to General Clark during a visit to the Pentagon ten days after
9-11, the event that presented the neo-cons, and no doubt others behind the scenes, with
their Pearl Harbor, their justification to proceed with the plan, somewhat conveniently. You
can see Clark say it in person on YouTube if you don't believe it.
The only thing missing is a bunch of Iranian passports "just accidentally found" near the
ships with a big floating arrow pointing towards them, just in case we're clueless. If we get dragged into a bunfight with Iran because of this we deserve all the opprobrium
anyone hurls at us–if only for our outright stupidity.
""This assessment is based on intelligence [I think we already know what the Saudis and
Israelis want us to think], the weapons used [which were what again?], the level of expertise
needed to execute the operation [more than what was needed to prove the existence of fake
WMDs], recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping ['Iranian attacks' according to who,
exactly?], and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and
proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication [so sophisticated there's no
evidence they did it]," the Secretary said, without taking questions [or citing proof]"
He doesn't even bother with a Colin Powell style PowerPoint to convince us he believes any
of the horsesh!t he's peddling. Real contempt for the American public.
Let's quote that fellow with the little moustache, shortly before he ordered the invasion of
Poland: "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The
victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."
To think that the only obstacle between peace and war is a president too stupid to
understand that he brought this on himself.
It's very sad that I trust the word of the Ayatollah Khameni more than the President of the
United States or any of his spokesman. The proxy which had the weapons, level of expertise needed to execute the operation,
resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication is called the
Central Intelligence Agency.
How utterly convenient!
Abe is meeting with the Iranian leadership, what better time to attack Japanese tankers
(what better time for Saudi Arabia, Israel and the neocons, that is)? Not 24 hours go by after the supposed attack and Pompeo already knows who did it and has a
response ready. Why, it's almost like his mind were already made up! (But when it comes to,
say, that Saudi prince who chops up journalists, it seems that we can never ever ever really
know what happened!)
Just like how the Reichstag Fire took place and by pure happenstance, the Nazis had the
Enabling Act all ready to go.
Sarcasm aside, everyone knows that Pompeo is lying, looking for an excuse to escalate
tensions. The question is whether anyone will do anything about it.
If I was a betting man I'd put my money on the "actual" culprits being Mossad, CIA, MI6 or
any combination of the three. The Neocons and Zionists in Washington are traitors to our
Constitutional Republic! Don't let them drag us into another foreign war for Israel!
Jason Ditz, the News Editor at Antiwar.com reports: "Pompeo's declaration of Iran's guilt was
based chiefly on similar incidents happening in mid-May. John Bolton and Pompeo blamed Iran
then, and since this was the same sort of thing, they blame Iran now. The problem is, they
have offered no evidence Iran was responsible for the first incidents, let alone today's, and
are just tying them all together. Pompeo rattled off a list of things to blame Iran for,
including multiple incidents that were done by Yemen's Houthis, a rocket fired in Iraq that
was never convincingly blamed on anyone, and an Afghanistan bombing that clearly was nothing
to do with Iran at all."
Jason Ditz goes on to report: "The big questions are, as always, motive. Iran has no
conceivable reason to attack such ships. In this case, one of the ships is even
Japanese-owned. Japan is a very important trading partner of Iran, and Japan's prime minister
Abe Shinzo is visiting Iran right now, trying to reduce tensions. Abe has also declared Iran
to have no intention to make nuclear arms. This would be a preposterous move for Iran to even
consider. Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif declared that 'suspicious doesn't begin to
describe' what happened, noting that the attacks were timed to when Japanese PM Abe Shinzo
was meeting with Iran's Supreme Leader. Abe's meeting was also a subject of Pompeo's
comments, as Pompeo falsely accused Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of having refused the meeting with
Abe. In reality, the meeting took place, and Khamenei simply rejected a proposal to trade
messages with President Trump. Pompeo went on to declare the attack on a Japanese ship during
Abe's Iran visit as an Iranian 'insult to Japan.' This all rests on the US assumption of
Iran's guilt, and as Zarif points out, makes the attack look suspiciously like it might have
been carried out for the benefit of the anti-Iran narrative. "
I read somewhere that the Iranians used weapons of mass destruction given to them by Saddam
to attack the USS Maine in the Gulf of Tonkin, taking American lives on American soil.
I had forgotten that basically all wars are "protected by a bodyguard of lies," according
to the video. Most poignant to me was the Iraqi woman pleading to Congress about Sadam
Hussein's destruction of incubators, which George HW Bush later referenced as the "babies
strewn about the floor like firewood." Except it was all fabricated by a PR firm!
Is anyone really that delusional to believe that Iran is going to attack a Japanese tanker
while the Japanese PM is meeting with the Ayatollah? The ONLY explanation that makes sense is
that it was planned in the White House by Pompeo and Bolton. Whether it was with or without
Trump's knowledge and approval is irrelevant. P & B have been openly salivating for any
excuse to start a war with Iran, and Trump has given them free rein. It is a war crime, and
all three are guilty.
The USS Liberty is spot on. That was our Versailles Treaty and Johnson ceded much of our
foreign policy and intelligence to Israel – we capitulated and have continued to
capitulate to Israel. Things are looking grim and look like a repeat of Iraq. What can stop
this momentum to war?
Well, it seems that just about 100% of those who comment here have this figured out. Once
these things were a bit more sophisticated, but now the Empire doesn't seem to care if its
schemes are blatantly transparent.
Abe has been closely consulting with Trump and the Iranians as a go-between to create the
conditions which can allow Trump to save face now that Bolton's and Pompeo's campaign against
Iran is a big fat failure.
It is clear who hopes to gain by this little stunt, which will not go anywhere. Abe is
certainly not going to be fooled by any of this. Don't expect the WaPo or the NYT to expose
this obvious false flag.
Iran is a rather divided country, and some groups regard USA with as much hatred and
suspicion as the neocons hold towards them. The responsible party might have been IRGC,
intending to raise tensions enough to make their government's current fence-straddling act
unviable and force them to scrap the JCPA.
I'd try to avoid the logic that it must have been
Saudis/Israel/USA, because if it was Iran, the likes of Bolton would somehow be in the right.
They're not. So far, Iran hasn't been the one responsible for the vast majority of
provocations, and even if it elements on their side were did this, the chickenhawks running
USA's national security won't bother to secure proof before escalating. It's not a secret
that they want war and aren't particularly picky about how they get it.
Saudi Arabia.
The other agencies speculated here are off the mark: Israel would fear getting caught, CIA
leaks like a sieve, MI6 has no incentive. But the Saudis? They have the combination of economic incentives, religious hatred,
technical knowledge, advanced (American) weaponry, and who-gives-a-crap-if-we-get-caught
attitude.
Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program, might
all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit premature? How
about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments? (:
I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine from a
tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965 Tonkin Gulf
incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was 54 years
ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common. Why is
the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home movie
set-up?
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
What "history of endless deception"? Every third party has confirmed that Iran has
complied strictly with the JCPOA.
The United States, on the other hand, has a long track record of blatant lies to get the
wars it seeks ..
Exactly what I am hoping for IF the US attacks Iran. All depends on the Iranian
capabilities to cripple the flow of oil from the ME. So I say: Go Iran, make us pay! And
don't forget to throw some missiles on the royal Saudi palace and Riyad. Make that a few
dozen. Or hundred.
"Given Iran's history of endless deception in their nuclear weapons development program,
might all these suggestions of these attacks being an American fabrication be a bit
premature? How about even a tiny bit of objectivity? Or did Larsen write all these comments?
(:"
The only person whom I can recall endlessly deceiving on this is Benjamin Netanyahu, whom
I recall making speech after speech claiming that Iran was just about to have nuclear
weapons. He's been doing that for over a decade now.
As for incentives/disincentives, Mossad doesn't have much disincentive. If they are
caught, they and their friends in the USA will scream 'Fake News!'.
Mr. Bone Saw has got to be extremely cocky now.
And both of them could reasonably expect that if they succeed in triggering a US-Iran war,
that even later exposure wouldn't matter.
Yesterday (June 13th) Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a Democratic candidate for President in
2020, was interviewed by the Washington Post's Robert Costa. Here (at 23:58-28:06) is a brief
excerpt of Rep. Gabbard's excellent views on US Iran policy:
Who wants war?
Saudis to prop up oil prices and get Iran in trouble?
Pompeo because he wants to bring on the Rapture and the return of JC?
Donald Trump so he can be a "wartime president" stir up his base and please the military
contractor donors?
Netanyahu to distract from his corruption charges and weaken Iranian Islamists?
Some really stupid underground hardliners in Iran?
There are some plausible choices but none of them is the Iranian government.
I frankly just don't believe anything coming form the US government anymore, especially
warmongering neo-cons in charge of foreign policy, the Pentagon, and Deep State actors.
What on earth would Iran have to gain from attacking a Japanese oil tanker while their
leader is meeting with the Japanese PM? More likely a false-flag CIA operation.
"I have a question about the video footage supposedly showing Iranians removing a mine
from a tanker. The quality of the picture is no better than that we saw back in the 1965
Tonkin Gulf incident, when N Vietnamese boats allegedly attacked a US Navy ship. But that was
54 years ago. In video technology today 1080p is a standard resolution, 4k is pretty common.
Why is the US Navy still showing something that looks like it came from my Dad's 8mm home
movie set-up?"
100%. When I heard on the news this morning that there was video showing Iranians, I
thought "They have them". Then I saw the video. Now I call BS.
Are these the same guys that provided the irrefutable "evidence" of weapons of mass
destruction in Iran?
I am sure that since the Mossad provides us with intelligence in that area of the world, they
are completely objective, and have the best interest of the American military at heart.
@Snark: I tend to agree that the video raises more questions: -what would be the purpose of a
mine above the water line?
-why does it take a group of 10-20 people milling about on the bow to remove a mine?
-does 10-20 people really indicate a clandestine effort to remove a mine, more like a
clusterf____?
As OffGuardian remarked, does the deep state (cia,mi6,mossad) really think we are that
stupid?
Why would Iranians attack their own interests? Because they are "evil". Let's see: Front
Altair is owned by John Frederiksen, the owner of the Frontline Tanker company, who moved
Iranian oil for nearly 40 years including during the "tanker war" with Iraq siding with Iran.
Mr Federiksen was called Khomeini's blood life.
What about the Japanese tanker? While the Supreme Leader of Iran was working on Abe to help
Iran?
Who's evil, who's stupid?
"Outrage on Capitol Hill over 'completely unacceptable' US-funded scheme to shape Iran
debate," The Independent, Wednesday, June 12, 2019:
"United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign that
has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime. State Department officials admitted to
Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on Monday that a project they had funded to
counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails. Critics in Washington have gone further,
saying that the programme resembled the type of troll farms used by autocratic regimes
abroad. 'It's completely unacceptable that American taxpayer dollars supported a project that
attacked Americans and others who are critical of the Trump administration's policy of
escalation and conflict with Iran,' a senior Congressional aide told The Independent, on
condition of anonymity. 'This is something that happens in authoritarian regimes, not
democracies'."
The Independent article by Negar Mortazavi and Borzou Baragahi continues: "One woman
behind the harassment campaign, a longtime Iranian-American activist, has received hundreds
of thousands of dollars from the State Department over the years to promote 'freedom of
expression and free access to information.' The campaign relentlessly attacked critics of the
Iran policy on social media, including Twitter and Telegram messaging app, accusing them
without evidence of being paid operatives of the regime in Tehran. A spokeswoman for the
State Department told reporters on Monday that funding for the 'Iran Disinformation Project'
had been suspended and is under review after it was reported that it went beyond the scope of
its mandate by veering from countering propaganda from Iran to smearing domestic critics of
White House policy. State Department officials disclosed to lawmakers they had granted $1.5
million for Iran Disinfo, which repeatedly targeted, harassed and smeared critics of Trump's
tough stance against Iran on social media.
The Independent article noted: "Among those targeted were American activists, scholars,
and journalists who challenged the Trump administration's 'maximum pressure campaign' against
Iran. The revelation that US taxpayer money was being used to attack administration critics
has now sparked a flurry of queries. 'There are still so many unanswered questions here,'
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar wrote on Twitter. 'What rules are in place to prevent state-funded
organisation from smearing American citizens? If there wasn't public outcry, would the
Administration have suspended funding for Iran Disinfo?' Cold War-era US rules barring the
use of government-funded propaganda against American citizens have been flouted for decades
State Department officials speaking at the closed-door meeting admitted the project was out
of bounds, according to Congressional staffers speaking to The Independent on condition of
anonymity. Both Democratic and Republican Congressional staffers were highly critical of the
project and questioned whether US officials should continue to work with the contractor,
E-Collaborative for Civic Education. The State Department spokeswoman declined to outline
steps to prevent such an operation in the future E-Collaborative for Civic Education,
co-founded by Iranian American activist Mariam Memarsadeghi, is a long-time State Department
contractor "
Foundation for Defence of Democracies and MEK involved in creating fake articles. The
Independent continues:
"Congressional officials also confirmed to The Independent that one individual working for
the Foundation for Defence of Democracies, an influential Washington organisation with
hawkish views on Iran, is part of the E-Collaborative for Civic Education's Iran
Disinformation Project Over the weekend, The Intercept revealed that a purported Iranian
activist, who had published dozens of articles on Iran in prominent outlets such as Forbes
and The Hill, does not exist and is a fake persona run by a team of operatives connected to a
bizarre Iranian political cult. The "Heshmat Alavi" persona had a strong presence on Twitter
and harassed Iranian journalists, academics, and activists who are critical of the
Mujahedin-e-Khalq organisation, a one-time armed guerilla group now holed up in Albania.
There is no known link between the Iran Disinfo programme and the fake persona. At least one
was cited by the Trump administration as proof against the effectiveness of the Obama-era
nuclear deal. Some of the MEK articles were also picked up by US government funded Voice of
America's Persian-language service "
Let's not forget the lies our great-grandparents were told to inveigle us into WWI: "German
troops are raping Belgian nuns" and "German troops are using Belgian babies for bayonet
practice."
100 years from now a future historian, (probably Russian or Chinese), writing about the
collapse of the US, will chronicle how the Americans gullibly believed the war propagandists
asserting that Iran fired on oil tankers, which belonged to it trading partner, with the same
sense of disbelief we now feel upon reading of the crazy assertions made about German
troops.
The Japanese ship's captain came out today and said that there was no way the ship was hit by
a mine as US claimed, it was hit above sea level and sailors saw something hitting the
vessel, like a torpedo.
Why on earth would Iran want to bomb a Japanese ship in the middle of a visit by the
Japanese PM?
This whole thing stinks to high heaven.
The US under the rule of the neocons in the Trump admin, the Pence-Pompeo-Bolton trifecta,
is a menace and a danger to the whole world. From Iran to Venezuela, Ukraine to North Korea,
China to Russia, there isn't a country these neocon stooges don't want to pick a quarrel
with. America has become the greatest threat to world peace.
Sam – When was the last time Iran invaded another country? Why is Israel pushing so
hard for us to fight yet another war on their behalf. As Ron Paul said – if they want
to fight Iran – let them, but we must stand aside as they duke it out. Israel has
created enough Gold Star mothers in the US. Time to do their own fighting. Larsen and Giraldi
make a lot of sense.
Standing at the forefront of game-changing innovations in undersea warfare, Navy Cmdr.
Scott Smith has only one small request. Don't call the Navy's fleet of unmanned undersea
vehicles "drones." "It has a negative connotation," Smith said. "We think of drone strikes
as taking out Taliban, and we're nowhere near that." Not yet, anyway. But the Pentagon is
trying quickly to get there.
Last fall, the Navy named Smith as the first-ever commander of the new Unmanned Undersea
Vehicle Squadron 1, or UUVRON-1. It's spearheading the service's development and deployment
of unmanned underwater vehicles. Called UUVs, they're are already being used for
surveillance and to clear mines and map the ocean floor, according to Bryan Clark, a
retired submariner who is now a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments.
So don't get it twisted, this ascendent FUKUS drone army is doubleplusgood; it's designed
for mapping and minesweeping! Sort of like a bunch of little Indian Joneses! Of course the
article does go on to brag:
There are even ongoing efforts to launch UUVs from Virginia-class submarines to conduct
surveillance or deliver payloads. He said that over the next decade sailors should expect
to use the underwater robots to bring sonar arrays and mines to the seabed, launch
torpedoes or become torpedoes themselves to destroy enemy warships . Smith wants to see
UUVs in all kinds of sizes to fill gaps in future missions. "Those missions that are too
dangerous to put men on," Smith said.
It is absolutely side-splitting though that they think they can achieve Total Spectrum
Dominance with these toys. Sorry, I'm looking for any old silver lining these days.
Posted by: sejomoje | Jun 13, 2019 1:59:56 PM |
10 5 No matter the culprit in this latest incident, I lay this current world unrest at
the feet of our current empire.
The economic terrorism, imposed on other nations through U$ sanctions, is the real
problem..
"US officials, however, were quick to point the finger at Iran. "It's clear that Iran is
behind the Fujairah attack. Who else would you think would be doing it? Someone from Nepal?"
said US National Security Adviser John Bolton.
In turn, US Secretary of State Pompeo alleged that Iran had attacked the tankers to raise
the global price of oil.
Tehran has denied any involvement and called for an investigation."
"On the previous day, a fire broke out on an Iranian oil platform of the South Pars gas
field in the Persian Gulf and was subsequently contained and no fatalities were
reported."
Recall the plot of the movie A Fistful of Dollars and another can of worms becomes
possible.
Whenever the US has their conclusion this quickly, before even the appearance of an
investigation (as with MH17, and Syria "chemical" attacks), I feel it is almost certain that
they are making $&!% up, and the reality is likely the opposite of what they have
said.
Both Israel and the Saudis are far too incompetent to carry out a sophisticated attack like
this - see, ships didn't sink but a message was delivered nonetheless. Probable some military
contractor idling in Syria was reassigned to do this.
An obvious question is why the US is not providing evidence to support its claims.
On possible explanation is that there is no evidence.
Another would be that there is evidence but that if the US produced the evidence, then it
would be constrained to "do something." In the scenario in which Iran is conducting these
quasi-attacks to warn of impending greater escalation if the US continues to starve it, both
sides want the other to initiate any violence, and the US doesn't really want the global
economic chaos that hostilities would inevitably bring--especially in conjunction with the
trade/tech war with China. Therefore, it is pulling its punches and withholding the evidence
it has.
Iran may sense that given the US-China and US-Russia issues and the 2020 election, they
had better escalate now or be slowly bled to death. But they would like the US to provide a
pretext for Iran to take real action to block traffic into and out of the Persian Gulf. But
the US wants to be able to portray Iran as the aggressor.
Hence the cat-and-mouse game ongoing. I have to admit, it does make a certain
comprehensive sense.
The Japanese Prime Minister was visiting Tehran at the time of the attack upon a Japanese
tanker.
What a perfect time to attack a Japanese tanker.
Such a plan reeks of incompetence.
Incompetence is a finger print of the Saudis.
Reminder that they butchered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their own embassy. They mailed
bombs (hidden in printers) to the US and Britain
and kept the tracking slips of the packages - nice plan ! All bombers must remember to save
their tracking slips.
They tried to embarrass Iran by attacking a Japanese tanker while the Japanese Prime
Minister was having a positive visit to Tehran.
the usa has produced 'phony' hard evidence in the past... it typically goes with false
flags.. i am not saying this will come out of this, or that iran is not involved, but i lean
strongly to the ramp up in a focus on the strait of hormuz as all part of a longer strategy
of creating stress on iran and potentially dragging them into war.. either way as OP mentions
in his last line @128...
Evidence versus claims. I give you the recent near collision between Russian and USN
warships where USN claimed Russian fault whereas the evidence decisively proved otherwise.
USN shut-up rather quickly and the incident went to the dust bin. In an earlier comment, I
speculated that an IED-type device was used and that it was installed while the ships laded.
Torpedoes were certainly not used, and the limpet mine assertion remains that until a
forensic examination is done, and that won't happen until the ships return to a port where
repairs can be made. Also, we have the much less reported attacks on Iranian ships and
extraction infrastructure--the tit for tat where we'll only be treated to the tits as I
commented in a trivial comment that disappeared. The upshot is, the Outlaw US Empire has
scant credibility when it comes to making claims about anything sans extraordinary evidence.
Iran, of course, knows that. But given the overall context, I doubt Iran's responsible and
stand by my earlier prediction of a CIA/MI-6 proxy doing the deed.
I agree that US credibility on many things is weak--especially in connection with
Iran--but the point is that there is a plausible scenario in which Iran is ready to
escalate--or threaten to escalate--to break out of the US stranglehold but needs to execute
the escalation very carefully.
I also agree that the false flag scenario is still very much in play.
Here're links to a couple of things bouncing around the Twitterverse. The first is a
video clip of
Bolton Caitlin does an excellent job of
unpacking again . It's actually a good thing this video was saved as it needs to be
distributed once again.
The second is a pic of Bolton framed at
the header by "Iran is going to attack us" and at the footer with "Even if we have to do it
ourselves."
Both IMO are worthy of viral retweeting provided you have an account.
DW interviewed a guy today who said it could be Iran but that it could also be a false flag
by one of the Emirates. His interview didn't last long before they went to someone with more
of the US voice. The whole time I was thinking they said it was a torpedo and we know Israel
has at least one submarine. I wonder where it is right now. Meanwhile the official US
statement sounds similar to early declarations about Russians hacking HRC's email: "We assess
..."
librul 141
I thought the same thing. It's like the chemical weapons attack in Syria that happened on the
same day the inspectors arrived. It's like the White Helmets being wherever HTS is. The alt
media is the only arena where people say this sounds fishy.
You shouldn't be misled. Iran does not want war, because the leadership knows that it will
definitely lead to gigantic damage in its own country. In Tronald's administration and
elsewhere, on the other hand, there are people who absolutely want a war, the four B's in the
first place. Tronald himself doesn't really want one, but is caught between a rock and a hard
place. He absolutely wants to make the economy look positive until the next elections, but
this is difficult because there are signs of recession everywhere in the world. An important
factor is the price of oil. Despite the sanctions against Iran, it has not yet risen, the
fracking industry, which produces what it can do due to its debts service necessities,
continues to lose money at these prices. It will be difficult to avoid collapses. So Tronald
may be willing to do more to push up the price of oil. For example, a nice little false flag
action. The Relotius media are almost convinced, no wonder if even someone like B is
wobbling.
But, people; the empire is the empire, we know how it works, that doesn't change. That's
Tonkin 2.0.
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign
that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.
State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on
Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails.
Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of
troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.
Alright then, how is WWIII going for everyone? Everyone got their pith helmet at the ready?
I agree with the sentiments that think this is a warning to empire instead of false flag
because no body bags
I feel sorry for those MoA barflies that continue to have some faith that Trump has a
scintilla of humanism in him and continue to ask for some proof other than BS Q spewment.
Show me ANY example of Trump showing compassion, empathy for other than his fellow war
criminals he is rumored to pardon. Trump is a very hurt human being who is being used as such
by those that control empire for their purposes. To the extent that he agrees to do their
bidding, he is just another in a string of president war criminals of the US, since Jimmy
Carter.
The world outside the West is playing the long game and the West is now very punch drunk
and coming to the end of its run of empires. I read a posting from Reuters in the last 48
hours or so where some pundit was quoting folks "telling" China that they should not include
private finance in this trade war thing......GRIN
The West is holding a very weak hand except for the extinction card. Will they play it
because they are sore losers? Given what they have done to our planet, it would not surprise
me for them to have the ultimate hubris to call the game over......sigh The Cosmos may be
better for it but we have potential if we try.....
pat lang makes a
good distinction on what is a us gov't assessment, verses an intel assessment..
@160 karlof1 / 161 john.. thanks for those links.. my position - all that is no
surprise... i find it surprising some are surprised.. the usa is thick into propaganda at
this point and said they would spend good money on war propaganda.. videos of bolton saying
lying is okay aren't helpful to their cause though..
"'We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. We will defend
our interests, but a war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, nor in the best interest
of the international community.' --@CENTCOM spokesman Lt. Col. Earl Brown."
Seems the Pentagon has flipped the bird to Pompeo and Bolton, which happened before
during BushCo.
--------------------------
Maybe such a war with Iran is not in the interests of the United States, but certainly in
the interests of Israel.
Trump ratchets up the sanctions before and Abe visits Iran which does reflect his
negotiating style. Iran allegedly hits a tanker while Abe is taking to Iran. Now Abe has to
go back towing the US line, as usual, saying it was Iran's fault and he loses face being
insulted by Iran. What a perfect way to step up the tensions and garner more UN support.
These events will continue and slowly get worse until the coup de gra, which would be
something like the sinking of a large US naval vessel in the Persian gulf. The US peoples
minds are not right yet and it will take time for their minds to be framed back into war.
During the Iran Iraq war the US re flagged Kuwait tankers during the Tanker War. We could easily
see a new Tanker War but on a much lower lever driven by the third party actors who stand to
profit.
War with Iran will be a disaster for everyone involved except one small nation that knows
how to cover their tracks.
Iran will be demolished eventually. Those who gain from destroying Iran are behind
presstv. published a video showing 44 people saved from two on fire sinking ships. I know how
difficult it is to identify these people from their faces, especially a 44 crew member crowd
but I think even stinkcom could manage to do that. The media BS about this incident suggest,
who ever done it, is dealing with something that went very wrong.. Iran saves 44 sailors and
shows them on TV.. the west claims, with no proof whatsoever, that the Iranians did not save
these sailors even though the sailors are safe in Iran? Hmmm!
I suggest the reporters and journalist that reported this, be tasked to investigate the
suspicious looking dark hole named "false flag". Its a possible threat to Israel and Saudia
Arabia. Its approximate location is about 200 trillion light years due East from here.. The
media are saying Iran and Russia teamed up to dig a hole in space, and once the Iran-Russian
team managed to get the hole dug, they climbed deep inside of the hole and turned its lights
off. The west is saying they flipped the switch in the WH to keep the Iranian-Russian team
from claiming its "light out" success. When the reporters and journalist get back, I am sure
we will be all ears to hear the how the Russian and Iranian team managed to make a hole in
space, dark.
@karlof1 - I read the Luongo piece and I find it the most pivotal of all current
commentary - largely because it's about the oil situation globally. Neither Iran nor Russia
need the price of oil to go up in order to prosper - the US and Saudi Arabia do need the
price to go up.
Having said that, I don't know that insurance rates rising are actually adding to the
producer's revenue at the wellhead/refinery.
I do know that oil is self-regulating, in that whenever it gets around $100 a barrel and
over, the global economy stalls and the demand for oil goes down, resulting in glut for a
time and lower prices - not to mention global recession. As Luongo illustrates, right now the
world is in a large glut. There's nothing to push the price up (which Trump desperately
needs) except tightening production, which Saudi wants, but which Russia doesn't want to
do.
~~
So imagine a world filled to the brim with bluster, and yet once again what actually moves
on the ground (or below the waves) is actually very little. Enough bluster to scare everyone
and increase leverage of the security apparatus, and just enough damage to inch the oil price
up without crashing the global economy. Expect more such ratcheting.
Iran didn't do this latest episode. The US and Israel are the likely actors, with Saudi
and UAE providing lunch money for the excursion. Also, the false flag works fine without dead
bodies if the intent is not for a war with Iran - which the US military absolutely knows
cannot be won - but to trigger oil prices up. At times, commercial interests take over, and
ride the wave of military activity, and I suspect this one is about the money.
And these neocons, by the way, seem able to live on pure fantasy. I don't think they'll
achieve a real war. They visibly make their points - increase their stature - in their peer
group purely from grandstanding.
It's worth linking the Tom Luongo piece again for a nice understanding of oil fundamentals in
the region and the world currently. It's important to understand how illusory and temporary
the US fracking phenomenon is:
Trump Thinks US Oil Is His Strength When It's His Achilles' Heel
As a commenter here (David on May 13) said recently, the US fracking industry's appalling
indebtedness comes due in 2023. This is far enough through Trump's potential second term that
he can blame everyone else and move on. I've made a personal note to expect a US economic
plunge in that year.
To see Trump's acts as merely keeping the ponzi scheme going for as long as possible, and
for as much short-term reward through the second term, is the best understanding of White
House policy I think.
Grieved @184 thanks for that link. Just saw an update on Fox stating Iran has formally denied
any part of this incident but can't find a solid Iranian news source to confirm.
@ Pnyx 181 . . . for the usa it is not the same. Their homeland is far away, while Iran would suffer
extreme devastation in the event of a war - whatever the final result. So I think it is
absolutely unthinkable that Iran would do anything to increase the risk of war.
You don't understand -- every US death in war is now a news item. When 5 or 6 dies it's
huge news. This is not Vietnam with 200 dying every week. Its different now. So if a thousand
soldiers die in the beginning of a conflict with Iran it's HUGE. No American cares how many
Iranians would die, but they DO care if Americans die, homeland or not. THAT's why the
generals are against it too. . .PS: If the Iranians sink that carrier, it's 5,000+ American
dead. Unacceptable.
So that's why Iran is free to dispute the aggression against them with some violent
events. More power to them.
I would think that if the Iranian's held the crew and took off an unexploded bomb that they
can ask the crew how they might have gotten there......
Were the ships in Iran controlled waters such that the empire side could not retrieve the
unexploded bomb? If that is the case then I suspect the unexploded bomb may show up in
pictures we see that show where it might have come from.....
from the grasping at straws mines department.
news report
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
The U.S. military has released a video it says implicates Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) in the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the latest violent
incident the United States and its allies blame on Tehran.
The U.S. Central Command on June 13 said the video shows crews from IRGC boats removing
what looks like an unexploded mine from the side of one of the two attacked oil tankers. .
.
here
the US has met its match, asking for a seizure at the UNSC --
Earlier in the day at the UN, U.S. acting Ambassador Jonathan Cohen called on the Security
Council to confront the "clear threat" posed by Tehran in the region.
The attacks "demonstrate the clear threat that Iran poses to international peace and
security," Cohen told reporters following the closed-door Security Council meeting.
Cohen said that "no proxy group in the area has the resources or the skill to act with this
level of sophistication."
"Iran, however, has the weapons, the expertise, and the requisite intelligence information
to pull this off," he said.
"I've asked the Security Council to remain seized of the matter and I expect that we will
have further conversations about it, and how to respond in the days ahead," he added.
Loud chuckling was heard in Tehran.
Don Bacon , Jun 13, 2019 11:06:34 PM |
195Anon , Jun 13, 2019 11:20:05 PM |
196
So this is what comes to mind...
Houthi or al. are responsible for first event. They target Saudi/Nor. ships.
Saudi et. al. target ships friendly to Iran.
Understand though that in these events there is a total asymmetry at play. That is to say
that actions will not follow any logic we know of. The above is the closest I get to making
sense BUT as far as I know each side might have been responsible for the actions that seemed
most counterproductive to itself. Planners know the mindset of society, a false false flag is
an option.
We are left with qui bono, and I think the reply to that is as reliant on the global
geopolical and economic environment, as well as who will de facto gain the upper hand. It
seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned by
the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
A fluid situation for sure. I wish I had had the time to follow things more closely. Thanks
karlof, Oscar for all the links and info.
Can't add anything substantial apart from a general maxim: when the Empire had proof the
'other' is to blame, they readily display said proof. When they are to blame... Skripols,
Mari Marmara, MH17, etc.
@ Anon who wrote
"
It seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned
by the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
"
The first part is confusing to me
I think you meant
Psychological warfare is going on
I assume you mean the West that is questioning "by the appearance or reality of being
goaded".
Your "expansion of power" leaves me wanting the meat
Yes, China/Russia and aligned are collaborating in ways that reduces the power of empire
but not necessarily in ways that translates into the same sort of power......That said,
global private finance versus "socialism is the eye of the storm and everything else is
proxy. We are not seeing the beginning of socialism but we are seeing the end of global
private finance which I think your "expansion of power" misrepresents because one supports a
few and the other supports all......maybe it would be clearer to say the elimination of power
by a few and the assumption of the power by the many.
I think it is a good circumstance and way past due for our species to survive.
@193 dh... i thought you could... what happened? are you one of those long lost draft
dodgers?
hey - maybe he can hide under his mustache if the bombs start falling? it is almost big
enough... either that, or bugs bunny can grab it when he ain't watching.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-BOqQw_TQ
@194 Is it my imagination or is that video showing a "limped mine" that is on THE OTHER SIDE
of the ship than the one that is aflame?
If that is true - and it looks like it - then we have to assume that the Dastardly
Iranians(tm) stuck limpet mines to both sides of that ship.
Why do that?
It maximizes your chances of being detected, and maximises the time it takes to attach the
limpets, and with no discernible benefit.
Why do that, when speed and stealth are at a premium?
Don Wiscacho , Jun 14, 2019 12:12:46 AM |
205David Gibson , Jun
14, 2019 12:57:54 AM |
206
MOA 14/06/19
If the strategic aim of the Imperialist powers is to still claim all of the Middle East oil
and resources and to crush any movement towards independence then the stumbling block is Iran
and Russia who have stood in their way vis-a-vie Syria.
NATO has succeeded in Iraq and Libya and almost succeeded in Syria but are still trying
using the flip/flop position of Turkey and Idlib as a Castle in the game to defeat any
independence movement out of US hegemony.
At this time no oil or chemicals have spilled into the Gulf waters. This is by design.
Whilst the comments pertaining to the main article are informative and useful most are
getting bogged down and arguing about details and missing the overall global plans of the
Imperialist plans.
The Imperialist plan remains the same whilst their tactics can and do change. Their bag of
dirty tricks is quite bottomless and yes they think they can fight against any move for
National Independence anywhere in the world.
Latin America most notably Venezuela, Africa with AFRICOM already using drones.
Australia, fully under MI6/CIA control. No defence of Assange an Australian Citizen, plus
the coup against Gough Whitlam.
The UK, with either Boris, or Hunt being in bed with Donald, both lap dogs to the USA and
like with Harold Wilson they won't allow Corbyn to become PM.
France with Macron the poodle trying to show he is as tough as Trump by being more stupid.
We all know the situation of an Empire in decline. It isn't all about oil!
David Gibson ,
Jun 14, 2019 12:57:54 AM |
206Jen , Jun 14, 2019 1:07:57 AM |
207
Psychohistorian @ 189:
The crews of both tankers were rescued by an Iranian rescue ship so I would say both
tankers were in Iranian waters in the Gulf of Oman.
Don Wiscacho
I take it that Abe on this exercise was no more than a US asset. Iran has stuck to the Nuke
agreement and US has reneged so nothing to negotiate or mediate on Iran's side. Abe going to
Iran as mediator means he was asking for concessions from Iran - that Iran make some moves to
appease the US.
US is the type that if you give an inch, they take a mile. If Iran made one concession then
US would take it as a sign of weakness and expect them to make more.
I might have missed mention of it in all the hullabaloo, but I have seen nothing of the US
Navy response which would involve tracking down the perpetrators, and ensuring no further
acts were committed.
It is that absence of obvious response which causes me to think that our host might be
incorrect in his assessment, and that the perpetrator is a party the US Navy would sooner not
apprehend.
Iran would be crazy to take on the US so why provoke them. They stand to lose their oil then
anyway. War is an economy and Everyone knows that Bolton is a war monger and that Iran is a
thorn in Israels side and he needs an excuse to go to war. Also he can't use the WMD card
again to start a war and JumpStart the US economy.
I have not followed this closely. There is real proof of "attack" and not accidental or set
fire? There is video of a crew "abandoning ship? But then again, in 2019 there is no such
thing as video or image proof, at least without expert verification.
guys its BIG OIL... TRUMP approved Ethanol 15 for YEAR ROUND USE a few days ago... that means
GAS PRICES would be cheaper for Americans as more corn instead of oil would be used in
Automobiles. That drove OIL prices down! This attack on the two ships immediately drove CRUDE
OIL up 2.87%!
It seems that TRUMP pissed off some very powerful big oil men & oil-rich Arab nations
when he approved the E15!
Why blame Iran? No idea.
Why attack the ships owned by Japan while Shinzo Abe is there negotiating peace? No Idea.
Who carried out the attack? No Idea.
Interesting and sane interview on 'today program' news radio 4 bbc U.K. 7.50am ish.
Admiral Lord west - - - could be any US - proxy group in Middle East looking to gain by
escalating US -Iran conflict !
He said it could well be ''a pro US group in Iran'' similar to the US backed opposition in
Venezuela !
My view is this makes the most sense!
Probably given the nod by Bolton/Trump ect
Definitely funded and armed by US !
Just as in Venezuela.
Plus- bare in mind the main motive will be western public voter deception, same as anti
Russia/ Skripal, Anti Syria / chloride. Venezuela/opposition.
Criminal psychopath profile tells us -> USA Trump.
Meanwhile Twitter censorship thousands of iranian accounts. Pro-american accounts for war is
of course never removed.
Twitter has announced that it is removing 4,779 accounts associated or backed by
Tehran, the latest strike in the ongoing anti-Iran campaign perfectly timed to coincide with
the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461825-iran-trolls-gulf-tonkin-twitter/
Don Bacon
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
Indeed, that is the illogical proapganda MSM use now, very disturbing. Its Tonkin once
again.
Not to mention, is it iranians? Is it a mine to begin with? Is that really how you handle
a mine? Just pull it off with your bare hands around 10 plus people on a small boat?
Interesting also that US just happend to be there spying.
IRO that 'high-res' video footage from the usual suspects.
By coincidence they've had a surveillance drone or a chopper on location? Maybe, I don't
know.
The Iranians do have the means to spot drones and choppers, we do know this ever since they
hijacked and/or crashed RQ-170 and MQ-9 vehicles a couple of years back.
Are we to believe them - the Iranians - being that stupid to launching such an operation
while knowing full well they are being watched by their main adversary?
Regarding technicalities:
Iran has got the know-how to build limpet mines? So it must have been done by Iranian forces?
You don't say. Building a limpet mine is trivial. Get your hands on a bunch of Nd-magnets, a
3rd grade chemist cooking up a couple of kilos of a HEI composition, a mechanical engineer
for the hardware and a physicist assisting in creating the fusing system and you're all
set.
I, for one, am being positive Lichtenstein did it - most likely on direct orders of the
ruling prince - after all there's chemists, physicists and mechanical engineers inhabiting
that tiny speck of land.
Would be intreresting if iranians actually picked up a mine though and it was an american
made, israeli made mine. Iran has a big chance now to frame the incident.
Good points zanon
To add - If the US start all-out War with Iran, how many refugees would that create ?
millions !
And if so, would we blame them/ the victems and drive them back from safety to the conflict
area, or do we blame the US and demand they compensate their victems.
If we are to return to a sane world, the perpetrators MUST pay the price and receive full
punishment .
American politicians always say ' we will do what is in America's interest' and right there
is the problem - - - not able to anticipate the outcome of there own actions !
Example - all recent conflict.
One definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over again !!
@224 Bizarre. The photo shows the limped mine on the starboard side of the ship. The video
from the Bainbridge shows the Iranians removing that limped mine on the port side of the
ship.
The photo doesn't appear reversed - the name is clearly seen - so why would the US reverse
the video?
Okay, not a torpedo. Now it's a mine. But wait a minute, the Japanese say something was
flying above the water. The US shows a video of the Iranians removing a limpet mine. The
Japanese contest the "assessment" of the US and the US video shows the Iranians removing a
mine NOT placing one.
The story gets stranger as the neoclowns push for war.
If infact the Iranians did recover from either ship an explosive machine, a mine, flying
machine, rocket, unexploded torpedo,etc, or indeed any forensic material, that and the
debriefings of the crews will make for great political theater...that stuff is fairly
festooned with serial numbers... "film at 11", as they used to say...
"What? Only three booms? But we gave those idiots we hired four mines to attach
to that ship! Oh, cr@p, the place is swarming with drones by now. What do we do about the
fourth mine now? Can we pretend the Cubans stole it from us with their killer crickets and
gave it to Iran?
Moon of Alabama lost all credibility with this article. Israel has a huge online troll party
going on blaming Iran for this. Attack 2 tankers tied to Japanese interests,while the
Japanese Leader is conferring with Iran's leader, outside the mouth of the Persian Gulf is
too much codswallop to swallow.
Two comments: "Blamed Iran but did not present any evidence" says it all. These incidents
remind one of the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in which the US government claimed their
forces were attacked by North Vietnam. Subsequently it was proven by the NSA and others that
there was no attack. It was simply propaganda to give the Americans an excuse to escalate the
war. It would surprise no one, if it turned out that the US or Saudi's hired black operatives
to stage these attacks so that they could escalate tensions with Iran.
and.
It was previously reported that the limpet mine was still attached to the ship. So why
didn't the US, in need of solid evidence, go to the ship and remove the mine thereby
obtaining hard evidence that could be evaluated? Instead, the US did nothing, Iran undertook
its removal not wanting it to explode which makes sense. Then the US used it's removal by
others to suggest complicity. The US is either incompetent or just making plots up (lying as
usual). Iran's removal of the mine means nothing.
@134 Yonatan - A little frightener to Japan - this makes great sense and should have been
obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.
@198 psychohistorian - it was a mouthful, but actually makes sense. Anon is saying that
under the guise of seeming to be provoked and acting purely in reaction (to the bad actions
of Iran, etc), the US is actually exerting and expanding its power in the region, all the
while making the narrative say that it's the other unruly elements causing the ruckus.
I agree with Anon that it's more a case that a psy-ops theater has intensified, which
tells several departments of the empire that the game can get a little harsher, and they can
get away with it. It doesn't hurt that increased violence and aggravation on the region will
raise the price of oil, which fits US thinking. In fact, with Bolton accusing Iran of trying
to raise the price of oil, we now know with virtual certainty that these words reflect a US
intention somewhere in the mix.
[Sidebar: Funny how they never dropped that old propaganda thing of accusing the target of
your own actions before the target can accuse you of this act. I suspect this is an ancient
ploy of evildoers - when you can't seize the moral high ground because you have no place
there, then you must steal the moral high ground. Plunder and occupation by another
name.]
The warning to Japan to hold steady to its western mission is very plausible. And anything
that happens can be blamed on Iran anyway - the perfect patsy for all kinds of mayhem. And
still Israel would like to provoke the US military into a suicidal attack on Iran.
So, several incentives for several players, several actions, and more to come, all under
the virtual fog of virtual war.
The US has claimed that the tanker attacks showed "a level of sophistication implicating a
nation, not a random terrorist". Again this is pure bullshit and propaganda from the Trump
bunch. I recall the attack on the guided missile carrier, USS Cole in which the ship was
damaged and a number of sailors were killed. The USS Cole was attacked successfully by a
small fiberglass boat loaded with C4. Successful yet hardly "sophisticated". The US has been
selling limpet mines and other armaments to every whack job group and country for decades.
That a few of these made it onto a small boat and were delivered to the tankers is hardly
surprising and does not require any sophistication at all. So once again, we have deception,
lies, and war mongering coming out of the Blight House and its Trumpian orifices.
I am guessing those Iranian mine removers accidentally left passport behind?
Or was flag on boat and Iranian Guard uniforms were give-away.
Thank goodness for the I/C - you can never have enough intelligence (or war).
This is my first time commenting in this blog. With all due respect to the writer and the
quality of his journalism, sometimes it is easy to miss the distinction between causality
versus correlation between events.
We tend to find patterns where they might not exist. From Iranian perspective, it was the
first time they were being sanctioned for petrochemical materials versus raw oil. Not a fan
of any government, but I believe true journalism should stay away from any judgment or
speculation.
Thanks for all the great articles and analyses.
"flying objects" = drones?
...from JapanToday Operator of tanker says sailors saw 'flying objects' just before attack
The Japanese operator ship operator of one of two oil tankers attacked near the Strait of
Hormuz on Thursday said that sailors on board its vessel, the Kokuka Courageous, saw
"flying objects" just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn't damaged by mines.
That account contradicts what the U.S. military has said as it released a video it says
shows Iranian forces removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two ships in the
suspected attack.
Speaking at a news conference in Tokyo, Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo Co, said
he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could be bullets, and denied possibility
of mines or torpedoes because the damages were above the ship's waterline. He called
reports of mine attack "false." . .
here
The two tanker vessels attacked Thursday are adrift in the Gulf of Oman today as the U.S.
military is directing everyone's attention to a newly released, low-resolution video that
allegedly shows a group of people in a watercraft removing an unexploded mine from the
damaged hull of the M/T Kokuka Courageous in broad daylight and in clear view of the U.S.
Navy's guided-missile destroyer, USS Bainbridge.
U.S. Central Command claims the small watercraft in the video belongs to Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps: "an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat," according to one of two
evening statements by CENTCOM officials.
Worth noting: The boat's clear and distinct connection to Iran or the IRGC, however, is not
evident in the video itself. Nor is it clear from the video (1) where the boat came from,
(2) who the occupants were, (3) whether what was allegedly removed was in fact a limpet
mine (as the OSINT folks at Bellingcat pointed out this morning), or (4) where the boat
went to after its occupants concluded their activity from the side of the Courageous. . .
here
comment from craig murray poster spencer eagle- "There's one glaring thing wrong about
that US video of Iranians allegedly removing a limpet mine from that tanker, too many
spectators. Even if they did plant the mine, no crew in their right minds would gather round
as their colleague made safe a live mine from a bobbing boat."
from LongWarJournal Yemen's Houthis target Saudi airports
Over the span of 24 hours, Yemen's Houthi insurgent movement has twice targeted the Abha
international airport with missiles and suicide drones.
At least 26 people were wounded on Wednesday after the Houthis launched a cruise missile at
the Abha airport. Video of the bombing released by Saudi Arabia shows the moment the
missile struck the airport. The use of a cruise missile on a civilian infrastructure
represents a major shift in the war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi insurgents.
Speaking to the Houthi-ran Al Masirah News, an official spokesman said that the strike came
in response to Saudi aggression in Yemen and civilians should avoid "vital and military
areas as they have become legitimate targets to us." . . here
I've just seen the Navy video. I've got some problems with the shadows. They seem too long.
The incident has supposedly happened at 4 pm local time. The location is almost exactly
situated on the Tropic of Cancer, i.e now, Mid June, the sun creates almost vertically
shadows at midday. At 4 pm, the angle should still be 60 degree or so. Correspondingly the
shadows should still be very short. The shadows in the video to me appear to be created by a
30 degree sun angle at most. This is of course only a preliminary estimation.
Bottom line: The video doesn't match the supposed time and location of the incidence.
Also lacking any resolution is what can the US do next, since its options are severely
limited.
IMO Iran has the US by the short hairs. In fact Iran may provide an encore,just to rub it
in.
After hundred of sanctions on Iran, Trump is now faced with a tough decision.
1- Order military attacks on Iran and start a tit for tat escalation that would to a disaster
in the region and hampers Trump re-election
2 Attack Iran's so called proxies: Hezbollah, Houthis, Syria then regional allies of the USA,
ie the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel will get more of these 'mini attacks' that will disrupt
oil supplies and Israel security. These attacks will show the world that Trump's big talk and
economical sanctions are totally ineffective
I think that while Iran may not be responsible for the attacks in the Oman Gulf, I am sure
that they condone them without hesitation. Who ever is doing it intentionaly or not is giving
to Iran a posture that Trump will have to match.
That is why Trump's only choice other than war is to fire Bolton and scapegoat him at the
risk of losing the Israeli lobby and the neocons support for his re election.
Yet if he wants to keep the Israeli lobbies support, Trump will need to have Netanyahu
re-elected..
That is his only choice
Already foreign medias are demonizing Bolton as a prelude to his firing
Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world?
Intersting that the boarding crew on one of the boat were russians, also a puzzle?
Don Bacon
US could of course do anything they want, as they have in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
Pakistan - you name it.
Next thing could be an explosion on a military US frigate or something similar. We all know
who would be blamed and call for US attacks would be real simple.
from CDR Salamander
Let's break that in to little bits.
1. No USA ships are involved.
2. No USA citizens are involved.
3. No USA territory or waters are involved.
4. All cargo was headed to Asia.
. . .This. Is. Not. Our. Problem.
What is Norway doing? Japan? They are both our allies, but they have the lead on this - not
us.
Who really benefits from this? It isn't Iran. It certainly is not the USA.
Everyone needs to take a powder and take a step back.
This talk of military action this soon is insanity. This is irresponsible. . . here
If drone-delivered: the mines would be heavy so a long-range drone would be needed. However,
if the drone took off from a near-by ship then then a less complex drone could be used. But a
small ship lacks space for a runway. It would need some sort of launcher/catapult. Oh, here's one .
What is needed now is information what really happend - I dont see any info on what was
actually happend but people that call for war.
Was it a mine? Missile? Torped? Grenade? Lets say it was a type of missile that was produced
by nation X, who fired it?
Who/what was put there?
Was it an exercise that these ships accidently moved in to? - Was it an accident?
Relates to security of transport through the straight.
If Iran were in fact responsible, would make me question their sanity.
Barring that they are insane, I cannot see how it could be Iran, could be anybody except
Iran.
To state the obvious: Look at motive and opportunity.
If Trump were not insane/idiot, he might suggest that there are many with possible motive and
that it should be carefully investigated before action or even comment is made - more babies
from incubators and dead ducks. How stupid is Trump really.
"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Mr. Katada said of the
incident on Thursday.
What kind of flying object? Apparently it is as of yet unidentified.
In other words, the NYT is reporting that the operator of the ship is claiming that the
ship was hit by a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object.) Whoo, Whoo!
Iran tightens the screws....
from TehranTimes B-Team launching 'sabotage diplomacy' against Iran, Zarif warns
TEHRAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday accused Washington
of jumping "to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial
evidence" as two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday. . . here
The propaganda war has already been won by the US, it is Iran Iran Iran and the MSM and even
some people here talk about Iran having or might have some culpability. Meanwhile NO ONE
could show any evidence or reason for the argument.
Think about that, how easily desinformation works and how illogical it really is.
Murray makes good points--as usual. The bit out the Norwegian tanker's owners having a
history of cooperation with the Iranian government is interesting.
@mk 254
The timeline in the CENTCOM release is interesting, claiming that the alleged IRGC craft
arrived at the Japanese ship around 0800 but didn't take the "limpet mine" or whatever it was
until 1600. If the boat were IRGC and was trying to remove evidence--a command-detonated
explosive that failed to explode?--you'd think they would do it immediately. Also, I can't
tell what kind of video the released clip is--EO or IR? It doesn't look like EO taken in
daylight.
The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
It is important to realize that Chief of Naval O[erations Admiral John Richardson, a
creature of former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, is taking the lead in this
warmongering against Iran.
He and Carter were opposed to the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration worked
out with Tehran, and are now working to deneuclarize the Iranian regime.
Richardson had the Navy look allegedly for those two sunk subs found soon after they
disappeared, the USS Scorpion and Thresther, when they were actually looking for the USS
Batfish and Puffer which were sunk in 1982 in the Anglo-American War against Sweden soon
after Ricgardson joined the submarine corps.
He is a full blown warmonger against America's alleged enemies.
I am surprised to see some posters and Bevin proposing that maybe it was Iran, at this
point.
Seems premature. Though it is possible, barring substantial evidence, it would be my starting
point that that is the least likely scenario.
And the jump to conclusion (as by Trump et al) suggests bias or motive.
Distance to target would be reduced by heavy mines but using multiple drones would help
with that problem.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just the drone tech that's important. If you're going to do a 'op' like this
where you want guaranteed non-attribution, then you've got to have the tech well tested and
very reliable. A drone failure or mission foul-up could be devastating.
So, its not an off-the shelf drone and it's a hand-picked crew that has been trained on
such a mission over months and it's "off the books" and it's carried out by an organization
that can ensure secrecy (implying intelligence organization). Thus, a "state actor".
I think that concluding now that Iran didn't do it is a mistake.
> We don't know who did it.
> Tehran clearly indicated it had enough of the US aggressive baseless sanctions, and
would do something.
> Tehran is controlling the discourse ("lack of evidence," etc).
> US (AKA world-power) choices are extremely limited; Iran's aren't.
Virgil suggests above that Trump's only choices to deal with this incident is to start a
war or fire Bolton. He goes onto suggest if Trump fired Bolton he'd lose the neocon vote and
Israel's support.
WRONG. Please go to conservative sites. Any of them. During the primaries and campaign.
Read and learn for yourself what the conservative voter was demanding of the nominee in
comment sections. Please. Folks make these declarations that are not true. Trump voters do
not want war. Trump voters do not want regime changes. And Trump voters are as suspicious if
not more so of Bolton than many here are.
Neocons aka Never Trumpers after the campaign took their toys and left the right side of
the aisle. They embraced their kissing cousins the neo libs who own the Dem Party.
Conservatives loathe the neocons. The neocons loathe conservatives.
Only warmongers and its profiteers want war - NeoCons and NeoLibs. The rest of us
Americans - right, left, middle, indy, green whatever DO NOT WANT WAR WITH ANY DAMNED
BODY.
@ Zanon 269 The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
The CNO has no authority over naval operations, that takes place in the combat commands,
CENTCOM (Tampa) in this case.
Johstone linked @ 276
". . .the US has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening
sanctions, which means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the
aggressor and the attacks would most certainly not have been "unprovoked". Economic sanctions
are an act of war; if China were to do to America's economy what America is doing to Iran's,
the US would be in a hot war with China immediately. It could technically be possible that
Iran is pushing back on US aggressions and provocations, albeit in a strange and
neoconservatively convenient fashion."
Excellent comment.
But neocons and zionists are taking over the Trump agenda.
Trump supporters are becoming confused about what they support - they support Trump so they
are increasingly defending this ziocon crap.
But your point is I think very excellent, the public (and Trumps original supporters in
particular) does not want war (with the exception of some religious kooks, perhaps).
Neocons aren't solely responsible for anything, but depended upon support form "liberals" AKA
neo-libs for the various mistaken wars. That includes people like: Gore, Biden, Obama, and
the Clintons.
Trump is anti-establishment for the most part so that is a good thing, in regard to Russia
for one specific thing, but nothing in life is perfect.
I would remind everyone that the greatest pressure against US+allies strategy of economic
strangulation of Iran and Syria is the current operation to retake Idlib.
Yesterday's attacks against shipping will almost certainly be used as an excuse to
increase US troop levels and/or act belligerently in defense of their "interests" such as
retaining Idlib.
From SST (see link provided by james @245):
As for what the US might do about it, the New York Times reports that yesterday morning,
after the news of the attack began to break, there was a previously scheduled meeting in
"the Tank" at the Pentagon, involving Shanahan, Dunford and other top officials to discuss
threats in the Middle East and US troop levels. The Times reports that weeks prior
Centcom chief Gen. McKenzie had actually asked for 20,000 troops but that Dunford expressed
the fear that if that many were ordered to the Gulf, it would be provocative "and perhaps a
sign that, despite denials, the Trump administration's real goal was regime
change."[Note: 1,500 troops were reported to have been approved]Prior
to yesterday's meeting Shanahan and Dunford were ready to make the case that Mr. Trump had
told the Pentagon to reduce American forces and United States involvement in the current
wars in the Middle East, and avoid direct confrontation with Iran ...
Now Tehran has the option to say to the US: Drop those thirteen demands and we'll talk.
It has other options also, now that the air has been cleared a bit.
Khamenei will have to approve whatever it is, and he's a realist
https://www.bs-shipmanagement.com/en/media/emergency-response
14 June 2019
Media Statement
"Update - Kokuka Courageous incident – Gulf of Oman
The Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM) managed product carrier Kokuka Courageous is now
safely undertow in the Gulf of Oman heading towards Kalba Anchorage, UAE....
...The vessel was about 70 nautical miles from Fujairah and about 16 nautical miles from
the coast of Iran
BSM is actively monitoring the situation in the Gulf of Oman and will issue another statement
when we have further details."
....
A search of the internet brings up no photos whatsoever of this ship under tow or at any
time after it was attacked... apart from the microsoft paint job. I guess the damage does not
match the US narrative.
Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains before proposing
something that ludicrous!
Why not look at what occurred in the Brent Oil Market for drones instead. This chart
shows trading volume and price before and after event. What you see is a massive shorting
followed by covering, followed by another short play, then further covering. Some entity(ies)
made a lot of money with their prior knowledge of the event. The tankers didn't need to be
sunk to drive that play; just a little Flare to provide visibility. How do I know what's
depicted by the chart is shorting followed by covering? I've seen such behavior a great
number of times before, particularly in the run-up to the massive financial takedown in
2007-8 when many mortgage writing firms were shorted massively so they could be bought-up for
next to nothing. Such behavior has CIA/Mossad stamped all over it, which is what I thought to
begin with.
Well, Iran did do it. You know they did it, because you saw the boat, I guess one of the
mines didn't explode and it's probably got, essentially, Iran written all over it," he
said. "And you saw the boat at night trying to take the mine off , and successfully
took the mine off the boat and that was exposed. And that was their boat, that was them.
And they didn't want the evidence left behind.
Trump:
While Trump added that Iran must not have known the U.S. has nighttime surveillance
capabilities , a timeline from U.S. Central Command accompanying the video's release
indicates the apparent mine removal happened in broad daylight , which would make
the operation even more brazen."
Hmmmm........
These attacks could have only been the work of a sophisticated nation state actor.
Specifically a sophisticated nation state actor that does not know that the US has "nighttime
surveillance capabilities".
@ Zanon 284 Trump has been as bad on Russia as the "establishment"
Not by choice, I believe, and the US president is not a total dictator. Often he must do what
he's told, especially when the establishment (especially the "intelligence" community) is out
to get him, and they don't take prisoners.
@ karlof 288 Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains ..
Where did you read that?
A reference would be helpful.
Or are you kidding. Must be. So say so?
The US has not only lost the narrative, it has royally screwed the pooch, getting in deeper
and deeper with its falsehoods. Can a laughing-stock rule the world?
I agree. Trump can only do this election wise if it is a quick campaign that lets him
claim victory fast and does not involve dying US soldiers.
As is, there is a huge problem already for the US to leave Afghanistan.
Saudi might have been crazy enough to do it as they need serious help with the
Houthis.
I doubt Israel is interested in a war that might get them into Hezbollah's crosshairs.
I don't think, by the way, that economic problems from the sanctions are forcing Iran, as
there is this
Chinese - Pakistan - Iran sea route. There is also a
connection to Russia via the Caspian . And I don't doubt they have good relations to the
-stans.
They simply own one of the most strategic places the world has to offer. With mountains .
"... Abe will be pissed because Japan needs continuing access to Iran's hydrocarbons and Bolton isn't smart enough to gain their complicity beforehand. ..."
"... At first I had simply typed a one word post: Israel but then thought, "what about Saudi Arabia?", then thought, "Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up", then thought, "but Israel would get some-one else to do their dirty work". ..."
"... This is classic USA Gulf of Tonkin, Remember the Maine, WMD, Yellow Cake stuff.... ..."
"... The US threat to bring Iranian oil sales to zero is a act of war, if they were successful, [unlikely] Iran's population would starve and die in their millions, just as in Yemen. ..."
Bolton's big moment 'the gulf of oman incident' will not work. It is a transperant attempt to
stitch up Iran by insinuating that the Houtis did this to stop any deal between Iran and
trump which Abe is trying to put together.
They cannot implicate Iran so they will fit up Yemen and then say "Iran encouraged them
Mommy".
Abe will be pissed because Japan needs continuing access to Iran's hydrocarbons and Bolton
isn't smart enough to gain their complicity beforehand.
I was just about to post the same "One word" and then spotted your post.
At first I had simply typed a one word post: Israel
but then thought, "what about Saudi Arabia?",
then thought, "Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to
step up",
then thought, "but Israel would get some-one else to do their dirty work".
The One we know for sure didn't do it is: Iran.
The One group we have been witnessing attacking multiple countries will have their media
shout in unison: Iran.
Iran and the Yemeni rebels both follow branches of the Shia sect of Islam but Tehran has
always denied providing more than moral support to the rebels.
That's like saying that Northern Irish Catholics and Protestants both follow
Christianity.
The home secretary, Sajid Javid, has revealed he has signed a request for Julian Assange to
be extradited to the US where he faces charges of computer hacking.
Speaking on the Today Programme on Thursday, Javid said: "He's rightly behind bars.
There's an extradition request from the US that is before the courts tomorrow but yesterday
I signed the extradition order and certified it and that will be going in front of the
courts tomorrow."
I always thought that Tory ministers were a bunch of sniveling little shits, and they've
just proved me right. Don't think it was just Sajid David who made this decision, it was
the entire cabinet including Theresa May .
The next time someone farts on about how oppressed the media is in Russia just remember
the different outcomes (so far) for Ivan Golunov and Julian Assange. The Russians don't need
disinformation operations to discredit western government and institutions, they only have to
stand aside and let those western governments and institutions do it themselves.
This report:
Zerohedge
claims that one of the ships is Japanese owned.
The manager of one of the tankers, the Panama-flagged, Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous,
which had been carrying a cargo of methanol from Saudi Arabia to Singapore, said the vessel
had been damaged as the result of "a suspected attack," though the manager added that the
ship's cargo was secure.
"The hull has been breached above the water line on the starboard side," Bernhard
Schulte GmbH & Co KG said in a statement on its website.
Ironic - it makes direct Iranian involvement pretty unlikely
"Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have to step up"
Pulease. Every now and then I get the urge to edit the internet and today is one of those
days. Hope you don't mind.
"Saudi Arabia and Israel are both known for their incompetence and some-one else would have
to step up"
Israel depends for its continued existence on a couple of hundred highly capable pilots
some of whom might be American contractors, the rest of the IDF and Mossad are worth less
than jack shit.
The UAE is slightly less incompetent than Saudi Arabia or Israel, so why not them. The UAE
is part of the anti-Iran coalition of the morons and does have frontage on the Gulf of Oman,
so that gives them motive and opportunity. As for means, there are reports the more severely
damaged one was hit by a torpedo, and the UAE does have a navy with helicopters.
This has dual US/Israeli citizen John Bolton's fingerprints all over it, especially with the
rumors of his potential ouster soon forcing him to ramp up his push for an attack on Iran.
False flag attempt for sure. The real question is whether the world sees through it.
@3 "then thought, 'Saudi Arabia is known for their incompetence and some-one else would have
to step up',"
Well, heck, there are signs of incompetence here. One of the ships caught fire and will, in all likelihood, sink.
The other, apparently, has not caught fire. That second ship is therefore going to be studied verrrrrry carefully.
If it took a torpedo hit then the damage will be below the waterline and the hull plates
will be bent inwards.
If it is sabotage then the damage is more likely to be above the waterline and the hull
plates will be bent outwards.
It is unlikely to be Iran if the damage indicates the latter rather than the
former.
@11 The Q "This has dual US/Israeli citizen John Bolton's fingerprints all over it,"
I have two comments on that.
1) Is Bolton an Israeli citizen? I've heard it repeated many times, without ever once
having it confirmed by anything other than the rumour-mill. He is the wrong religion, for one
thing.
2) According to the NYTimes (aka the paper of record) "On a visit to the U.A.E. about two
weeks ago, John Bolton, President Trump's national security adviser, said ".... I don't really give a s**t what Bolton has to say, since it is almost certain to be a
falsehood."
But he was chin-wagging with UAE officials "about" two weeks ago, which is more than
enough time to gin up a false-flag operation.
From the zerohedge article: "Another tanker, Norwegian-owned and Marshall Islands-flagged
Front Altair, sent a distress signal to the UAE port of Fujairah. It had loaded an oil
shipment in Abu Dhabi not long before the incident. The ship was reportedly hit with three
explosions. Officials said it appeared the ships had been attacked with torpedoes."
@18 b The key will be where the damage is: above the waterline, or below the waterline.
If Iran specifically targeted those two ships then we can rule out mines, unless it is
limpet-mines attached while the ships were in harbour. But these ships were underway, which
tends to make that unlikely, and were from different harbours, which makes it even more
unlikely.
Torpedoes from a midget-submarine are still a possibility, but by definition the damage
would be below the waterline. And the Iranian midget-subs have only two torpedoes, which
means some mighty fine shootin'
Any indication of damage above the waterline would tend to rule out Iranian involvement.
Certainly would rule out anti-ship missiles or shelling. And Iranian sabotage would mean they
circumvented security in both the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which is doubly-difficult.
But a false-flag? That's another matter, as the UAE and the Saudis can both be in on it.
Damage below the waterline could be Iran, or a competent false-flag.
Damage above the waterline suggests an incompetent false-flag.
The US threat to bring Iranian oil sales to zero is a act of war, if they were
successful, [unlikely] Iran's population would starve and die in their millions, just as in
Yemen. In those circumstances Iran does have the right to say 'if we can't sell oil, our
putative enemies Saudi Arabia, UAE et al will not be allowed to either. In those
circumstances the Iranians should quietly arm any group wishing the Saudis harm, the Saudis
are a bunch of US ass licking scumbags who deserve everything coming to them.
I copied and pasted this very interesting comment below which was found on the Iranian News
site 'Press TV'.
"The 'Rumours from the Dark Web team' (a Russian based group recently shut down on youtube
and delisted on google) are reporting that prior to this incident they have heard chatter
that there was more 'UUV activity in area than usual' (a UUV is an unmanned underwater
vehicle / drone which can be used for exploration, spying, or for combat).
The team also mentioned that UUV's from various nations (including arms and drug smugglers)
had been regularly entering and leaving the area under cover of hiding beneath tankers or
sometimes actually attached to tankers.
Chatter suggests that a UUV or weaponised drone or smugglers drone of some description
exploded or was taken out by another UUV or drone outside the Persian Gulf.
The team stressed that 'this incident occurred outside of the Persian Gulf for a specific
reason' (not given).
The team also reminded people that several tankers had previously been armed with ATGM's of
soviet era type for potential use in a planned false flag attack against a US warship, but
they had already been taken out of service to prevent this (is this the previous tanker
incident involving mines?).
The team suggested that it was possible that these tankers were again pre-emptively hit by a
state actor to prevent another false flag involving them, or to simply destroy advanced
Iranian or Saudi missiles and arms on route to Yemen or Syria.
The full report is not out yet but there is no mention on the Dark Web of Iran being
responsible for this yet."
Don't rule out the MEK assistance in something like this. The MEK was formerly ruled a
terrorist organization by the US. As soon as the US started using Jihadists (i. e. al-quada
branches) to continue its battle against the government of Assad, the MEK were reclassified
as a non-terrorist organization. I remember hearing reports about members of MEK trying to
buy the sae fast boats used by the IRG.
"Naphtha" can be of various levels of volatility - from lighter fluid to more or less raw
gasoline. Withal it is lighter than water, more or less. Methanol (CH3OH) is the simplest
alcohol. It too is lighter than water.
It does not seem that tanker with either fluid can sink. They can burn quite well,
however.
Tankers are notoriously difficult to sink. Modern tankers are double bottom double hull,
generally speaking. Yes indeed, a supertanker (these just now are small tankers not
supertankers, but the facts are similar), can probably "take" three torpedoes and not sink,
especially if loaded with fluid lighter than seawater.
The attacks seem to have been by flying objects, not torps.
The result is going to be something like escorts and vastly high insurance costs...jus'fer
starters...
Walter , Jun 13, 2019 9:02:36 AM |
38Walter , Jun 13, 2019 9:09:40 AM |
39
Assumption about plates bending in or out due to torps is not valid. Torps can detonate under
ship, or inside it, or on contact. The under ship detonation breaks the ship in half. This
was a big deal in 1940...
Thank-you for helping Trump with his dirty work! Honestly, do you think your article helps
Iran in any way???
Do you have concrete proof? NO. Iran threatened many things in the past it never followed
through on. Why don't you just apply for a job with Trump Ministry of Propaganda digging for
dubious dirt Trump can tweet and act on?
Why didn't you just write that Iran has a right to defend itself? Why do you put
statements in bold? How about putting up a billboard instead?
Speaking of billboard: The keyword here is "petrochemical". In quotes too!
Followed by your smoking torpedo:
Now we can apply the keyword Khamenei used today to these sentences:
What lying-ass Trump is doing is an ACT OF WAR. He is trying to destroy a sovereign
nation!
U.S. President Trump tries to move Iran towards negotiations with him.
REALLY? You call an ACT OF WAR ne go tia tions ? Is cutting off a critical industry
negotiation or mafia strongarm???
Then you follow up with: Even while Iran rejects negotiations with the U.S.
Good Trump wants to negotiate--baaad Iran doesn't.
Yeah-yeah you couched this hit-job in a couple of understated phrases like someone else
might have initiated it and Iran has no interest in disturbing current diplomacy .
But boy, you sure went out of your way to try to disprove it!
If Trump cut off Russia's oil industry, would you be so quick to provide him with
unsubstantiated proof in bold of acts that could be JUSTIFIED even though TOTALLY UNPROVEN
who committed them? Never mind, Russia wouldn't bother picking up the crew of whatever
vessels it would blow sky high in retaliation AND NEITHER WOULD TRUMP,
Commander-in-crime!
Yeah, you allude that it could be a false flag after you torpedo'd it in bold
lettering!
Wow! Still carrying Emperor Trump's water here, I see. There is NOTHING redeeming in this
tool expose, or the update that is merely a twist of the knife. Neocon Bolton is grinning all
his yellow teeth under his bushy mustache: he couldn't have laid it out better himself!
Hired!
So, what's next: yellow cake and aluminum tubes?
Such a gift at the service of Trump deception and destruction for total domination. I'm
appalled. All this misguided effort to whitewash Trump that could be directed at Sanders who
is trying to expose the Regime Change that Zionists had a hand in in Brazil.
Not a bad word about Trump in all this. Trump tries to negotiate...Is that what you call
what he's doing? I call what he's doing casus belli, on second thought, this piece might be
the casus belli Trump needs to carry out his plan for Iran in the next 4-year installment of
high crimes. Ugh.
"The Iranian Search and Rescue ship Naji picked up the 44 crews members of both ships
and brought them to Bandar-E Jash."
Therefore, the potential witnesses are in Iranian custody, and can be interrogated at
Iran's leisure. One wonders if Iran's accusers will tone down the rhetoric whilst the crew
remain in Skripal-type custody, and whether Iran will delay their release until Iranian
authorities and medical experts are confidant that their health is A-OK?
b's argument for suspecting Iran involvement makes some sense because USA can just sit
back and let sanctions take their toll, strangling Iran's economy and destabilizing the
country.
Recall the oil sanctions against Japan in the 1040's. Ultimately, Japan attacked Pearl
Harbor.
HOWEVER , USA+allies have a very real and pressing reason to ramp up tensions in
the region: Idlib .
The war in Syria is NOT over. The Idlib occupation is strategic, not tactical (as are the
other occupations in Syria). And a US response to the tanker attack might well be to show its
strength elsewhere: Idlib.
If I'm right we will see some dramatic developments in Syria in the coming days.
I'm not ready to say Iran did it, but will say that,
1) Iran has every right to hinder as much as possible the exports of KSA and UAE, since
they are the second biggest instigators (after Israel) of hostility towards Iran.
2) If Abe is acting as Trump's pawn and not an honest mediator, then to hell with him. And
it wouldn't be crazy for Iran to let him know they are completely unimpressed with his false
mediation.
3) It would really be ironic if the world has suffered so much false flag fatigue that the
very few times something isn't a false flag, the intended audience assumes that it is.
That said, I do not believe Iran did this. I do think it is a false flag and the authors
of it are too tone deaf to realize people don't trust them anymore.
I agree that USA/Trump is not really interested in negotiation but only in the appearance
of seeking peace.
b's belief that "... Trump tries to move Iran towards negotiations with him"
doesn't adequately express the reality: USA/Trump offers to negotiate with 'no preconditions'
after previously establishing the conditions required to force Iran's surrender (the oil
embargo). Naturally, Iran's most important "pre-condition" for talks is for USA to release
it's hostage (the Iranian economy).
Forgot to add to my comment in 50, that it would be extremely easy for UAE and KSA to
sabotage their own ships, since they would only have to pass through their own security, not
penetrate someone else's. And they are exactly the types who would want to implicate Iran and
also the ones to dumb to realize false flags aren't automatically believed anymore.
Japan's PM is in Tehran for talks. This is by itself unusual. Then two tankers ultimately
owned by Japan are attacked in the Gulf. Very unusual.
Bad timing wouldn't begin to describe this if Iran was to blame. They normally are quite
cautious with international relations, especially with countries they are trying to woo away
from ther US.
Just this would point to a false flag in my book.
But what else hit the news cycle in the last 24 hours? Britain relishes in its poodle status
as it signs extradition order for Assange. Should be big news, but who cares about press
freedom when we've got "a new Middle eastern war?"
What else? Turkish observation posts in Idlib come under attack and they reportedly call the
coordinates in to the Russians to bomb them. Again, should be tectonic news, but "war war
war!".
There is simply a snowball's chance in Trump's asscrack that Iran attacked those tankers.
Trump/Bolton/whatever_moron has now created a situation where US proxies (plus anybody
depending on oil from the Strait of Hormuz) urgently need an agreement with Iran, whilst an
isolationist US do not need this.
US proxies will now have to bribe Trump to have him step down from the brink or jump the
fence.
In other news Houthis have taken positions in Saudi's Najran and bombed a Saudi
airport.
I agree with those that have pointed out that attacking Japanese vessels while talking with
the Japanese PM is nonsensical. Any country that does such a thing is acting against their
own interest.
If Iran wants to "send a message", it's likely that they can do so without shooting
themselves in the foot.
The attack pressures Iran, but IMO it ALSO offers an excuse for USA to stall/stop the
SAA+Russia attack on Idlib by claiming to confront Iranian proxies.
Yeah. The first attacks seemed too minor to be a "message" but are a great backdrop (for
propaganda purposes) to the attacks today which nonsensically occur while meeting with the
Japanese PM.
For those who still look in occasionally on what is happening with Nord Stream II, the
Americans are still blustering about killing it with new sanctions targeted against
pipelaying vessels and those who finance them, insure them, and so on. Its typical
dog-in-the-manger pressure is applied with a view to supplying Europe itself, with 'freedom
gas'. That, of course, is not using energy as a weapon – just so we're clear. It's
trying to force Europe to buy higher-priced American gas by using economics as a weapon.
Anyway, Germany is getting pretty fed up with it. Mutti Merkel has let the Americans know
that they are not going to be able to stop the project. She has let it be known that the
project already has European approval 'in principle', and that she is aware this is all about
Ukraine and forcing Russia to continue gas transit through it and supplement its budget with
transit fees. Germany's Ambassador to the United States, Emily Haber, has allegedly been even
more pointed than that.
"In particular, according to Bild, the German Ambassador to the United States, Emily
Haber, has sent a letter to the US Congress urging them to stop threatening Russian companies
PJSC NOVATEK and PJSC Gazprom, operating in Germany, with new sanctions. In her words, such
actions jeopardize the energy security of Germany and of the entire European Union.
In her letter, Emily Haber points out that since countries of the European Union have
adopted amendments to the Gas Directive, the issue of blocking the construction of the Nord
Stream-2 gas pipeline is closed for Europe: "All countries that criticized the Nord Stream-2
approved this document " . Given the situation, the German diplomat described any further
steps that Washington might take in order to hinder the development of the project as
counterproductive and potentially threatening the energy security of the EU."
Gosh; that reminds me – Chinese tariffs on American LNG more than doubled a couple
of weeks ago. As of June 1st, the tariff went from 10% to 25%. Not having much of an effect,
though – Chinese imports of American LNG have only dropped from 1.4 million tons during
the first 4 months of last year to .3 million tons over the same period this year. The
unclaimed LNG must be sold on the open market, and that drives the price down. Price has a
direct effect on American production, and if it goes too low production must be reined
in.
You're doing a great job, Mr. Trump – keep it up! Make America great again!
"... The demand for renewable energy and storage technologies will far exceed the reserves for cobalt, lithium and nickel. In the case of cobalt, of which 58 per cent is currently mined in the DR of Congo, it has helped fuel a conflict that has blighted the lives of millions, led to the contamination of air, water and soil, and left the mining area as one of the top 10 most polluted places in the world. ..."
"... According to a recent report from the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (via Charged), plug-in vehicles displaced 323 million gallons of gasoline in the US in 2018. That's still a mere drop in the gas can: it amounts to 0.25% of all gasoline used in the US in that year (another dose of reality: the increasing popularity of trucks and SUVs has more than wiped out all the emissions reductions from EVs). ..."
My attention was caught yesterday by a press release from the UK's Natural History
Museum, authored by a group of British geoscientists:
The letter explains that to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to
produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the
entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world's lithium production and at
least half of the world's copper production.
A friend alerted me to a piece by Asad Rehman of War on Want, provocatively entitled The
'green new deal' supported by Ocasio-Cortez and Corbyn is just a new form of colonialism
which makes the point:
The demand for renewable energy and storage technologies will far exceed the reserves
for cobalt, lithium and nickel. In the case of cobalt, of which 58 per cent is currently
mined in the DR of Congo, it has helped fuel a conflict that has blighted the lives of
millions, led to the contamination of air, water and soil, and left the mining area as one
of the top 10 most polluted places in the world.
In a sense hybrid cars are more promising as they have much smaller battery and as such
consume less rare elements per car.
It looks like the current stress on "pure" EV is really unhealthy and unscientific.
You are right in your belief that people will not want to change their lifestyles, but they
will, there will be no choice and soon they will mostly forgot how it was in the past.
2050 will be a very different world than the present, and 2080 will again be a very different
world.
Specific societal projections into the future beyond about 10 years are pure fantasy and
should be ignored.
Some major physical changes are underway on this planet which will change everything. Those
should not be ignored.
There's an enormous amount of lithium out there – far more than the proven reserves
of the USGS, which were never, ever intended to be used for this kind of long-term planning
exercise. But it doesn't really matter.
There are many, many different chemistries for making batteries. Lead, aluminum, sulfur,
iron the list is almost as long as the periodic table. Lithium has a little higher energy
density than most, but they'd all work, in a pinch.
For instance, there was a company recently developing an advanced lead battery that was at
least twice as energy dense as convention lead-acid and half the cost, but it couldn't quite
compete with the li-ion juggernaut, and it went out of business.
Think VHS vs Beta. Beta was better, but VHS was a bit cheaper and better marketed, and got
to economies of scale before Beta. Both worked.
Think Laserdisc vs Blueray. Laserdisc was a bit larger, and it didn't quite compete with
DVD and Blueray. But it worked just fine.
The one really critical point that Tesla bashers are VERY careful to avoid is that Tesla's
market cap at the lowest point a few days back was still roughly eighty percent of Ford's and
not much less than that, about sixty five percent ( mental arithmetic in both cases) of GM .
and that Tesla manufactures only a tiny percentage of the volume of these two old line
companies. FOR NOW, lol.
Folks who bought GM years ago haven't seen any stock price appreciation worth writing home
about it. Ditto Ford.
Tesla even in the dumps is a big winner for long term investors.
According to a recent report from the DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable
Energy (via Charged), plug-in vehicles displaced 323 million gallons of gasoline in the US
in 2018. That's still a mere drop in the gas can: it amounts to 0.25% of all gasoline used
in the US in that year (another dose of reality: the increasing popularity of trucks and
SUVs has more than wiped out all the emissions reductions from EVs).
However, the trend of falling demand for gas is gathering speed. The amount of gasoline
displaced was about 42% higher in 2018 than in 2017, and about double the amount in 2016.
Furthermore, the share of pure electric vehicles is growing. Gasoline displacement from
pure EVs versus plug-in hybrids was evenly split in 2012 and 2013, but in 2018, EVs
accounted for two thirds of the displacement.
As gas consumption begins to fall, electricity consumption is rising. Another DOE report
shows that the amount of energy consumed by plug-in vehicles in the US has nearly doubled
in the last two years, from 1.44 terawatt hours in 2016 to 2.85 TWh in 2018. Here we also
see the trend toward pure EVs – in 2018, pure EVs accounted for 61% of electricity
consumption from plug-in vehicles, while plug-in hybrids accounted for 39%.
This is a typical Trump. He understands that "protection of Germany" is a profitable "protection racket" for the USA, but still lies.
Notable quotes:
"... U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction companies involved in the pipeline's construction. ..."
U.S. president reiterates threats over Nord Stream 2 project
Russia says efforts to block pipeline amount to 'blackmail'
'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on Pipeline,' says Trump 'Germany Is Making a Tremendous Mistake by Relying on
Pipeline,' says Trump Close Share
Donald Trump upped his criticism of Germany on
Wednesday as he threatened sanctions over Angela Merkel's continued support for a gas pipeline from Russia and warned that he could
shift troops away from the NATO ally over its defense spending.
Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said he's looking at sanctions to block the
project he's warned would leave Berlin "captive" to Moscow. The U.S. also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany.
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of dollars in money from Germany" for its gas,
Trump told reporters at the White House during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda.
The comments were the latest sign of how U.S.-German ties have eroded in recent years. The U.S. president has repeatedly rebuked
Merkel's government over the pipeline project, trade policies and defense spending. Germany, in turn, has criticized Trump's moves
to abandon international agreements, including on climate change and Iran.
Though he didn't say which companies or governments could potentially face sanctions, Trump's comments about the pipeline generated
a swift response from Moscow, which said the American president was engaging in "nothing other than blackmail and a form of unfair
competition," according to Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov.
Merkel and Trump met most recently last week during anniversary celebrations of the 1944 D-Day invasion. That gathering came days
after the EU's longest-serving leader took Trump to task at a commencement address at Harvard University, urging students to "tear
down walls" and not to treat "lies as truth." Without naming the U.S. leader, Merkel left little doubt as to whom she might mean
to a crowd who cheered her on.
U.S. opposition to the gas pipeline is bipartisan, out of concern that Russia could use its supplies of natural gas to exert pressure
on Western European nations dependent on the fuel. U.S. lawmakers also fear that with an added northern pipeline for its gas, Russia
could more easily cut off fuel to Ukraine, which is now a key transit country to Europe.
"Germany is making a tremendous mistake" by relying on the pipeline from Russia, Trump said during a joint news conference with
Duda.
Regardless of the political controversy, the Nord Stream 2 project has
faced delays and may not be ready to transport gas until the second half of 2020, according to a report made public by Denmark's
Energy Agency.
Nord Stream 2 organizers argue a new pipeline is needed to guarantee supplies will continue to flow in the coming decades as EU
domestic reserves shrink and import needs rise. Opponents of the project say it hurts the bloc's cohesion and weakens its Energy
Union strategy aimed at integrating the region's gas and power markets, diversifying energy supplies and improving security.
Uniper SE, Engie SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, OMV AG and BASF SE's Wintershall are European partners of Russia's Gazprom PJSC in
financing the project to expand Nord Stream by 55 billion cubic meters a year. Russia supplies a third of Europe's gas and has no
plans to give up its share to the expanding list of competitors from Norway to the U.S.
Trump, speaking during the news conference Wednesday, said that Poland signed a contract to purchase an additional $8 billion
of liquefied natural gas from U.S. companies, on top of $25 billion already under contract.
Trump said he'll meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Group of 20 summit in Japan at the end of the month, though
its not clear the pipeline project will be on their agenda.
2016 data. Source: Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry said during a visit to Ukraine in May that he expected Congress to prepare legislation to sanction
companies involved in the pipeline's construction.
Senators Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, and Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, have drafted a bill that would target U.S.
sanctions at vessels laying the pipeline and deny U.S. visas to executives from companies linked to the ships. The legislation would
also block transactions in U.S.-based property or interests belonging to those individuals and would penalize entities that provide
insurance to the project.
In the latest sign of Trump's frustration over German defense spending, the president said he's discussed sending as many as 2,000
more U.S. troops to Poland -- and might take them from Germany since he believes Berlin isn't spending enough on defense as a partner
in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are more than 30,000 U.S. troops in Germany.
Under an agreement reached during the Obama administration, NATO members committed to spending 2% of GDP on defense by the mid-2020s,
a level only seven
nations were estimated to have reached in 2018.
"Germany's at 1%, they should be at 2%," Trump said. According to NATO documents, spent about 1.2 percent of GDP on defense in
2018.
The U.S. already has a few thousand troops in Poland as part of its role in NATO. Trump's move, if carried out, would add to that,
but it wasn't clear if the forces would be permanently based there or just rotated through.
-- With assistance by Daryna Krasnolutska, Nick Wadhams, Daniel Flatley, Stepan Kravchenko, Ewa Krukowska, and Vanessa Dezem
"... The Wall Street Journal today has an article about how sources of funding have dried up for frackers. ..."
"... LTO is going to have to slow down with low prices and less access to capital. North Dakota drilling in at least the past 8 months is going to lose money. Getting mid-$40s at best and in December much worse in the initial flow burst is no bueno. Even if hedged, it's still an overall economic loser with operators having no positive free cash flow. ..."
"... Cash for additional drilling *has* to come from investors or lenders. That gets choked off, theres no money to pay the up front capital and labor costs of new wells. ..."
The Wall Street Journal today has an article about how sources of funding have dried up for
frackers.
I'm not sure substitution will kill oil prices. And while I know peak oil will happen,
putting a date on it doesn't much matter to me.
What most interests me is when investors, lenders, and execs at oil companies decide
having their money tied up in petroleum just doesn't make financial sense and it is time to
bail.
LTO is going to have to slow down with low prices and less access to capital. North Dakota
drilling in at least the past 8 months is going to lose money. Getting mid-$40s at best and
in December much worse in the initial flow burst is no bueno. Even if hedged, it's still an
overall economic loser with operators having no positive free cash flow.
Cash for additional
drilling *has* to come from investors or lenders. That gets choked off, theres no money to
pay the up front capital and labor costs of new wells.
According to Mark Papa in Q4 2018 presentation EOG did not see any possibility to increase
oil production as they need 75 usd / bbl WTI. They priority to pay depth , interest and
dividend to their investors.
If the vreak even price WTI average shale oil is 65 usd today ,
I doubt this will be reduced the next 3-5 years as the rock formation will have reduced
production Quality, the max. latitude lenght and number each drill pad might be reach, now I
read gaz is injected to stimulat production the impact of this remain to see.
Higher labour
cost , increase cost of funding as oil & Gaz is already less popular because of
environmental issues. Than there is some increase offshore activity, and onshore drilling in
Europe.
But even the oil majours want cheeper wells and service work it will not be any
cheaper because all need profit to grow a healthy Buisiness. In the mean time about 15% of
the oil produced are replaced adding 6-7% decline rate to that and at least 1% growth in
demand even with trade war it seems clear the world need significant more oil that is
profittable to develop to a cost consumers around the globe , mostely poor in development
Country can afford to buy and during time there need to be less energy made from fosil fuel.
I saved the Rystad article that has US at 12.5 now, and 13.4 by the end of the year. I will
revisit it from time to time. It's classic BS to the point of being really funny. Like
"Little shop of Horrors" (the original, not the 1986 remake) the really bad SF movie.
I mean, really. We were at 11.9 the end of March per EIA monthlies. With no substantial
increase in completions and drops in active rigs, we have increased 600k in two months???
Then in the last half of 2019, we are going to increase another 900k per day, when prices are
less than $55 now? Well, if your going to lie, tell a big one. My Venus flytrap ate my
homework :-)
In 2018 World C+C average output was about 82.84 Mb/d, so my "best guess" (which could
indeed be incorrect) scenario sees an increase of 4.46 Mb/d from 2018 to 2026.
Okay, that ain't all that unreasonable except except you have C+C production in 2019
increasing by 1,449 over the average of 2018. February 2019 World C+C production was
82,389,000 barrels per day. Your 2019 average is 1,901,000 barrels per day above that figure.
Dennis, that just ain't gonna happen.
OPEC + Russia + Canada accounts for 55% of the World's oil production. These 14
OPEC nations plus Canada plus Russia averaged 47,849,000 barrels per day in 2018. Their
average for the first four months of 2019 was exactly 46,000,000 barrels per day or 1,848,000
barrels per day below their 2018 average. Their April output was 2,352,000 barrels per day
below their 2019 average.
If World C+C is higher in 2019 than in 2018, who will make up this huge difference. US
Shale?
Canada still has lots of potential, their tars sands are just declining because of low oil
prices.
I believe that the Aberta Tar Sands are pretty much "guaranteed" (much less risk compared
to drilling for nothing) as long as the price is right. They are definitely there.
I am sure that statement will be destroyed by oil professionals (which I am not). But
RockMtnGuy from Oil Drum who used to work on them I think, said pretty much the same
thing.
Isn't the answer the difference will be made up by drawing from storage until the price gets
high enough to bring more production on? $120 barrel is going to get offshore fired back up
and maybe even Venezuela.
No, there is just not that much storage. A nation can draw from storage for only a couple of
months until they run out of storage. That is unless they have a tremendous amount of
storage. Not many nations have that much storage. 120$ a barrel? You're dreaming. Perhaps in
a decade or so.
What role do the giant oil fields play? As I write in my book "When trucks stop running:
the average size of new oil fields has declined, leaving us heavily dependent on the
original giant oil fields discovered many decades ago.
Of the roughly 47,500 oil fields in the world, 507 of them, about one percent, are
giant oil fields holding nearly two-thirds of all the oil that has ever been, or ever
will be produced, with the largest 100 giants, the "elephants," providing nearly half of all
oil today
Since giant oil fields dominate oil production, the rate they decline at is a good
predictor of future world oil production. In 2005, they provided 60 % of world oil. Giant
fields only begin to decline after a long plateau phase where production
fluctuates within a 4 % range. In 2007, the 261 giants past their plateau phase were
declining at an average rate of 6 % a year. Their decline rate will continue to increase by
0.15 % a year, to 6.15, 6.3, 6.45 % and so on. By 2030 these giants, and the other giants
joining them as time goes on, will be declining at an average rate of over 9 % a year
Since nongiant oil fields decline at much higher rates, especially offshore and tight
oil, by 2030, the average decline rate of all oil fields past their peak production
will be higher than 9 percent.
by 2030, from half to two-thirds of global crude oil production will need to be replaced --
40 to 50 Mb/d of today's 77.8 Mb/d
Making up this shortfall will be difficult, since four out of five barrels now
come from fields found before 1973 and the majority of them are declining.
So far, Enhanced oil recovery in giant fields has increased the decline rate after peak
production, because oil extracted now is unavailable after the peak, making the decline rate
steeper. For example, Cantarell in Mexico, the second largest oil field ever found,
declined at 20 % rates due to the EOR used to increase the maximum rate of production
Aleklett, K., et al. 2012. Peeking at peak oil. Berlin: Springer.
Hook, M., et al. 2009. Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world
oil production. Energy Policy 37(6):2262–2272.
Murphy, D.J., et al. 2011. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic
growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219: 52–72.
Thanks Alice, that was very informative. That is why I believe the decline curve will be much
steeper than the ascension curve. Individual fields, of course, reach their peak production
in only a few years and their decline could take many years. But I am speaking of all the
world's production combined. I think the decline curve will shock most people.
I once made a large poster about this 1978 Rand study. Had become interested in resource
studies years earlier and occasionally lectured at ZPG and elsewhere. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2284.html
That's very informative, Alice. Very rough estimation from that, is that if shale were able
to eke out another 600k increase a year, for a year or two, it could not possibly keep up
with current decline rates in the bigger fields. Especially, when that shale increase is not
going to start in 2019. World will be down, and add on another year of decline. 2018 will be
looking more like peak year.
This poster has been considering post peak for, obviously, years. Kudos, this stuff is
good! http://energyskeptic.com/
First of all, oil field geography (not geology) can be changed. So that can be one source of
corruption in whatever number you want to quote for field production.
Second of all, choke management can also corrupt whatever number you want to quote for
field production.
And how about third of all you can change the definition of oil and call all sorts of
liquids coming up the well bore "oil" regardless of API density and corrupt whatever number
you want to quote for field production. Executives are paid for production, agencies collect
taxes for production, royalty recipients are paid regardless of profit, so who is it that
would oppose manufacturing any number for production you want to quote? Lenders? The Fed is
providing nearly 0% interest rates. Why would lenders care? Maybe refineries would care, but
you can probably cut them in.
So you can pretty much put numbers and conclusions about flow to bed.
I do think that geological depletion isn't the only factor that could knock it up to
6%.
Very little oil has been explored for and found in the past 5 years, plus add on another
10 years to develop what's discovered
As the contribution declines from the Giants more will have to be provided by the other
50,000 fields that have much higher decline rates. Onshore may be 3.5%, but a lot of new oil
is offshore with a much higher decline rate, perhaps higher than it needs to be. I've heard
that oil is left offshore due to the haste in building these rigs to pay investors off as
quickly as possible.
Since diesel is all that matters in keeping civilization alive, and U.S. shale oil is only
good for plastics, we depend on heavy oil producers like venezuela, mexico, Iran, and
canadian tar sands which are all problematic
I'm not so sure there are a lot of good places to drill. A quarter of remaining oil is in
the arctic and can't be obtained because of ice bergs, nor is it likely fields will be
developed on land in Alaska due to the challenges of permafrost.
A financial crash stops or slows much of the exploration and production. Potentially for a
long time, since unlike in the Great Depression, we won't have fossils to recover with as we
did back then.
Oil is a global commodity today, but will it be when production declines? If not, that
will accelerate the decline rate for nation's that can't get oil (i.e. the export land model
of Jeffrey Brown).
Though we'll be just fine, I'm sure most nations will be keen to send us diesel in
exchange for U.S. fracked plastic.
This is only true to an extent. Because refineries we're designed over the years to process
heavier oils than LTO the ones that exist have trouble handling all the light stuff. And the
light stuff has less of the distillates needed for diesel. However, they don't produce no
diesel at all, and refineries can be modified/upgraded to produce diesel from pretty much
whatever oil you want, for a cost.
What products you get out from the refinery is a function of both what oil you put into it
and what refinery you have. There is some diesel in LTO but not as high as conventional oil.
Getting a higher share diesel requires a complex refinery (and is costly). It currently makes
more sense for refineries to blend with medium and heavy oil.
Oil demand has over time shifted to higher API oil. LTO is too high but perhaps not that
bad. I think the main issue is that supply of LTO has increased very fast and demand was not
as responsive due to lack of investments in US refineries and export capacity.
In addition to what Jeff said, LTO is just that Light Tight Oil. Light implies short
polymers. Gasoline has (ideally) 8 carbon atoms, kerosene 12 to 15 and diesel 16, or mostly
around 16. So you can see that in very light oil, only a tiny fraction would have polymers
that long.
In petroleum molecules, the carbon atoms are all in a string. That's why they call them
polymer strings.
"... This is classic overproduction based on time-preference mis-coordinating the use of capital due to artificially-low interest rates. It has nothing to do with a normally functioning market. ..."
All of President Trump's foreign policy can be summed up by two
themes,
making the world safe for Israel and controlling the price of energy.
He calls the latter "Energy Dominance."
And to those who still believe Trump has a
plan, these two things are the only ones consistently in evidence.
His reactions to things contrary to his plan, however, are purely limbic.
These two themes converge completely with Iran.
Trump wants Iran neutered to force
Jared Kushner's
now-delayed
again
, "Deal of the Century" onto the Palestinians while also taking Iran's oil off the market to
support surging U.S. domestic production in the hopes of taking market share permanently.
Everything Trump does is in support of these two themes while throwing some red meat at his base
over China, Mexico and the border.
It was never his intention to leave Syria back in December, really. Look how easy was it for John
Bolton and the Joint Chiefs to convince him to stay because how else would we cut Iran's exports to
zero if we didn't stop the land route through Iraq?
This is why we're still harboring ISIS cells in the desert crossing around Al-Tanf at the
Jordan/Iraq/Syria border, to stop Iranian oil from coming into the country.
This feeds right into hurting all of Syria's allies to strengthen Israel's position.
To paraphrase the song from Aladdin, "It's stupid, but hey, it's home."
If the average Trump voter truly understood the lengths we are going to starve the Syrian army from
having enough energy to finish wiping out the Al-Qaeda-linked groups in Idlib and Homs provinces they
would burn their MAGA hats and stay home next November.
But they don't so Trump's approval rating keeps climbing.
On the other hand, people mostly understand exactly what the "Bay of Fat Pigs" operation in
Venezuela was all about, protecting domestic oil production and getting control of Venezuela's.
The sad truth is that many Americans consider this comeuppance for being stupid enough to elect
Nicolas Maduro President.
But this is the guts of Trump's "Energy Dominance" policy. Use tariffs, sanctions, threats and
hybrid warfare to destroy the competition and therefore MAGA.
It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
And the irony is that the whole plan is predicated on sustainable and nigh-exponential growth of
U.S. domestic production.
There's only one problem with that. It's completely unsustainable.
The greatness of the U.S. production story is evident if you only look at the number of barrels
produced. But that story turns into a nightmare the minute you look one inch deeper to see what the
cost of those barrels are and what profit, if any, they produce.
Heading into 2019, the industry promised to stake out a renewed focus on capital discipline and
shareholder returns. But that vow is now in danger of becoming yet another in a long line of unmet
goals.
"Another quarter, another gusher of red ink," the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis, along with the Sightline Institute, wrote in a joint report on the first quarter earnings
of the shale industry.
The report studied 29 North American shale companies and found a combined $2.5 billion in
negative free cash flow in the first quarter. That was a deterioration from the $2.1 billion in
negative cash flow from the fourth quarter of 2018. "
This dismal cash flow performance came
despite a 16 percent quarter-over-quarter decline in capital expenditures," the report's authors
concluded.
You can't hide a lack of profitability forever with financial engineering folks. Even Elon Musk is
beginning to figure this out. And, once that reaches critical mass, to quote one of my favorite
philosophers, The Tick, "Gravity is a harsh mistress."
What was that old joke?
"So if we're selling dollars for ninety-cents how do we make money?"
"Volume."
If that doesn't sum up where we are today in the energy space I don't know what does.
All of this is a product of the Fed's ridiculous zero-bound interest rate policy allowing
energy drillers to issue obscene amounts of low-quality shares and lower-quality debt packaged in such
a way to yield the magic 7.5% most pension funds need to maintain their defined benefit payouts
without going broke.
This cycle is only partially derailed by the Fed raising rates a couple of points to 2.75%.
All Trump cares about is getting a 4% GDP print before next year's election to prove his critics
wrong. This is why he wants the Fed to lower rates.
It will keep the shale boom going pumping massive amounts of oil which we can't ship to the
coasts to sell to people who don't want it.
And even if all of the new pipeline capacity alleviates the internal glut that doesn't mean there's
a market for more of it. Remember, shale produces ultra light sweet crude which most refiners have to
blend with heavier feedstock so there really is an upper limit as to how much of this stuff the market
wants.
The current and persistent discount of West Texas to Brent, which is still over $9 per barrel is a
measure of this since most oil is priced in relation to Brent, even heavy sour grades like Russian
Urals,
which
we're importing more of to feed domestic refineries
strapped for stock now that we've embargoes
Venezuelan oil.
Rystad puts it into context, noting that the most productive gas facility in the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico – Shell's Mars-Ursa complex – produces about 260 to 270 MMcfd of gross natural gas.
In
other words, the most productive gas project in the Gulf of Mexico only produces about 40 percent
of the volume of gas that is being flared and vented in West Texas and New Mexico every single day.
Given this situation I think we've reached that part of the story where someone just let a really
big one rip and no one is willing to acknowledge it.
Dood Natural Gas is Awesome!
This is classic overproduction based on time-preference mis-coordinating the use of capital
due to artificially-low interest rates. It has nothing to do with a normally functioning market.
But this situation can go on a lot longer thanks to the realities outside of the U.S. shale
industry.
When the Fed finally does lower interest rates it won't be to save the energy producers in North
Dakota. It will be to save the banking system from a dollar liquidity shock that will implode Europe.
The market's reaction to Friday's horrific jobs report was pure front-running that rate cut
mixed with
safe-haven
behavior knowing that the global growth story is dead.
The U.S. yield curve imploded another 6 basis points. Gold popped to a 2019 high, the Dow put in a
major reversal and the euro rallied after a massive run-up in euro-bonds before the New York open
reversed some of that.
And there's Trump demanding lower oil prices on Twitter which is just feeding the problems of the
shale drillers already underwater. Rock meet hard place.
Dollars for eight-five cents? MOAR volume!
So Trump has gotten what he wants but not for the reasons he wants it. With growth dying thanks, in
part, to his random acts of financial terror, oil prices are now in free fall.
I identified the signals for
my Patrons in a Market
Report on May 26th
, noting a back-to-back-to-back set of reversals I deemed "
hugely
bearish.
" Sometimes, it's just that easy. More often than not the market is telling you
what you need to know, if you would only turn off the spin-machines and read the tape.
But the sad truth is that once the Fed lowers rates the drillers will be encouraged to go
back to the credit well one more time because there will be even more demand for their crappy paper.
In a yield-starved world everyone is trying to stave off the day of reckoning for as long as possible.
And right now, U.S. pension managers are a shale drillers' best friend. And so is an ECB trapped
like an egg in a vice between a faltering German economy and political system undermining what's left
of growth across Europe.
But not a U.S. President intent on creating a world few want and fewer benefit from while wasting a
precious energy by the cubic shit load for a couple hundred thousand votes more than a year from now.
Ignored says: 05/07/2019 at 5:04
pm Attached are the changing monthly STEO projections for February, March and April for the
lower 48 production. Today's projection, April, has added 230 kb/d day by year end 2019 to the
March projection and close to 300 kb/d in 2020. The April projection also shows an increase of
960 kb/d from Dec 18 to Dec 19. For Dec 19 to Dec 20, the increase is only 420 kb/d, less than
half of the 18 to 19 increase. Any speculation/ideas for the lower increase for 19 to 20. The G
of M drops by 70 kb/d from Dec 19 to Dec 20.
You notice that the April 19 STEO has the lowest production numbers for Jan. Feb. and
April 2019 but the highest numbers as they move into the second half of 2019 and all of
2020.
I don't know what to make of this except that I find it rather amusing.
I found it insulting to my intelligence (not an exceptionally difficult task), but now that
you mention it, I can imagine some Lewis Carroll feel to it.
"... Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing , just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk. ..."
Trump's eunuchs are still guarding and serving their master I see. And
their master is a psychopath who is getting ready to pardon the tough guy kind of psychopath
he admires. Of course the Orange psychopath doesn't consider the fact that this kind of thing
, just like the Iraqi prison tortures , incentivizes the commission of war crimes by our
opponents and allies, and in doing so puts US service members at greater risk.
Here's Trump's hero ..
"One day, from his sniper nest, Chief Gallagher shot a girl in a flower-print hijab who
was walking w/ other girls on the riverbank. She dropped, clutching her stomach, & the
other girls dragged her away."
A mass murderer according to Senior Seals: "Would order needless risks, to fire rockets at
houses for no apparent reason. He routinely parked an armored truck on a Tigris River bridge
& emptied the truck's heavy machine gun into neighborhoods on twith no discernible
targets."
"Platoon members said he spent much of his time in a hidden perch with a sniper rifle,
firing three or four times as often as other platoon snipers. They said he boasted about the
number of people he had killed, including women."
Two other snipers said, the chief shot an unarmed man in a white robe with a wispy white
beard. They said the man fell, a red blotch spreading on his back."
Gallagher ordered a hatchet & a hunting knife" before 2017 deployment. He texted the
man who made them (a Navy Seal veteran) shortly after arriving in Iraq: "I'll try and dig
that knife or hatchet on someone's skull!"
May 2017, a SEAL medic was treating a wounded 15 y/o Islamic State fighter. "He's mine,"
Gallagher said. "Gallagher walked up without a word and stabbed the wounded teenager several
times in the neck and once in the chest with his hunting knife, killing him."
He didn't even try to hide the murder of the 15 y/o. He brought other seals around minutes
later & took a photo over the body. Later, he texted the photo to a fellow SEAL in
California: "Good story behind this, got him with my hunting knife." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/us/navy-seals-crimes-of-war.html
Now Trumpies bear in mind that Gallagher's own fellow Seals testified against him
that's how depraved this guy Trump is pardoning is.
Here's Gallagher if you live in a stand your ground state and run into him shoot the
bastard, he'll have his hunting knife on him so you can claim self defense.
A full-fledged war with Tehran will tank the US economy because the fighting will
immediately make the price of oil skyrocket, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader warned. US
leaders will not go to war against Tehran if they care for the economic wellbeing of their
country, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, aide and adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei,
told Fars News Agency.
The first bullet fired in the Persian Gulf will push the oil prices well above $100. It
will be unbearable for the US and Europe, as well as American allies like Japan and South
Korea.
Safavi, who has led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the past, stated that
Washington prefers to wage "economic and psychological war" against the nation. The US
knows there will be "significant costs" should a full-fledged conflict erupt, he
said.
The Pentagon had earlier announced plans to deploy marines and Patriot air defense missile
systems to join an aircraft carrier strike group operating near the Persian Gulf. Officials in
Tehran have been downplaying the military buildup by the US near its borders but vowed to
strike back if attacked.
Last month, Iran partially suspended its commitments under the 2015 deal on its nuclear
programs, known as the JCPOA. The step followed several rounds of sanctions reimposed on Iran
by the US which withdrew from the agreement a year ago.
Posted on
May 30, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I don't know
enough about the structure of the Iranian economy to assess whether oil export revenue is as
critical as this article suggests. Iran clearly needs foreign currency (exports) to buy imports
like pharmaceuticals and any critical materials and products they don't produce domestically
like chips.
I was under the impression that Iran had become pretty autarchical due to having been under
sanctions for so long. But it may still have enough import dependence to prevent it from simply
net spending. If the sanctions have indeed meaningfully reduced domestic productive capacity,
"printing" would produce inflation pronto. The Western press says yes. However an academic who
visited the country in the last year (but before the latest round) said they didn't see any
signs of distress during several weeks there when he went about freely (and this individual
spends most of his time in developing economies).
It's hard to predict what will happen in the oil market as the U.S. sanctions on Iran
tighten. For now, it looks like India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will hold off from buying
Iranian oil. These countries -- with China -- had been the main sources of Iran's foreign
exchange. It is unlikely -- at the present time -- that India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey
will break the U.S. siege on Iran. They have made it clear that they do not want to rattle the
U.S. cage. Request for new waivers from the U.S. came to naught. India's government had said
that it would reassess the purchases of cheap Iranian oil after the elections. It is likely
that India will restart some buys, but certainly not enough to prevent economic collapse in
Iran.
As the May deadline for the U.S. sanctions loomed, these countries bought vast amounts of
oil from Iran to create their own buffer stocks. Revenues from the export of oil reached $50
billion for the Iranian financial year of 2018-19 (ending March 20). The oil sector contributed
to 70 percent of Iran's exports. This income is essential for running Iran's government and
paying its 4.6 million employees. The cost of the government is roughly $24 billion. With the
collapse of sales to India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, Iran will have a very difficult time
raising revenues to maintain its economy. The National Development Fund and the hard currency
reserves have already begun to be depleted, with dollar holdings now in the tens of
billions.
New Silk Road
Tehran has long been hoped that China would continue to buy Iranian oil and prevent the
meltdown of Iran's economy and its government. There are two reasons why China would want to
ignore U.S. sanctions and continue to buy Iranian oil. The first has to do with the fact that
Iran's oil is cheap and of a quality that Chinese refiners prefer. The second has to do with
Iran's crucial location along the line of China's Belt and Road as well as its String of Pearls
initiatives. Chaos in Iran or a government in Tehran that is pliant to the United States would
be unacceptable to Beijing. Roads, trains and pipelines -- the infrastructure of the Belt and
Road Initiative -- are to run from the Chinese territory through Central Asia into Iran and
then outward toward West Asia and -- via Turkey -- into Europe. Iran's centrality to this
project should not be underestimated.
In the first few months of 2019, China bought about half of Iran's crude oil exports. It has
become a crucial pillar for Iran, whose diplomats say quite openly that if China no longer buys
Iran's oil or invests in Iran, the problems for the country will be grave. Massive oil buys
from China in the weeks leading to the end of the U.S. waivers are, however, no indication of
the continuation of this relationship. Chinese oil companies put in large orders to stockpile
oil in anticipation of the cuts. Oil analysts suggest that the two major Chinese oil importers
-- China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)
have not put in any buys since the U.S. waivers expired.
Why China Is Not Buying Iranian Oil
China -- the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil -- continues to buy oil from the United
States -- the world's fastest-growing producer of oil. These two countries are locked in a
trade war, with tariffs rising on a raft of products from steel to soybeans. China has not
placed any tariffs on U.S. crude oil imports, but it has reduced its purchases of U.S. oil by
80 percent. Despite China's withdrawal from the U.S. oil market, it has not closed the door on
future purchases. Meanwhile, China has increased its oil purchases from Saudi Arabia by 43
percent in April. There is every indication that China will continue to increase its buys from
the kingdom during the course of this year -- to substitute for Iranian oil and, perhaps, for
U.S. oil. China has also been slowly increasing its natural gas imports from Australia, a
tendency that is expected to rise.
New surveillance technology of tankers, low oil prices and more constraints on settling
bills have made it difficult to smuggle oil out of Iran. Last year, smuggled oil out of Iran
totaled a minuscule 0.3 million barrels per day. This is not enough to compensate for the oil
purchases stopped by East and South Asian countries. U.S. sanctions, in this climate, have made
tanker owners and insurers skittish about carrying Iranian oil.
Chinese firms are susceptible to this pressure. Nonetheless, the Liberian-flagged tanker
Pacific Bravo is said to have loaded Iranian oil after the expiry of the waiver and is
making its way to China. As of this writing, the tanker is off the coast of Sri Lanka. When it
arrives in China and offloads its cargo, how will the U.S. respond?
Iran-Iraq-Syria
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was in Baghdad on May 26. He met with Iraq's
Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Hakim, who said that Iraq's government does not believe that the
"economic blockade" -- namely the U.S. sanctions -- was good for the region. "We stand with
Iran in its position," Hakim said.
Earlier in May, Iraq's Oil Minister Thamer Gadhba said that his country would continue to
buy Iran's natural gas -- essential for Iraq's electricity grid. This was despite U.S. pressure
to cut natural gas purchases from Iran and to substitute this through a $14 billion deal with
U.S. energy firms (including General Electric). Indications show that Iraq will not bend to
U.S. pressure at this time. Nor will Iraq block Iranian oil from going to Syria by truck -- an
energy source that is essential to Syria.
China's Shield
U.S. troops continue to arrive in the Gulf region, threatening Iran. Zarif and al-Hakim
jointly said that this is a dangerous development. Pressure on Iran increases daily.
China has made it clear that it could buy Iranian oil if it can pay in yuan or euros, but it
does not want to make Iran part of its dispute with the United States. The appetite to bring
Iran onto the bargaining table with the United States does not exist in Beijing. Nor is Beijing
willing to provide Iran with a protective shield.
But there are pressures on China not to ignore its own interests in the region. China built
a large port in Gwadar, Pakistan, which was intended to circumvent the long transit of goods
(and oil) from the Gulf through the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea. But there are
tensions here, as Baloch Liberation Army attacks mount on Chinese targets. One hundred and
fifty kilometers west of Gwadar is the Iranian port of Chabahar, developed with Indian
assistance. The United States -- at a request from the Afghan government -- has turned the
other way to continued Indian involvement in that port, which includes transportation lines to
the Afghan border through Iran. Iran has signaled that it would be interested in giving China a
role in this port if India begins to drift away.
China has increased its engagement in West Asia, but not to the point of getting sucked into
a conflict that it sees as unfortunate. What this means is that Iran cannot rely fully on
China. And yet, China is the only antidote to the U.S. suffocation of Iran.
Global oil production is high, as are oil inventories. Oil prices, consequently, are low and
will likely be lowered by reduced global demand. Projected low oil prices should raise more
alarms in Tehran, since Iranian external revenues will decline and so too will its importance
to Chinese importers. The only reason for China to throw a shield around Iran is to protect the
Belt and Road Initiative. Not for the oil.
I've no insights into the internal economy of Iran, but i would have assumed that the
victory in Syria will take a lot of pressure off – its support for Assad cost Iran many
billions in foreign currency which it can now hopefully wind down, especially as it looks
like the Chinese and Qatari's will step up in providing recovery aid for Syria.
Another potential major source of revenue is Qatar, which is of course still in conflict
with its Gulf neighbours. Qatar shares its vast off-shore gas reserves with Iran with a
variety of secret protocols. It would hardly be a surprise if it turned out much of the gas
they sell is in fact Iranian. The Saudis are dependent on Qatari gas for their electricity
supply, so they could well be inadvertently providing funding for Iran.
But the biggest problem for Iran is surely consistent low oil prices and the fact that
their main customers have built up very large stockpiles. Also, low prices for Irans other
exports, such as plastics, fertilisers, copper and aluminium can't be helping. I believe
climate change might also be impacting on their long term prospects for exporting
agricultural produce, especially nuts and fruit. Iran future may be as dependent on avoiding
drought as it is on rising oil prices.
Yes, sorry, my mistake, out of date information – KSA used to get natural gas from
the South Pars field in Qatar prior to the LNG boom, but is seemingly now self sufficient for
electricity generation. I was getting my pipelines mixed up.
I wonder whether the aggressive stance against Iran has more to do with blocking the Silk
Road Initiative rather than just Iran herself and Iran's oil. Probably Xi Jinping feels this
and will support Iran, in agreement with Prashad's statement in this sense. I also believe
that some EU leaders share this view. Given the importance of Iran this migth result in an
acceleration of the development of swift independent payment systems. We will see.
Xi knows the Silk Road importance, and Obama's forgotten Pivot to Asia wasn't a feel good
initiative.
I think US foreign policy types are hold deeply racist convictions. Iran is still the
target because Iran dumped our man In Tehran. How dare those little people reject a US
approved choice? Combined with an expat crowd of SAVAK every bit as deluded as the Cubans who
came after the fall of Batista who have it on "good authority" they are about to be returned
to power I mean democracy is about to flourish, the usual thugs in Washington have what they
need to rant and rave.
As a counter narrative, the problem is Iran is another country I wouldn't normally worry
about. I don't have a monthly premium I send to Iran or went to Iran's for school when I was
a kid. Naturally only the SAVAK narrative gets pushed. Like anything, my guess is this is a
bit of a last hurrah. 1979 was so long ago.
I think part of the justification for a hardline on Iran is indeed to block the Silk Road
initiative, but its a clumsy and stupid one if that's the case. You could argue that a more
open Iran, trading freely with Europe and the US on its own terms would be much more cautious
about being used as a transit hub for China. But Iran really has very little choice now but
to make itself indispensable to China.
From what I understand from the business media, it seems the US really is taking a hard
line on the EU's attempt to bypass the Swift system and most European companies are
reluctantly falling in line with the sanctions. The EU may be given no choice but to accept
the sanctions or overtly challenge them at every level – the latter being unlikely as
it would need a unanimity and toughness the EU rarely shows, especially when it comes to the
US.
Interesting how this fits in or contrasts with the recent (and remarkably well written)
article on What does it Mean to Live in a Multi Polar World? We May Be About to Find
Out. It's clear from China's behavior as described in this present article that the
United States still has considerable and, given how much it's been abused, remarkable clout.
One can justifiably be boggled that the United States' indiscriminate weaponization of
economic sanctions hasn't already exerted a devastating price internationally for US
credibility that Trump – setting the world ablaze merely to distract his base and keep
the virtually insane thugs in his administration happy – could care less about.
Regardless that Trump is merrily squandering (more blatantly but hardly having a monopoly
over recent US Presidents) any residual US credibility in unilateral power being a beneficial
force, the suggestion that "Even the historic tendency to focus on state power should be
questioned in this moment," from the Multi Polar article, is well couched as a
question rather than an assertion.
It seems inconceivable that Trump is aware of it, but his self serving conflagrational
antics if they don't set off a major military conflict that could easily spread out of
control, may be beneficial in the long run, but we're not there yet.
Mention of Russia and it's reaction is unfortunately missing from the article (or I missed
it).
Yes, Trump looks not aware of much which doesn't fall within his narrow set of
interests.Regarding Russia, what I've heard is that it has an ambivalent position. In one
side Russia fears the US but in the other side migth somehow fear the increasing power of
China. Regarding oil they won't protest high prices if this is a consequence of US politics,
but Russia economically depends on Europe so they should be interested on diversification.
And Russia's leadership hate climate change initiatives of course. Just to make things
clearer hahahahahahah
Actually, the points you raise are exactly what would have been interesting to at least
touch on in this article.
Re Russia, I suppose this article is more about oil consuming nations than oil producing
ones, but since US hegemony and the apparent lack of push back is so intrinsic to the
discussion, it would have been helpful to include some mention of Russia.
Also, as I look at it, my point that the US as a nation state still has clout can be
turned on it's head and align more with the question mark raised in the Muilti Polar article
if one argues that the US instigated conflict with Iran stems more from perceived interests
of the oil and fossil fuel industries and that Washington or more specifically puppet Trump,
fickle as he is, is simply going along to get along and trying at the same time to use it for
his own ends as much as possible.
I've been reading up on the natgas angle (Iran uses its big natgas supply mostly
domestically, but this is related)
Pakistan seems willing to block the Iran connection for now – the unfinished Peace
pipeline (natgas) is an indicator.
Also in natgas, Asian spot prices collapsed in the past year to the $4 range due to both
LNG and pipeline supply racing ahead of demand (import terminals, power plants), and also
Japan in the process of reactivating its nuke electric. Asian NG was around $10 when the gold
rush started, post Fukushima. This is also part of the story.
At the same time, much seaborne LNG import capacity is being built in SE asia (Japan a big
player in development apparently), due in mid 2020s. Together with Chinese and other NG
plants being built to displace oil, this is supposed to drive prices to recover and probably
overshoot in 4 years or so.
For now, the economic pressure on gas importers is unusually low, and pressure on gas
exporters is higher. The US is still basically neutral in net import/export, which is the
best way to be. It is not good for Iran, since their natgas export will not be developed
until this market phase passes. It does make it harder for US energy exports to work as
leverage over importers in general (China, India, Pak.).
I think this author is too influenced by the power of money and neglects the power of
nationalism and justice. Hardship brings people together in a delightful way, a shared burden
and a real sense of "we are all in this together" – the sense that Cameron tried and
failed to activate in UK because society had been destroyed by Thatcher. The Iranian people
are strengthened by sanctions. I expect Chinese energy purchases will increase when the
railway connection is perfected and shipments are no longer exposed to maritime attack by
pirates or governments.
I was glad to see this author characterise the sanctions as a blockade. We need to be
straightforward in our terminology and Ron Paul was right to give them their proper name
– blockade is an act of war, placing warships off another country's commercial ports to
prevent trade in and out. Lat's be frank about that.
Why is the Baluchi Liberation Army focused on attacking China? How does that enhance the
prospects of independence for Baluchistan? There has been nothing on this in the western
press to my knowledge. It sounds like cover for a gang of crooks. Can anyone help?
Neocon hawks are destroying US economics very effectively by supersizing military expenses and the costs of foreign wars.
Essentially Trump administration is acting in Israeli and Saudi interests in this case
Notable quotes:
"... Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different. The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. ..."
"... Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect. This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives to nod in agreement. ..."
"... Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of the administration's goals and means. ..."
"... Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless. ..."
"... Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian people. ..."
"... Of course this statement is not for Iran, it is for the U.S. public to make the case for 'we tried' when in actuality, 'we lied'. ..."
Pompeo
made a statement about talks with Iran that is much less meaningful than it seems:
The United States is prepared to engage with Iran without pre-conditions about its nuclear program but needs to see the country
behaving like "a normal nation", U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday.
Iran dismissed the offer as "word-play".
Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different.
The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what
Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing
to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. The report continues:
"We are certainly prepared to have that conversation when the Iranians can prove that they want to behave like a normal nation,"
he told a joint news conference with his Swiss counterpart Ignazio Cassis.
Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect.
This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives
to nod in agreement.
The Iranian government's dismissive response is to be expected. For one thing, the distrust between Washington and Tehran is
immense, so Iran's government is bound to view any offer with suspicion. The Iranian government has already explained what the U.S.
has to do if they want to talk about anything, and the administration has no intention of doing any of those things. As far as Iran
is concerned, their nuclear program isn't up for discussion, so what would be the point of meeting with U.S. officials when the
administration remains committed to its outrageous policy of economic warfare and collective punishment?
Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that
the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of
the administration's goals and means.
Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine
and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as
the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless
because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless.
There is an understandable temptation to seize on comments from administration officials as proof that they are giving up on
a destructive and fruitless policy, but until the administration translates its rhetorical gestures into actions we should assume
that the policy remains unchanged.
Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran
have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against
the Iranian people.
The exodus of qualified State Department careerists can't be plugged by promoting the likes of
Brian Hook.
Western corporate mass media is cherry-picking what China has said: "Restrictions
imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran have been fully implemented in the HKSAR under the
United Nations Sanctions [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – Iran] Regulation
[Chapter 537BV of the Laws of Hong Kong]."
"Woohoo! China's on our side! They are backing US sanctions!" -gullible American
mass media consumer
Fake western "journalists" leave out the very next three sentences: "However, the UN
Security Council has not imposed any restrictions on the export of petroleum from Iran.
Certain countries may impose unilateral sanctions against certain places on the basis of
their own considerations. Those sanctions are outside the scope of the UN Security Council
sanctions implemented by the HKSAR."
In other words, "Go f#$k yourselves, you exceptional fools!" , though of
course the Chinese are too polite to say that outright.
"... The shipments to Cuba and Russia and possibly a few others just aren't enough. Remember that Venezuela's population in 1989 was 19.3 million while today it is 32.7 million. And back then that nation didn't have to cope with smothering economic sanctions of every kind along with the physical attacks and sabotage of infrastructure. ..."
"... I believe Russia buys oil from Venezuela. US refiners then buy oil from Russia to replace the Venezuelan oil. ..."
Venezuela oil exports seem to be imploding. Headline:
Venezuela Oil Exports Slump to a 28-Year Low
By Lucia Kassai January 2, 2019
More recent:
Shipping data shows that imports of fuel and diluents necessary to make Venezuela's extra
heavy crude refinable have dropped to 86,000 b/d in the first part of May from 225,000 b/d
for April. Fuel rationing is being overseen by the military as shortages begin to bite
deeper. As local crude oil production continues to fall, and refineries operate much below
capacity, the lines at gas stations outside of the capital are now miles long.
The shipments to Cuba and Russia and possibly a few others just aren't enough. Remember
that Venezuela's population in 1989 was 19.3 million while today it is 32.7 million. And back
then that nation didn't have to cope with smothering economic sanctions of every kind along
with the physical attacks and sabotage of infrastructure.
... and a worthwhile analysis of the causes of the Venezuelan economic collapse (including
a lot of analysis of their oil export industry) from Francisco Rodriguez who Mark Weisbrot
(from the 40k deaths report with Jeffrey Sachs) says knows more about the Venezuelan economy
than anyone in the world (although he is a critic of Chavez and Maduro).
This is similar to renaming "French fries" to "freedom fries" after 9/11. You can't overestimate stupidity of government
bureaucrats. They now exceeded the USSR level.
"... They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing when the need/opportunity will arise. ..."
"... Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying. ..."
"... Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… ..."
"... American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at the slightest “offence” to their worldview. ..."
If Daenerys Targaryen had announced her desire to use her last dragon to torch Moscow and
Saint Petersburg, the Neocons would have lionized her as the womanly exemplar of democracy
and wise foreign policy that produces peace and justice for all.
Neocons are very much the evil they call us to battle.
I had to rub my eyes with incredulity when I read that.
If Russia wants to weaken Ukraine, why did it ever build a pipeline through it in the first
place? Russia didn't stop using the Ukraine pipeline intially for political reasons. It was
because Ukraine was stealing gas meant for pass-through to other European countries and it
wasn't paying its bills. Don't pay your utility bills and see what happens.
Russia does not want to "control" Germany with Nord Stream, it wants to make money. And
Germany wants cheap gas. Strictly business.
And how can Russia control Germany with Nord Stream when it knows that the first time it
shuts off gas for political reasons would be the last. Because Russia knows that Germany will
find alternative suppliers and never come back. The Russians ain't stupid.
Russia wants bilateral trade with Europe without the Global Cop Gorilla perpetually in the
background arrogant calling the shots.
The final reconciliation of Europe and Russia should have occurred 25 years but didn't
because the ham-fisted United States threw up the fear-monger barriers. And that was because
its National Security States wants an existential "enemy" to justify its massive costs.
The sooner Europe ejects the U.S. War Machine from its territories the better. Better for
Europe, better for Russia and better for the American taxpayers.
I am with SteveM here. And I was shocked to see MarkVA’s comment. Mark has proved to
be a respectable commentator, especially on Rod’s Blog, with very astute and sensible
observations. It seems that tribalism is clouding his judgment when observing the world outside
the U.S.
It is well known that the Soviets and the Russians always keep their end of the bargain and
they know if they don’t do so they will end up loosing and being vilified. Whereas the
U.S. always breaks its agreements, it is not thrust worthy (not agreement capable). Imagine
depending on such an economic partner?!
They will be the ones to blackmail Europe and Germany if Europe becomes dependent on LNG
from the U.S. So everything U.S. administrations are yelling at others is just projection, one
knows immediately that it is in fact what the U.S. is doing under the veil or will be doing
when the need/opportunity will arise.
Trump is not an aberration, it is just how the U.S. always behaved, but now it is in the
open, for all to see, the crassness and the bullying.
Germany is the linchpin of the world and the U.S. (and others) is becoming hysterical at
the possibility of not keeping the Germans down any longer… And Germany is moving
ahead. It just sacrificed West Bank, and declared the BDS movement illegal as a soap to
Israelis, to burnish its credentials with those blackmailers, so that it will become free to
re-orient its politics and strategic configuration as it needs and wants.
fabian, May 23, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Gas? Where is the problem? Russian gas is cheaper that’s it. Furthermore, there is
another pipeline that’s going to bring gas from the Mediterranean to Europe and another
from Qatar.
And if all else fails and Russia flexes its muscles (which ones by the way) do you think
that the over-indebted America will not sell its gas to the Germans?
And yes, it’s not a good strategy to be too dependent on America. It quickly takes the
goods away when its interests are at stake.
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:14 pm
@MarkVA
>>The Nord Stream I and II gas pipe lines (aka Molotov-Ribbentrop Gas Lines), a
Gazprom initiative, has everything to do with weakening Ukraine and increasing German energy
dependence on Russia;
How could NS increase German energy dependence on Russia? It will be the very same gas which
at the moment flows through the Ukraine.
Surely, NS would decrease anybody’s dependence from the Ukraine. So what?
Tiktaalik, May 24, 2019 at 5:18 pm
@MarkVA
>>Oh, and some lesser European countries were partitioned by the important European
countries. So yes, Europe was quite busy spreading joy and happiness all around:
It’s a bit rich when it’s coming from an American. You’re still in
Plymouth, right?
Kouros, May 24, 2019 at 11:35 pm
@MarkVA (May 23, 2019 at 8:12 pm )
That was a hit with the posting on Ukraine…
To bad it wasn’t accompanied by the Recognition of the US administration that the
Golan Heights, taken from Syria by Israel after a war, against all worlds dictum, now belongs
to Israel.
At least in Crimea, which by administrative fiat was moved within USSR from Russia to
Ukraine in the 1950s, there was a referendum.
And for me, US is Devil Incarnate since it put a target of nuclear missiles on my mother
country. May the curse of a 1000 hells be upon it.
Josep, May 25, 2019 at 5:05 am
Reading sites like Russia Insider gave me the notion that Germany would be better off as
allies with Russia than with the USA. After all, Russia and Germany:
* are on the metric system
* have languages that use grammatical gender
* share the same 220-volt “Schuko” power plugs and sockets
* implement Civil Law, and most importantly
* aren’t separated by a whole ocean.
American Jewish intellectuals have really jumped the shark since the Iraq War. The most
outlandish, slandering statements are stuffed into their essays and they trash whole peoples at
the slightest “offence” to their worldview.
There are strong anti-German currents in American culture and politics, going back to at
least WW1 and also manifest today (no other treaty ally is treated with such dismissive
hostility by the Trump administration as Germany). But they are regarded as completely normal
and rarely get critical attention, whereas German anti-Americanism is treated as a pathology or
some kind of sacrilege…the German-American relationship (calling it
“friendship” is a lie) is profoundly asymmetrical.
Agreed in both counts. The casual anti-white racism thrown about by the likes of such people
(let’s not forget Davids Medienkritik, Little Green Footballs, Grouchy Old Cripple and
Dissident Frogman) is a lot scarier than any jumpscare I’ve encountered. And in the case of
German_reader’s comment, It’d be interesting to consider how Trump reconciles his
hostility towards Germany with his own German heritage.
At one point in the Iraq War, the German news outlet Der Spiegel had readers rate their
opinion of president Bush on their website on a scale of 1 (most favorable) to, if I recall
correctly, 6 (least favorable). After seeing public opinion of Bush in Germany overwhelmingly
“least favorable”, users of FreeRepublic went to this poll and attempted to
gerrymander the results by selecting “most favorable”, deleting their site cookies,
and repeating so as to make it look like more people in Germany supported Bush than opposed. This
was called “freeping”.
"... No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully. ..."
"... For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable. ..."
"... Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region. ..."
"... As shown in a previous article, "The Return of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight. ..."
"... When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war. ..."
"... I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME. ..."
"... The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity. There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel? ..."
"... However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises. ..."
"... I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they might not. ..."
"... "War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read. As true today as it was back when he wrote it. ..."
"... "The Axis of Sanity" – I like it, I like it! Probably quite closely related to the "reality-based community". ..."
"... "Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets. ..."
"... He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000. ..."
"... Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed. ..."
"... first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies, controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of the seats of power at the 527 person USA. ..."
"... This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push things too far. Karma can be a bitch. ..."
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq.
Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken
chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster
by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is
collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political
defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in
opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly
US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided parliament
called
for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter ."Parliament must clearly
and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker
loyal to the populist cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr
.
Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq "does not
want a new devastating war in the region." He t old a press conference in Moscow this past week, "Iraq is a sovereign
nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory," he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed.
Other MPs called for
a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced
demanding
war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and
somehow failing to find those "weapons of mass destruction."
As Iraq/Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural
gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate
the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided
the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government."
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament
would vote
on a bill compelling the invaders to leave . Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament's
national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country's two biggest parliamentary factions -- the Sairoon bloc,
led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri --
supported the bill. Strangely, Saturday's result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess
as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of
the American bully: Iraq's own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious
demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both
also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi
elections, is similar to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various
Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other
countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good
reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton
can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia,
with protests increasing and indicating
a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned
economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring
the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow .
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries.
Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he
shot down his first-
and last – Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently
he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This
is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments.
Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the
far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia's Gazprom, that runs through Turkey
to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey
. It
will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against
US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey's resolve, saying his country
is preparing for potential American
sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws
near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400's might be put to good use if
America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries
under Russo/Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring
the Russo/Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours
in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next
slaughtered a police station near the western border with
Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Amir Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power
within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence
. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave
refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary
in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of
ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously
when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon.
In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer
military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings
of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line
their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and
Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour
Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon
has not requested a few S-300s of their own. No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis
at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for
its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across
the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The
reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion
threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown
in a previous article, "The Return
of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons
and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the
world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price
of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing
point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US
servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the '20 primary season. If this
is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran's non-military
nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly
increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will
see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due
to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf,
like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy
in tatters.
Trump is already
reportedly
seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo's false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela.
With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton's stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks
in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary
to stoke his shallow character. When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war
with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren
political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
In two
excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are
taking place from Asia
to the Mid-East to the Baltics . Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/Sino pact of economic opportunity
and its intentions of "soft power" collectively spell doom for Zio-America's only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention.
States, Escobar:
"We should know by now that the heart of the 21 st Century Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between
the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and
cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might."
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction
of this new Russo/Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy,
as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to
future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be
sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures
of Israel's making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist
control, well
That just good for business!
About the Author:Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news
agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis
that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL
Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene
((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they
want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute
instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
I believe you are far
too generous in your estimation of his ability to distinguish between flavors of any type. Otherwise, your analysis is insightful
and thorough.
The U.S. is in the same position today that we were aboard Nimitz back in 1980. Too far from Tehran to start a war or even to
find our people. We are perhaps in even a far worse position in that today, Iran holds no hostages. There's nothing so 'noble'
as 44 hostages to inspire war today. This here is merely at the behest of Israel and the deep state profit centers for mere fun
and games and cash and prizes. Iran, overall, is nothing. Obama put Iran away for what, a billion-five? And Jared, Bolton and
Pompeo dredged it all back up again? Care to guess the first-night expense of a shock and awe on Tehran? It's unthinkable.
I used to like Israel. The Haifa-Tel Av-iv-Jerusalem-Galili loop was pretty cool. The PLO hadn't quite started their game,
we could move freely about the country. It's where the whole thing started. And, unlike Italy and Spain, they treated us Americans
ok. They were somewhat war torn. But now? They're a destructive monolith, they're good at hiding it and further, they make disastrous
miscalculations. Eliminating Saddam was huge. Turns out, Saddam was the only sane one. The last vestiges of Saddam's nuclear program
went up in the attacks on the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981. Why did they push for the elimination of Saddam afterwards?
Why the lies? Miscalculation.
This here with Iran won't travel further than threats and horseshit. I hope. Lots of bleating and farting. Someone agrees.
Oil dropped three or four bucks today.
"the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2016 Hezbollah virtually obliterated its ground
attack, heavy amour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon."
I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake
for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing
failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME.
Threatening Iran is now simply grotesque.
Concerning the article. The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity.
There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel?
However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions
on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism
is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual
spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises.
Is the author unaware of the nation of Saudi Arabia and the fact that they are new BFFs with Israel. They have come out quite
openly they'd like to see Iran attacked. That whole Sunni Wahabism vs. Shia thing is a heck of alot older than this current skirmish.
Being that SA has a border w/ the Persian Gulf and that Kuwait who is even CLOSER may be agreeable to be a staging area, why
the hand wringing about this nation & that nation, etc. The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases
followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as
a land bridge, in a pinch.
So will we expect the follow up article discussing this glaring omission, or am I missing some great development re: S.Arabia's
disposition and temperament regarding all this.
The transformed relationship between Russia and Turkey illustrates perfectly the shifting sands of strategic alliances as we cross
the desert towards destiny. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even
covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they
might not.
As for the costs of taking on Iran, while one cannot underestimate the cocksuredness of Uncle to take on Iran with a 2003 "Iraq
will be a cakewalk" attitude, the resulting air war will likely not be as costly to Uncle as the author believes, but the thought
of flag-draped coffins in the thousands will certainly deter a land invasion. If there is any action at all, it will be air interdiction
and missile attack.
It is curious that Uncle has not already resorted to his favorite tactic of declaring a No-Fly zone already but instead merely
hinted that airliner safety cannot be guaranteed; this is likely just another form of sanction since Iran receives money for each
airliner that transits its airspace, and a couple of Uncle's putative allies supply Iran with ATC equipment and services.
Uncle's Navy has already demonstrated a willingness to shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace, so it is no idle threat,
kind of like the mobster looking at a picture of your family and saying, "Nice family you have there; it would be a shame if anything
happened to them."
"War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read.
As true today as it was back when he wrote it.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Stasi " Merkel muss weg " (Merkel must go) is too weak to even think about taking Germanstan into such a foolish adventure.
Maybe the Kosher Kingdom of simpletons, especially under American-born Turkish "Englishman" (((Boris Kemal Bey))), another
psycho like (((Baron Levy's))) Scottish warmonger Blair.
Iraqi MP: US after Turning Ain Al-Assad into Central Airbase in Iraq
FARSNEWS
"Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase
which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets.
He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from
the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000.
Al-Mohammadawi said that Washington does not care about Iraq's opposition to using the country's soil to target the neighboring
states.
In a relevant development on Saturday, media reports said that Washington has plans to set up military bases and increasing
its troops in Iraq, adding the US is currently engaged in expanding its Ain al-Assad military base in al-Anbar province."
The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if
need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated
massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed.
Also minor point, LOL, but Kuwait is a "landbridge" between Saudi Arabia and Iraq Unless you are proposing the US attacks
Iraq (again!) which it would have to do to achieve a "landbridge" to Iran. Another good reason Iraq is acquiring the S-400.
More minor points: 1. South Iraq is ALL shiite. 2. Kuwait is SMALL i.e. a BIG target for thousands of missiles
@Ilyana_Rozumova
your question of responsibility is very intuitive.. two general answers.. both need deep analysis..
first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations
enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated
place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas
distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water
provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies,
controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of
the seats of power at the 527 person USA.
2nd is the impact of the laws that deny competition in a nation sworn to a method of economics (capitalism) that depends on
competition for its success. Another group of massive in size mostly global corporations again owned from Jerusalem, NYC, City
of London, etc. financed at wall street, use rule of law to impose on Americans and many of the people of the world, a blanket
of economic and anti competitive laws and monopoly powers. These monopolist companies benefit from the copyright and patent laws,
which create monopolies from hot thin air. These laws of monopolies coupled to the USA everything is a secret government have
devastated competitive capitalism in America and rendered American Universities high school level teaching but not learning bureaucracies.
Monopolies and state secrets between insider contractors were suppose to deny most of the world from competing; but without
competition ingenuity is lost. Monopoly lordships and state secrets were supposed to make it easy for the monopoly powered corporations
to overpower and deny any and all would be competition; hence they would be the only ones getting rich.. But China's Huawei will
be Linux based and Tin not Aluminium in design, far superior technology to anything these monopoly powered retards have yet developed
especially in the high energy communications technologies (like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics). In other words copyrights,
patents and the US military were suppose to keep the world, and the great ingenuity that once existed in the person of every American,
from competing, but the only people actually forced out of the technology competition were the ingenious, for they were denied
by copyright and patents to compete. Now those in power at the USA will make Americans pay again as the corporations that run
things try to figure out how to catch up to the Chinese and Russian led Eastern world. Modi's election in India is quite interesting
as both China and Russia supported it, yet, Modi says he is going to switch to the USA for copyrighted and patented stuff?
on the issue of continued USA presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, ..
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government." <that's a joke, first off, I never desired to be in Iraq, and I do not desire USA military or American
presence in Iraq, do You? <blatant disregard for the needs of America.. IMO. Bring the troops home. If the USA would only leave
Iraq to the Iraqis and get to work making America competitive again they would once again enjoy a great place in the world. But
one thing i can tell you big giant wall street funded corporations, and reliance on degree credentials instead of job performance,
will never be the reason America is great.
This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most
of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation.
Trump has allowed madmen
Bolton and Pompeo to get this country into an awful mess – all for the sake of Israel and the Zionists.
He needs to find a face-saving
way to get out before Washington gets its long needed comeuppance. But how can Trump accomplish this as long as Bolton, in particular,
continues to be the man who most has his ear? If Titley is correct, then Trump had better start listening to his military leaders
instead.
Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push
things too far. Karma can be a bitch.
"... The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply. ..."
"... This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former. ..."
"... On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons. ..."
As tensions between Iran and the US continue to escalate, analysts have begun to consider the likelihood and consequences of an
Iran war. There has been much talk of an Iran War in recent weeks, but the likelihood of a war, whether intentional or accidental,
is relatively small for the simple reason that the leaders of Iran and the US don't want one. President Donald Trump, who has been
remarkably faithful to his campaign promises, to the chagrin of many, doesn't want another Iraq-like war – with a quick victory
followed by a long defeat. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, doesn't want his revolution and country crushed by the
massive military might of America.
This is not to say there aren't powerful individuals in the Trump administration – such as National Security Advisor John Bolton
and possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – and regional allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) – who want a
war to bring about regime change in Iran, and who are willing to stir the pot in an attempt to make it happen.
Trump's personal preference for Iran may also be regime change, with a negotiated neutering of the Islamic Republic his next best
outcome. But he probably would settle for long-term containment of Iran through his
"maximum pressure"
campaign, accepting that the Iranian regime would likely be able to sustain itself though skirting sanctions.
Iran has made huge geopolitical gains in the Middle East since the US inadvertently pushed Shiite-majority Iraq into the Iranian
sphere of influence by imposing democracy on the country following the 2003 war. Tehran now directly or indirectly controls an arc
of territory north of Saudi Arabia – Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – while supporting Houthi rebels to the south of the kingdom in Yemen.
Although US sanctions on Iran's oil and metal exports are unlikely to bring about regime change, they will make it significantly
more difficult for the Islamic Republic to consolidate its territorial gains and sustain its regional proxy network, as the
government will have to prioritize domestic spending to maintain social stability. Simply put, the sanctions make it more difficult
for Iran to directly challenge its regional enemies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE and score additional foreign policy victories.
Despite an aversion to war with the US, it appears Khamenei has given Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran's powerful Quds Force and
national hero, permission to encourage foreign militias aligned with Tehran to cause mischief for US and allied forces in the Middle
East, and if possible, disrupt the flow of oil from the region through non-attributed actions.
The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past –
Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through
additional disruptions to supply.
This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore
the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former.
US Perspective
Pompeo laid out the Trump administration's rationale and strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic in
"Confronting Iran,"
an article in the November-December 2018 issue of
Foreign Affairs
. He argued the deal the Obama administration and international community struck with Iran in 2015 – the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was fundamentally flawed as it failed to end the country's nuclear weapons ambition. Instead, the deal
simply postponed Iran's nuclear ambitions while the regime continued its ballistic missile program to allow it to deliver a nuclear
payload.
At the same time, the deal gave
"Tehran piles of money, which the supreme leader has used to sponsor all types of terrorism throughout the Middle East (with few
consequences in response) and which have boosted the economic fortunes of a regime that remains bent on exporting its revolution
abroad and imposing it at home."
The core of the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign are economic sanctions designed to
"choke off revenues"
to Iran to force its government to negotiate a
"new deal"
covering its nuclear activities, ballistic missile program and
"malign behaviour"
across the Middle East, while providing sufficient military deterrence to keep Tehran from lashing out at US forces and allies
in the region.
Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, and has since ratcheted up economic sanctions on the Islamic
Republic in August and November of last year, while going the full monty on Iranian crude and condensate exports at the beginning of
May.
On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump
administration's
"no waiver"
oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber
task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to
the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons.
It should be noted that a military buildup of this size would take months, and the 120,000 number is widely viewed as
insufficient for a full-scale invasion of Iran. The Islamic Republic has been planning and building up asymmetric military
capabilities to thwart a US attack since the 1990s, while the country is larger in size and population than Iraq. The US military
plan reported by the New York Times did not call for a land invasion of Iran.
On May 14, Trump denied the New York Times report, but in characteristic fashion appeared to up the ante.
"Now, would I do that? Absolutely,"
Trump said.
"But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we're not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a
lot more troops than that."
But in the Foreign Affairs
article Pompeo wrote that Trump does not want the US to go to war with Iran:
"President Trump does not want another long-term US military engagement in the Middle East -- or in any other region, for that
matter. He has spoken openly about the dreadful consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya."
Iranian Perspective
On May 14, Khamenei explicitly said that Iran does not want to go to war with the US, and suggested the same of America, as a war
would be in neither country's interest.
"There won't be any war,"
he said.
"Neither we nor they seek war. They know it will not be in their interest."
In terms of Iran's current situation, David Petraeus, ex-CIA director and America's former top general in the Middle East,
possibly put it best.
"Certainly, if Iran were to precipitate that [a war], it would be a suicide gesture,"
Petraeus said on May 9.
"It would be very, very foolhardy. And they know that."
The Islamic Republic has done an excellent job of marshaling relatively limited financial and military resources to expand its
influence and control through the Middle East since 2003, but its defense budget of about US$16 billion – or a mere 3.7 percent of
GDP – falls considerably short compared to regional rivals Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE on an individual basis, let alone a
collective one. The military capabilities of the US dwarf those of Iran on every conceivable measure, which should come as no
surprise since America's most recent defense budget is a massive US$686 billion.
Khamenei also said his country has no desire to negotiate with the US, given the Trump administration's extreme demands and
unilateral breaking of the nuclear pact, and suggested the current crisis will likely be a long one, a view supported by Hassan
Rouhani, the democratically elected president of Iran.
"The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance,"
Khamenei said.
Rouhani was even more explicit. Speaking to activists from a wide range of political factions on May 12, he said Iran is facing
"unprecedented"
pressure from US sanctions and suggested economic conditions may become worse than during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.
"The pressures by enemies is a war unprecedented in the history of our Islamic revolution,"
Rouhani said, according to the state news agency IRNA.
"But I do not despair and have great hope for the future and believe that we can move past these difficult conditions provided
that we are united
."
Or maybe it is just one front: I.e. making globalisation difficult for the Chinese :
by pushing non Chinese Asians countries to de-integrate their supply chains with China
and
by cutting its supply of oil though shortages induced by tensions in the Gulf.
The US knows that it can't be the sole superpower anymore any longer, so the strategy is to
reverse globalisation so that no other global superpower (a Russian-Chinese with a dominating
Persia in the Middle East) can emerge.
Far too early to say if the strategy will be successful or not.
As far as I am concerned, the silver linings would be that a long period of oil shortage
could finally be the trigger to switch industrial infrastructure worldwide away from liquid
and gaseous fossils, and that less globalised supply chain would be more robust to shocks,
but if these silver linings were the ultimate goals, I could think of less adversarial ways
to achieve that globally, with less money wasted on the military
The benefits of joint pricing mechanisms are also enormous. Currently, Iran has no choice
because of the sanctions but to sell its oil – including from the shared fields –
at massively reduced pricing that is comprised of its official selling price (OSP) minus the
sanctions discount minus the incremental risk discount. This has resulted in Iran offering
'cost, insurance, and freight' cargoes for 'free on board' pricing, with the difference
between the two covered by Iran. "Under this new agreement, Iranian oil from these shared
fields will be sold based on Iraq's much higher three month moving average OSP pricing for
cargoes, with no discounts at all, and the three month moving average for the effective spot
market that Iraq has created and now controls," said the oil source.
Thanks for the in-depth info. Lots to digest and research.
the US has acted in such bad faith so often in the early stages of conflicts that it's
sensible to wonder how much of this account is accurate. It is very frustrating to be
dealing with an informational hall of mirrors.
It's depressing to say but I when I read anything from domestic official sources or the
media I can't help but think it's mostly lies. Not under the illusion that foreign actors are
all righteous and benevolent, but as you said, our nation's track record with the truth in
these scenarios is pretty tainted at this point. Just as we found out with Saddam and
Qaddafi, these leaders have little reason to poke the dragon, and a lot of reason to build up
defenses.
Interesting observations if true, and they certainly do make sense of a lot of the things
that have been happening.
I see it hasn't dissuaded Trump though, this morning he is reported as doubling down on
his threats to Iran. A big fear now is that Iran does not seem to be in the mood to give
Trump the sort of symbolic 'win' he can use to climb down gracefully (and sack Bolton). The
Saudi's can probably be scared into stepping back, but the Israeli's and the neocons want a
hot war.
Its easy to see this gradually ratchet up step by step into an uncontrolled region wide
conflict.
Not sure what to make of this article but the Anglo-American press is not providing much
context for the recent ratcheting up of confrontation with Iran.
The MSM is mostly stenographers and right leaning pundits. If no one tells them, they
wouldn't know.
Also, the DC elites were pretty irked by Obama's Iran deal. They deferred to Obama and the
Europeans who demanded the deal, but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the
enemies of the American people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to
grips with this.
but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the enemies of the American
people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to grips with this.
Yes, because all pain, real blood and death, misery and horror that they cause in fighting
what they assume putatively are "the American people's enemies" are never suffered by them,
but only everyone else including the American people; all the financial benefits do go to
them so it is all gain and no cost.
Will Lavrov and Wang Yi's guarantees prevent an Israeli nuclear attack on Iranian
facilities, followed by US pledges to fully support Israel's right to self defence?
There are two kinds of weapons in the world offensive and defensive. The latter are
cheaper, a fighter plane compared to a bomber. If a country does not (or cannot afford to)
have offensive intent, it makes sense to focus on defense. It is what Iran has done.
Moreover, its missile centered defense has a modern deadly twist -- the missiles are
precision-guided. As an Iranian general remarked when questioned about the carrier task
force: some years ago it would've been a threat he opined; now it's a target. Iran also has a
large standing army of 350,000 plus a 120,000 strong Revolutionary Guard and Soviet style air
defenses. In 2016 Russia started installation of the S-300 system. It has all kinds of
variants, the most advanced, the S-300 PMU-3 has a range similar to the S-400 if equipped
with 40N6E missiles, which are used also in the S-400. Their range is 400 km, so the Iranian
batteries are virtually S-400s. The wily Putin has kept trump satisfied with the S-300
moniker without short-changing his and China's strategic ally. The latter continuing to buy
Iranian oil.
Iran has friends in Europe also. Angela Merkel in particular has pointed out that Iran has
complied fully with the nuclear provisions of the UN Security Council backed Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action i.e. the Iran nuclear deal. She is mustering the major European
powers. Already alienated with Trump treating them as adversaries rather than friends, they
find Trump's bullying tiresome. President Macron, his poll ratings hitting the lowest, is
hardly likely to engage in Trump's venture. In Britain, Theresa May is barely able to hold on
to her job. In the latest thrust by senior members of her party, she has been asked to name
the day she steps down.
So there we have it. Nobody wants war with Iran. Even Israel, so far without a
post-election government does not want to be rained upon by missiles leaky as its Iron Dome
was against homemade Palestinian rockets. Topping all of this neither Trump nor Secretary of
State Pompeo want war. Trump is as usual trying to bully -- now called maximum pressure --
Iran into submission. It won't. The wild card is National Security Adviser John Bolton. He
wants war. A Gulf of Tonkin type false flag incident, or an Iranian misstep, or some accident
can still set it off. In Iran itself, moderates like current President Hassan Rouhani are
being weakened by Trump's shenanigans. The hard liners might well want to bleed America as
happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't trust those air defenses too much, where have they ever performed well? The scary
part is where Iran assumes that USA can through repeated air strikes wipe out their missiles.
They will from the start find themselves in a "use them or lose them" scenario and may launch
everything as response to even a limited US strike, since they can't know if it is limited or
the beginning of a full scale attack, and I doubt Iran is willing to go down without doing
everything it can to hurt their enemies. (Possibly excluding Israel which is crazy enough to
go nuclear in response).
Yves here. Glenn F sent along this story about recent events in the US-Iran conflict, many of
which don't appear to have been reported in the English language press. Interestingly, the
article takes the position that it is the Saudis that have been doing their best and largely
succeeding in suppressing these reports.
Going into the weekend, it looked as if the US was trying to turn down the Iran threat meter
a notch. Both Iran and the Saudis said they didn't want war but were prepared for one. Then a
mystery rocket landed in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Oopsie.
From the Wall Street Journal:
No major destruction was inflicted by the rocket, which landed near a museum displaying
old planes and caused some damage to a building used by security guards, according to an
official in the interior ministry.
The interior ministry official, who declined to be identified, said the rocket had landed
around a kilometer from the U.S. Embassy inside Baghdad's Green Zone, where many other
diplomatic missions and Iraqi government offices are located.
No group claimed responsibility. But security officials said security forces had found and
seized a mobile rocket launcher in an area of Baghdad where Shiite militias, including some
with close links to Iran, have a presence.
But also note this:
The Trump administration last week ordered a partial evacuation of its diplomatic missions
in Baghdad and Erbil citing increased threats posed by Iran and its allies in Iraq. The Iraqi
government has varying degrees of control over an array of armed groups, some of which are
closely affiliated with Iran.
"If President Trump had ever read Mackinder -- and there's no evidence he did -- one might
assume that he's aiming at a new anti-Eurasia integration pivot centered on the Persian Gulf.
And energy would be at the heart of the pivot.
If Washington were able to control everything, including "Big Prize" Iran, it would be
able to dominate all Asian economies, especially China. Trump even said were that to happen,
"decisions on the GNP of China will be made in Washington."...
...Arguably the key (invisible) takeaway of the meetings this week between Foreign
Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi, and then between Lavrov and Pompeo, is that Moscow made
it quite clear that Iran will be protected by Russia in the event of an American showdown.
Pompeo's body language showed how rattled he was.
What rattled Pomp: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it
small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our
country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,"
Trump may not have read Mackinder but Kissinger sure would have.
"... Upstream spending rose by a modest 4 percent, which only partially repairs the savage cuts following the 2014 bust, which saw upstream spending fall by about 30 percent. However, the IEA said that 2019 could be a bit of a turning point, with a "new wave of conventional projects" in the works. ..."
"... Despite the increase in spending on new oil projects, "today's investment trends are misaligned with where the world appears to be heading," the IEA said. "Notably, approvals of new conventional oil and gas projects fall short of what would be needed to meet continued robust demand growth." ..."
"... Geographically, investment [in solar and wind] is concentrated in rich countries. Roughly 90 percent of total energy investment – both for fossil fuels and for renewable energy – was funneled into high- and upper-middle income regions. Rich countries alone accounted for 40 percent of total energy investment, despite only making up 15 percent of the global population. ..."
Global energy investment "stabilised" at just over $1.8 trillion in 2018, ending three years
of declines.
Higher spending on oil, natural gas and coal was offset by declines in fossil fuel-based
electricity generation and even a dip in renewable energy spending. China was the largest
market for energy investment, even as the U.S. closed the gap.
After the 2014-2016 oil market bust, spending on oil and gas plunged, and only started to
tick up last year. But the oil industry is not returning to its old spending ways. New
investment is increasingly concentrated in short-cycle projects, namely, U.S. shale, "partly
reflecting investor preferences for better managing capital at risk amid uncertainties over the
future direction of the energy system," the IEA wrote in its report.
Upstream spending rose by a modest 4 percent, which only partially repairs the savage
cuts following the 2014 bust, which saw upstream spending fall by about 30 percent. However,
the IEA said that 2019 could be a bit of a turning point, with a "new wave of conventional
projects" in the works.
Despite the increase in spending on new oil projects, "today's investment trends are
misaligned with where the world appears to be heading," the IEA said. "Notably, approvals of
new conventional oil and gas projects fall short of what would be needed to meet continued
robust demand growth."
... ... ...
The good news is that costs continue to fall. Solar PV has seen costs decline by 75 percent
since 2010, and onshore wind and battery storage costs are down by 20 percent and 50 percent,
respectively. As such, a dollar spent on renewables buys a lot more energy than it used to, so
flat investment is not entirely negative. And in a growing number of places, solar and wind are
the cheapest option for power generation – increasingly
cheaper than existing coal plants .
Geographically, investment [in solar and wind] is concentrated in rich countries.
Roughly 90 percent of total energy investment – both for fossil fuels and for renewable
energy – was funneled into high- and upper-middle income regions. Rich countries alone
accounted for 40 percent of total energy investment, despite only making up 15 percent of the
global population.
Nothing, no EV's, solar, wind, coal or uranium is going to help. No tight shale, Arctic or
North Slope oil is going to lift this sinking ship. There are no more new oil reserves to
find and all the old fields are in a state of desperate high-tech extraction. We took all the
easy stuff, Bakken and Permian are the last ditch effort. That's why all the playas have
negative cash flow. That's why we are fecked.
That was the last great elephant field. The largest resource ever discovered on the
planet. Finally in decline. So goes Saudi Arabia. So goes OPEC. So goes mankind.
Cheap crude was a 100 year party, the hangover has already begun. Fracked oil, tar sands,
were a rescue remedy, funded by low interest rates, (debt). The massive population boom of
the last century and a half directly coordinates with increasing oil production. If you
aren't preparing yourself and your children for energy-down/population-down, you are insuring
that YOUR decedents won't be among the 100 million or so people scratching out a living in
North America in 100 years.
Before 1850 and the discovery of oil and coal, there were 1 billion people on the planet.
Now there are 7 billion. 6 billion will die as the oil economy and oil infrastructure grinds
to a halt. Better make you peace. Your plans are too late.
"...Declining uranium production will make it impossible to obtain a significant increase
in electrical power from nuclear plants in the coming decades."
Thorium Reactors...
"...A similar fate was encountered by another idea that involved "breeding" a nuclear fuel
from a naturally existing element -- thorium. The concept involved transforming the 232
isotope of thorium into the fissile 233 isotope of uranium, which then could be used as fuel
for a nuclear reactor (or for nuclear warheads). The idea was discussed at length during the
heydays of the nuclear industry, andit is still discussed today; but so far, nothing has come
out of it and the nuclear industry is still based on mineral uranium as fuel..."
OPEC was the necessary cartel that helped to stabilize production and prices.
Now all of it including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest, all 14 nations past and present,
is defunct. Output has been in decline since Nov. 2016. See IEA data or peakoilbarrel for a
summary
Cool..How do I fill my BMW up with coal? How about that just in time delivery. Anyone ever
try to power a semi-truck with coal? Eactly what do we pave the road ways with? Coal?
Yeesh. All wrong. Most important, slick Willie gave us our china trade problems, and then
demand for raw commods in china soared. In response, his geniuses gave us the cfma, which was
passed to let the JPMs of the world naked short commodities till the cows came home. However,
china demand growth was so far in excess of supply growth that several of the WS firms saw
the writing on the wall and went long. Thus the pols amazement when finding out v=bear
stearns was actually long oil. Finally prices got high enough that supply growth started
overtaking demand growth. We have been going down , on average, since. china demand late 90s
oil wa 3Mbpd, currently 13Mbpd
"... The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S. military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting, then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today. ..."
"... "Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all "respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?" ..."
"... Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning leaked it in the first place. As she said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as 'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers." ..."
Yves
here. Even though this post covers known territory, it seems worthwhile to encourage those of
you who haven't watched the "Collateral Murder" footage to view the full version. It's
important not only to keep the public (and that includes people in your personal circle)
focused on what Assange's true hanging crime is in the eyes of the officialdom .and it ain't
RussiaGate. That serves as a convenient diversion from his real offense. That effort has a
secondary benefit of having more people watch the video.
Before
and after images of the van that came to pick up the bodies of eleven men shot to death by
circling American helicopters in Iraq in 2007. Both children in the van were wounded. "Well,
it's their fault for bringing their kids to a battle," said one of the pilots. "That's right,"
replies another. From the videoCollateral Murder.
Below is a full video version of Collateral Murder , the 2007 war footage that was
leaked in 2010 to Wikileaks by Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning. This version was posted to the Wikileaks YouTube
channel with subtitles. It will only take about 15 minutes of your life to view it.
It's brutal to watch, but I challenge you to do it anyway. It shows not just murder, but a
special kind of murder -- murder from the safety of the air, murder by men with heavy machine
guns slowly circling their targets in helicopters like hunters with shotguns who walk the edges
of a trout pond, shooting at will, waiting, walking, then shooting again, till all the fish are
dead.
The film also shows war crimes that implicate the entire structure of the U.S.
military, as everyone involved was acting under orders, seeking permission to fire, waiting,
then getting it before once more blasting away. The publication of this video, plus all the
Wikileaks publications that followed, comprise the whole reason everyone in the U.S. who
matters, everyone with power, wants Julian Assange dead. They also want him hated. Generating that hate is the process we're watching today.
"Everyone" in this case includes every major newspaper that published and received awards
for publishing Wikileaks material; all major U.S. televised media outlets; and all
"respectable" U.S. politicians -- including, of course, Hillary Clinton, who was rumored (though
unverifiably) to have said, "Can't we just drone this guy?"
Yes, Julian Assange the person can be a giant douche even to his supporters, as this exchange
reported by Intercept writer Micah Lee attests. Nevertheless, it's not for being a
douche that the Establishment state wants him dead; that state
breeds, harbors and honors douches everywhere in the world . They want him dead for
publishing videos like these.
Please watch it. The footage shows not only murder, but bloodlust and conscienceless
brutality, so much of it in fact that this became one of the main reasons Chelsea Manning
leaked it in the first place. As she
said at her court-martial : "The most alarming aspect of the video for me, was the
seemingly delight of bloodlust they [the pilots] appeared to have. They dehumanized the
individuals they were engaging with, and seemed to not value human life in referring to them as
'dead bastards,' and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers."
The Wikileaks page for the video is here . A transcript is here .
This was done in our name, to "keep us safe." This continues to be done every day that we
and our allies are at "war" in the Middle East.
Bodies pile on bodies as this continues. The least we can do, literally the least, is to
witness and acknowledge their deaths.
Buffett put it very simply. If oil prices go up OXY can make a lot of money.
$100 oil they will make a lot, especially on their CO2 projects in the Permian, and in
Oman, where they own a decent chunk of flowing BOPD.
It's a bet on oil going up, plus getting 8% interest for loaning them $10 billion. They go
with preferred stock for the favorable dividend tax treatment.
It is only a bad deal if oil stays here or below long term. Assuming a 10-15 year cycle,
by 2025-2030 oil will surely rocket up.
It's a good deal for Berkshire, but not a good deal for Occidental.
"The 8 percent yield on the preferreds is way above Oxy's pre-bidding dividend yield of
4.7 percent and equivalent to a pre-tax cost of debt of about 10 percent, roughly triple the
company's bond yield. That's before counting the warrants, equivalent to 9 percent dilution
on the pro forma share count, plus the redemption premium.
This wasn't a bet on Oxy, the Permian shale basin or even oil prices; Buffett could have
just bought stock in the open market for that. This was about extracting as much as possible
from a company that really needed the promise of a big slug of cash."
According to Buffett, he is betting on oil prices and the Permian.
Also, Berkshire might have bought Anadarko directly, if asked. Which seems odd.
"Asked why Berkshire wouldn't just buy Anadarko itself, Buffett said, 'That might have
happened if Anadarko came to us, but we wouldn't jump into some other deal that we heard
about from somebody else coming to us seeking financing.'
Later in the interview, longtime investing partner and vice chairman Charlie Munger
responded to the question as well, saying, 'Nobody asked us to.'"
currently they are forecasting about a 750 kb/d increase annually from Dec 2018 to Dec
2020.
Yes, but they are predicting the lions share of that gain in 2019. That is they are
predicting a US increase in production of 1,200 kb/d in 2019 and a gain of 350 kb/d in 2020.
(Dec. to Dec. in each case.)
Note: This is C+C, not Total Liquids.
Obviously, they are expecting a slowdown in the oil patch in 2020. That slowdown just may
come about a year earlier than expected.
I agree, 2019 is too high, but I still think the overall change from Dec 2018 to Dec 2020
will be about right (2019 increase will be less than STEO, but 2020 increase will be
greater).
It is doubtful their forecast will be precisely correct, nor will anyone's, but the
overall increase from Dec 2018 to Dec 2020 seems pretty reasonable. I agree that the expected
increase in 2019 will be less than the 1.2 Mb/d the EIA currently forecasts, about 700 kb/d
this year and 850 kb/d next year seems more reasonable if Brent oil prices gradually rise to
$85/b (2018$) over the May 2019 to Dec 2020 period as I expect (with lots of volatility along
the way). Basically I expect the centered average 5 week Brent spot price may reach $85/b
some time before Dec 31, 2020.
Dennis, the EIA clearly sees the slowdown in the shale oil patch coming. They think it will
hit next year, 2020. The EIA has a history of being overly optimistic. Yet yet, in this case,
you think they are being pessimistic. You see shale production increasing in 2020 over 2019.
That just seems very strange to me.
However, I will just have to leave it at that. We will both just have to wait and see.
I expect oil prices will be higher towards the end of 2019, profits for tight oil
producers will be higher, there will be a higher well completion rates (higher capital
spending budgets) in 2020 as a result and the rate of increase in tight oil output will
increase a bit (I am assuming 700 kb/d in 2019 and 800 kb/d in 2020, this is essentially no
change in the rate of increase). In the end we don't know as we don't know future oil prices
and how they will affect investment decisions. The main point is that in the end the output
in Dec 2020 may be pretty close to the EIA estimate. That estimate is neither pessimistic or
optimistic, it is realistic. The path that output will take from March 2019 to Dec 2020 is
impossible to predict, a straight line guess is as good as any.
I understand Dennis, hope springs eternal in the shale oil patch, for some folks anyway.
I agree that oil prices are about to spike. World oil production is currently falling like
a rock. Brent prices are in backwardation, meaning traders also expect prices to rise.
However, I do not believe, as you do, that this will automatically cause a dramatic increase
in oil production. The effect will be feeble at best. Well, in my opinion anyway.
I also do not expect a dramatic increase, I actually expect the recent rate of annual
increase of 1.6 Mb/d to slow to about half of the previous rate (0.8 Mb/d) and continue to
slow over time to near zero by 2024.
Attached are the changing monthly STEO projections for February, March and April for the
lower 48 production. Today's projection, April, has added 230 kb/d day by year end 2019 to
the March projection and close to 300 kb/d in 2020. The April projection also shows an
increase of 960 kb/d from Dec 18 to Dec 19. For Dec 19 to Dec 20, the increase is only 420
kb/d, less than half of the 18 to 19 increase. Any speculation/ideas for the lower increase
for 19 to 20. The G of M drops by 70 kb/d from Dec 19 to Dec 20.
You notice that the April 19 STEO has the lowest production numbers for Jan. Feb. and
April 2019 but the highest numbers as they move into the second half of 2019 and all of
2020.
I don't know what to make of this except that I find it rather amusing.
I found it insulting to my intelligence (not an exceptionally difficult task), but now that
you mention it, I can imagine some Lewis Carroll feel to it.
How are they adding 100k+ net non-Gulf when their own drilling productivity reports have the
Permian at less than half that growth? With Eagle Ford and Bakken not growing. Doesn't add up
even before taking out legacy decline elsewhere.
This was true about Iraq war. This is true about Venezuela and Syria.
Notable quotes:
"... In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books , Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. ..."
"... Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. ..."
"... Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back to 1959 . ..."
"... Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.) ..."
Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small c rappy little country and
throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.
- Michael
Ledeen , holder of the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Actually, the U.S. had been beating Iraq's head against the wall for a dozen years, with
sanctions and bombing. The
sanctions alone killed over a million Iraqis, far more than have been done in by weapons of
mass destruction throughout history. But Ledeen's indiscreet remark, delivered at an AEI
conference and reported by Jonah Goldberg in National Review Online , does capture some
of what the war on Iraq is about.
And what is this "business" Ledeen says we mean? Oil, of course, of which more in a bit.
Ditto construction contracts for Bechtel. But it's more than that - nothing less than the
desire, often expressed with little shame nor euphemism, to run the world. Is there anything
new about that?
The answer is, of course, yes and no. In a rather odd article in the London Review of Books ,
Perry Anderson argued that there wasn't, and wondered aloud why the U.S. war on Iraq had
excited such unprecedented worldwide opposition - even, in all places, within the U.S. - when
earlier episodes of imperial violence hadn't. Anderson, who's edited New Left Review for years, but who has almost no
connection to actual politics attributed this strange explosion not to a popular outburst of
anti-imperialism, but to a cultural antipathy to the Bush administration.
Presumably that antipathy belongs to the realm of the " merely cultural ," and is of no great
political significance to Anderson. But it should be. U.S. culture has long been afflicted with
a brutally reactionary and self-righteous version of Christian fundamentalism, but it's never
had such influence over the state. The president thinks himself on a mission from God, the
Attorney General opens the business day with a prayer meeting, and the Pentagon's idea of a
Good Friday service is to invite Franklin Graham , who's pronounced Islam a "wicked and
evil religion," to deliver the homily, in which he promised that Jesus was returning soon. For
the hard core, the Iraq war is a sign of the end times, and the hard core
are in power.
Lots of people, in the U.S. and abroad, recognize that and are alarmed. And lots also
recognize that the Bush regime represents an intensification of imperial ambition. Though the
administration has been discreet, many of its private sector intellectuals
have been using the words "imperialism" and " empire " openly and with
glee. Not everyone of the millions who marched against the war in the months before it started
was a conscious anti-imperialist, but they all sensed the intensification, and were further
alarmed.
While itself avoiding the difficult word "empire," the Bush administration has been rather
clear about its long-term aims. According to their official national security strategy and the
documents published by the Project
for a New American Century (which served as an administration-in-waiting during the Clinton
years) their goal is to assure U.S. dominance and prevent the emergence of any rival powers.
First step in that agenda is the remaking of the Middle East - and they're quite open
about this as well. We all know the countries that are on the list; the only remaining issues
are sequence and strategy. But that's not the whole of the agenda. They're essentially
promising a permanent state of war, some overt, some covert, but one that could take
decades.
Imperial returns?
Why? The answers aren't self-evident. Certainly the war on Iraq had little to do with its
public justifications. Iraq was clearly a threat to no one, and the weapons of mass destruction
have proved elusive. The war did nothing for the fight against terrorism. Only ideologues
believe that Baghdad had anything to do with al Qaeda - and if the Bush administration were
really worried about "homeland security," it'd be funding the defense of ports, nuclear
reactors, and chemical plants rather than starting imperial wars and alienating people by the
billions. Sure, Saddam's regime was monstrous - which is one of the reasons Washington
supported it up until the invasion of Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party loved to kill Communists - as
many as 150,000 according to some estimates - and the CIA's relationship with Saddam goes back
to 1959
.
Iraq has lots of oil , and there's little doubt that that's why
it was at the first pole of the axis of evil to get hit. (Iran does too, but it's a much
tougher nut to crack - four times as big, and not weakened by war and sanctions.)
It now looks
fairly certain that the U.S. will, in some form, claim some large piece of Iraq's oil. The
details need to be worked out; clarifying the legal situation could be very complicated, given
the rampantly illegal nature of the regime change. Rebuilding Iraq's oil industry will be very
expensive and could take years. There could be some nice profits down the line for big oil
companies - billions a year - but the broader economic benefits for the U.S. aren't so clear. A
U.S.-dominated Iraq could pump heavily and undermine OPEC, but too low an oil price would wreck
the domestic U.S. oil industry, something the Bush gang presumably cares
about. Mexico would be driven into penury, which could mean another debt crisis and lots of
human traffic heading north over the Rio Grande. Lower oil prices would be a boon to most
industrial economies, but they'd give the U.S. no special advantage over its principal economic
rivals.
It's
sometimes said that U.S. dominance of the Middle East gives Washington a chokehold over oil
supplies to Europe and Japan. But how might that work? Deep production cutbacks and price
spikes would hurt everyone. Targeted sales restrictions would be the equivalent of acts of war,
and if the U.S. is willing to take that route, a blockade would be a lot more efficient. The
world oil market is gigantic and complex, and it's not clear how a tap could be turned in
Kirkuk that would shut down the gas pumps in Kyoto or Milan.
Writers like David Harvey argue
that the U.S. is trying to compensate for its eroding economic power by asserting its military
dominance. Maybe. It's certainly fascinating that Bush's unilateralism has to be financed by
gobs of foreign money - and he gets his tax cuts, he'll have to order up even bigger gobs. But
it's hard to see what rival threatens the U.S. economically; neither the EU nor Japan is
thriving. Nor is there any evidence that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about
economic policy, domestic or international, or even thinking at all. The economic staff is
mostly dim and marginal. What really seems to excite this gang of supposed conservatives is the
exercise of raw state power.
Jealous rivals
And while the Bushies want to prevent the emergence of imperial rivals , they may only be encouraging that. Sure, the EU
is badly divided within itself; it has a hard enough time picking a top central banker , let alone deciding on a common
foreign policy. German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder is already semi-apologizing to Bush for
his intemperate language in criticizing the war - not that Bush has started taking his calls.
But over the longer term, some kind of political unification is Europe's only hope for acting
like a remotely credible world power. It's tempting to read French and German objections to the
Iraq war as emerging not from principle, but from the wounded narcissism of former imperial
powers rendered marginal by American might. Separately, they'll surely hang. But a politically
united Europe could, with time, come to challenge U.S. power, just as the euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
(Speaking of the euro, there's a theory circulating on the net that the U.S. went to war
because Iraq wanted to price its oil in euros, not dollars. That's grossly overheated
speculation. More on this and related issues when LBO begins an investigation of the
political economy of oil in the next issue.)
An even more interesting rivalry scenario would involve an alliance of the EU and Russia.
Russia is no longer the wreck it was for most of the 1990s. The economy has been growing and
the mildly authoritarian Putin has imposed political stability. Russia, which has substantial
oil interests in Iraq that are threatened by U.S. control, strongly opposed the war, and at
least factions within the Russian intelligence agency were reportedly feeding information
unfriendly to the U.S. to the website Iraqwar.ru . There's a lot recommending an EU-Russia
alliance; Europe could supply technology and finance, and Russia could supply energy, and
together they could constitute at least an embryonic counterweight to U.S. power.
So the U.S. may not get out of Iraq what the Bush administration is hoping for. It certainly
can't want democracy in Iraq or the rest of the region, since free votes could well lead to
nationalist and Islamist governments who don't view ExxonMobil as the divine agent that Bush seems to. A
New York Times piece celebrated the outbreak of democracy in Basra, while conceding that
the mayor is a former Iraqi admiral appointed by the British. The lead writers of the new
constitution are likely to be American law professors; Iraqis, of course, aren't up to the task
themselves.
Certainly the appointment of Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner (Ret.) - one of the
few superannuated brass not to have enjoyed a consulting contract with a major TV network - to
be the top civilian official guiding the postwar reconstruction of Iraq speaks volumes. A
retired general is barely a civilian, and Garner's most recent job was as president of
SY Technology , a military
contractor that worked with Israeli security in developing the Arrow antimissile system. He
loves antimissile systems; after the first Gulf War, he enthused about the Patriot's
performance with claims that turned out to be nonsense. He's on record as having praised
Israel's handling of the intifada. If that's his model of how to handle restive subject
populations, there's lots of trouble ahead.
lightness
In the early days of the war, when things weren't going so well for the "coalition,"
it was said that the force was too light. But after the sandstorm cleared and the snipers
were mowed down, that alleged lightness became a widely praised virtue. But that force
was light only by American standards: 300,000 troops; an endless rain of Tomahawks,
JDAMs, and MOABs; thousands of vehicles, from Humvees to Abrams tanks; hundreds of
aircraft, from Apaches to B-1s; several flotillas of naval support - and enormous
quantities of expensive petroleum products. It takes five gallons of fuel just to start
an Abrams tank, and after that it gets a mile per gallon. And filling one up is no
bargain. Though the military buys fuel at a wholesale price of 84¢ a gallon, after
all the expenses of getting it to the front lines are added in, the final cost is about
$150 a gallon. That's a steal compared to Afghanistan, where fuel is helicoptered in,
pushing the cost to $600/gallon. Rummy's "lightness" is of the sort that only a $10
trillion economy can afford.
The Bush gang doesn't even try to keep up appearances, handing out contracts for Iraq's
reconstruction to U.S. firms even before the shooting stopped, and guarding only the oil and
interior ministries against looters. If Washington gets its way, Iraq will be rebuilt according
to the fondest dreams of the Heritage Foundation staff, with the educational system reworked by
an American contractor, the TV programmed by the Pentagon, the ports run by a rabidly antiunion
firm, the police run by the Texas-based military contractor Dyncorp , and the oil taken out of
state hands and appropriately privatized.
That's the way they'd like it to be. But the sailing may not be so smooth. It looks like
Iraqis are viewing the Americans as occupiers, not liberators. It's going to be hard enough to
remake Iraq that taking on Syria or Iran may be a bit premature. But that doesn't mean they
won't try. It's a cliché of trade negotiations that liberalization is like riding a
bicycle - you have to keep riding forward or else you'll fall over. The same could be said of
an imperial agenda: if you want to remake the world, or a big chunk of it, there's little time
to pause and catch your breath, since doubt or opposition could gain the upper hand. Which
makes stoking that opposition more
urgent than ever.
Losing it all
There's a feeling around that Bush is now politically invulnerable . Certainly the atmosphere
is one of almost coercive patriotism. That mood was nicely illustrated by an incident in
Houston in mid-March. A teenager attending a rodeo failed to stand along with the rest of the
crowd during a playing of Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American," a dreadful country song
that has become a kind of private-sector national anthem for the yahoo demographic, thanks to
its truculent unthinking jingoism. A patriot standing behind the defiantly seated teen started
taunting him, tugging on his ear as an additional provocation. The two ended up in a fight, and
then under arrest.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins get disinvited
from events, websites nominate
traitors for trial by military tribunal, and talk radio hosts organize CD-smashings. But things
aren't hopeless. A close analysis of Greenwood's text might suggest why. The song's core
argument is contained in its two most famous lines: "I'm proud to be an American/where at least
I know I'm free." But the oft-overlooked opening reads: "If tomorrow all the things were
gone/I'd worked for all my life," the singer would still be a grateful patriot. That's
precisely the condition lots of Americans find themselves in. More than two million jobs have
disappeared in the last two years. Millions of Americans have seen their retirement savings
wiped out by the bear market, and over a million filed for bankruptcy last year. Most states and
cities are experiencing their worst fiscal crises since the 1930s, with massive service cuts
and layoffs imminent. In the song, such loss doesn't matter, but reality is often less
accommodating than a song.
As the nearby graphs show, W's ratings are much lower than his father's at the end of Gulf
War I, and his disapproval ratings much higher. Their theocratic and repressive agenda is
deeply unpopular with large parts of the U.S. population. Spending scores of billions on
destroying and rebuilding Iraq while at home health clinics are closing and teachers working
without pay is potentially incendiary. Foreign adventures have never been popular with the
American public (much to the distress of the ruling elite). An peace movement that could draw
the links among warmongering, austerity, and repression has great political potential. Just a
month or two ago, hundreds of thousands were marching in American streets to protest the
imminent war. Though that movement now looks a bit dispirited and demobilized, it's unlikely
that that kind of energy will just disappear into the ether.
"... A word about the LTO metric of the month, free cash flow. Cash flow ain't "free" if one is still in debt. IMO, 1Q19 was awful for the US shale oil industry. It used cash flow for buy backs, to meet dividend demands by pissed off investors, to pay absurd prices for undeveloped acreage in the Permian, for reserve replacement (75% of ALL wells now drilled in America's shale basins simply offset last year's annualized decline) and still eked out a little growth. Nothing to very little went of nothing went to voluntary deleveraging. At less than $75-80, it can't be done. ..."
Dennis. Things were going good until 11/18, when the price started to crater. Thankfully we
are back up. However, our price for December through March averaged $48 and change, which is
making money, but not much.
Expenses have stayed relatively stable. Labor goes up a little each year. Electricity has
actually dropped a few percent. Chemicals have stayed the same since we received a 10% cut in
2016. Steel is up some, so rods and tubing are a little higher.
$55-65 WTI would still be ok. Liked $70s last fall, before the Donald got involved with
Iran waivers and tweets.
My comment was poking at the Donald, et al, who think that since $25 was a great price in
1990 it should still be ok today.
Clearly, although $55-65 is good for us, maybe not good enough for others. In particular,
the service companies who continue to lay bleeding to death on the side of the road.
We still have no plans to drill. Have five workovers planned for summer to fight the
decline.
Dennis, you are kind; thank you. My belief is that if one can't make money at $50/2.50, and
cope with 30% price swings for months at a time, one should be in the lawn mowing business
instead. The US shale oil industry could therefore keep most of America looking like Augusta
National.
A word about the LTO metric of the month, free cash flow. Cash flow ain't "free" if one is
still in debt. IMO, 1Q19 was awful for the US shale oil industry. It used cash flow for buy
backs, to meet dividend demands by pissed off investors, to pay absurd prices for undeveloped
acreage in the Permian, for reserve replacement (75% of ALL wells now drilled in America's
shale basins simply offset last year's annualized decline) and still eked out a little
growth. Nothing to very little went of nothing went to voluntary deleveraging. At less than
$75-80, it can't be done.
Hughes has a new report out clearly showing Mother Nature is having Her say in the shale
oil phenomena. Nobody messes with Mother Nature.
Agree higher oil prices are needed for tight oil producers to reduce their debt. If long
term oil prices remain $50/b, they are toast.
I read a blurb on the new Hughes paper, but I am a bit of a cheapskate and was not willing
to put down $250 for the report so I have not read it.
From your perspective, do you think oil prices are likely to remain $50/b long term? (lets
call it the 52 week average oil price). It seems to me there will not be adequate supply on
the World oil market at $50/b, perhaps $65 or $70/b (in 2019 US$) would do it.
You know infinitely more than me about the oil business and you have been in it for a
while (40+ years as an owner I believe), so your take would be of interest to me and I
imagine everyone who reads this blog.
As many of you, I don't expect business as usual to continue. We get projections based on
past trends, but with oil being finite and the globe already showing the effects of climate
change, I think we are in for a tumultuous future.
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 05/10/2019 - 11:48am The Trump Administration made it
perfectly clear: no more waivers on Iranian sanctions.
No exceptions .
"We're going to zero. We're going to zero across the board," US Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo told reporters after the White House made the announcement in a statement. "There are
no (oil) waivers that extend beyond that period, full stop," he said, adding that there would
be no grace period for those economies to comply.
Got it? No exceptions. This is about values and principles. This is about Iranian terrorism
(or some such nonsense).
Wait a sec. What happened to 'no more waivers, no exceptions'?
Well, ya see, a funny
thing happened along the way.
Iraq will soon finalize a large-scale, long-term deal for the development of oil fields in
the South with Exxon and PetroChina. The 30-year contract will involve investments of US$53
billion and potential returns for Baghdad of as much as US$400 billion over its lifetime,
Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told media this week.
I know what you are thinking, but I am here to tell you conclusively that the timing is all
a coincidence. Billions of dollars in Exxon profits
have no effect on our foreign policy decisions.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Tuesday there was no link between an initial
oil agreement his government was about to sign with Exxon Mobil and its receipt of waivers
from the United States exempting it from sanctions on Iran.
There you go. A deeply corrupt Iraqi politician denies that the two events are related. What
more proof do you want?
I know what you are thinking, but I am here to tell you conclusively that the timing is all a
coincidence. Billions of dollars in Exxon profits have no effect on our foreign policy
decisions.
Of course it's a coincidence! Have you never heard about America's great humanitarian wars,
a phrase which we owe to great patriot Susan Powers? And, do you not fail to realize that
Barack Hussein O'Bama* was our greatest president since Franklin Pierce?
*You know also that BHO is a black Irishman (groan).
The US is an oil company masquerading as a
country .
Iraq should have said that they will buy Iranian oil for as long as they want in exchange
for signing the agreement. But I'm guess that the guy who inked the deal is one of our
puppets?.
@snoopydawg
Iranian oil as their own, ad infinitum?
Iraq should have said that they will buy Iranian oil for as long as they want in
exchange for signing the agreement. But I'm guess that the guy who inked the deal is one of
our puppets?.
"... Arthur Berman has been predicting exactly this for year. They'll spend more and more pushing production up, but eventually you get diminishing returns – the drop off in production, when it happens, will be quite dramatic as the sweet spots run dry. ..."
"... Just to add – one possible catastrophic outcome for the planet of a shale bust is poorly capped wells. Properly capping a fracked well is very difficult (you need to plug each individual geological layer, its not just a matter of putting a concrete plug on the well head). If they are not properly plugged, they will leak gas for decades and its extremely difficult and expensive to properly plug. In theory of course they are supposed to be properly capped by the operators, but if they go out of business . ..."
"... So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2 emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate. ..."
"... Natural gas is methane, so badly capped fracked gas wells would be really bad for climate change. ..."
"... Fracking the modern equivalent to hydrological gold mining. But money [tm] was made some confuse this with value ..."
"... This is old news. Drillers over estimated the production length for fracked wells to help their Ponzi Scheme. For a natural gas well the production tanks in most cases in 3 years. To keep production up more wells had to be drilled. Eventually places to drill become hard to locate.I witnessed this in northern PA. It was boom for about 5 years then came the bust. Although there is still some fracking it is only minor compared to what it was. A few made money but the cost to the environment was passed on to the taxpayers. ..."
"... Venezuelan oil is very important to frackers because almost all refineries in the US were built to handle the mid-density oils from Texas and Alaska. Tight oil (fracked) is super light (it can't be fracked otherwise), and so it needs to be mixed in with heavy grade oil to make it refinable. This is where heavy Venezuelan crude and Canadian tar sand oil comes in – they are essential to create a crude that can be refined in existing plants. ..."
"... So the relationship between the US tight oil industry and Venezuela/Canada is quite complex – they all need each other to some extent otherwise they are stuck with oil that can't be refined. This is of course one reason why Washington absolutely hates not having firm control of Venezuelan production. But its also why they can't afford to shut it down entirely (which would happen if there was a military invasion or civil war). ..."
"... The fracked oil and gas often have low market value. The gas wells may produce relatively low quantities of high value natural gas liquids. The oil often is so light that it produces low quantities of high value distillates like diesel fuel. The fracked crude may contain high amounts of impurities that make it difficult and expensive to refine. ..."
"... Venezuela oil can be delivered directly to the Gulf Coast refineries in tankers that require no permitting or construction. Canadian oil requires pipelines (e.g. Keystone XL) which are held up in permitting. So it is ironic that the Keystone pipeline permitting quagmire is likely to be a proximate cause for the Trump administration dabbling in Venezuela as many Gulf Coast refineries are geared for Alberta/Venezuela oil. ..."
"... It was the fruits of Bush admin energy policy. Doubt it was primarily geopolitical, more like tail wagging the dog. Though the distinction is increasingly blurry now. ..."
"... Destroying limited fresh water is insane. This is a perfect example of the horrible consequences of capitalism. Profit corrupts the political system as the state merges to serve the oligarchs. ..."
By Nick Cunningham, a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate
change, energy policy and geopolitics based in Pittsburgh, PA. Originally published at
OilPrice
The shale industry faces an uncertain future as drillers try to outrun the treadmill of
precipitous well declines.
For years, companies have deployed an array of drilling techniques to extract more oil and
gas out of their wells, steadily intensifying each stage of the operation. Longer laterals,
more water, more frac sand, closer spacing of wells – pushing each of these to their
limits, for the most part, led to more production. Higher output allowed the industry to
outpace the infamous decline rates from shale wells.
In fact, since 2012, average lateral lengths have increased 44 percent to over 7,000 feet
and the volume of water used in drilling has surged more than 250 percent, according to a
new report for
the Post Carbon Institute. Taken together, longer laterals and more prodigious use of water and
sand means that a well drilled in 2018 can reach 2.6 times as much reservoir rock as a well
drilled in 2012, the report says.
That sounds impressive, but the industry may simply be frontloading production. The suite of
drilling techniques "have lowered costs and allowed the resource to be extracted with fewer
wells, but have not significantly increased the ultimate recoverable resource," J. David
Hughes, an earth scientist, and author of the Post Carbon report, warned. Technological
improvements "don't change the fundamental characteristics of shale production, they only speed
up the boom-to-bust life cycle," he said.
For a while, there was enough acreage to allow for a blistering growth rate, but the boom
days eventually have to come to an end. There are already some signs of strain in the shale
patch, where intensification of drilling techniques has begun to see diminishing returns.
Putting wells too close together can lead to less reservoir pressure, reducing overall
production. The industry is only now reckoning with this so-called "parent-child" well
interference problem.
Also, more water and more sand and longer laterals all have their limits .
Last year, major shale gas driller EQT drilled a lateral that exceeded 18,000 feet. The company
boasted that it would continue to ratchet up the length to as long as 20,000 feet. But EQT
quickly found out that it had problems when it exceeded 15,000 feet. "The decision to drill
some of the longest horizontal wells ever in shale rocks turned into a costly misstep costing
hundreds of millions of dollars," the Wall Street Journal reported
earlier this year.
Ultimately, precipitous decline rates mean that huge volumes of capital are needed just to
keep output from declining. In 2018, the industry spent $70 billion on drilling 9,975 wells,
according to Hughes, with $54 billion going specifically to oil. "Of the $54 billion spent on
tight oil plays in 2018, 70% served to offset field declines and 30% to increase production,"
Hughes wrote.
As the shale play matures, the field gets crowded, the sweet spots are all drilled, and some
of these operational problems begin to mushroom. "Declining well productivity in some plays,
despite application of better technology, are a prelude to what will eventually happen in all
plays: production will fall as costs rise," Hughes said. "Assuming shale production can grow
forever based on ever-improving technology is a mistake -- geology will ultimately dictate the
costs and quantity of resources that can be recovered."
There are already examples of this scenario unfolding. The Eagle Ford and Bakken, for
instance, are both "mature plays," Hughes argues, in which the best acreage has been picked
over. Better technology and an intensification of drilling techniques have arrested decline,
and even led to a renewed increase in production. But ultimate recovery won't be any higher;
drilling techniques merely allow "the play to be drained with fewer wells," Hughes said. And in
the case of the Eagle Ford, "there appears to be significant deterioration in longer-term well
productivity through overcrowding of wells in sweet spots, resulting in well interference
and/or drilling in more marginal areas that are outside of sweet-spots within counties."
In other words, a more aggressive drilling approach just frontloads production, and leads to
exhaustion sooner. "Technology improvements appear to have hit the law of diminishing returns
in terms of increasing production -- they cannot reverse the realities of over-crowded wells
and geology," Hughes said.
The story is not all that different in the Permian, save for the much higher levels of
spending and drilling. Post Carbon estimates that it the Permian requires 2,121 new wells each
year just to keep production flat, and in 2018 the industry drilled 4,133 wells, leading to a
big jump in output. At such frenzied levels of drilling, the Permian could continue to see
production growth in the years ahead, but the steady increase in water and frac sand "have
reached their limits." As a result, "declining well productivity as sweet-spots are exhausted
will require higher drilling rates and expenditures in the future to maintain growth and offset
field decline," Hughes warned.
I think everybody knew that the shale boom would prove to be transient –I consider
several years as transient– and it will end with holes in earth and wallets. The Bakken
and Eagle Ford have become mature plays in a relatively short period and we will learn,
sooner than later, how the decline of these plays unfolds. Somehow the shale business model
depends on ever increasing production and production would have increased even faster if it
wasn`t for resource constraints (takeaway capacity, crew availability ). According to the EIA
the Permian is now filled with DUCKS, sorry, DUCs (drilled but uncompleted wells) waiting for
production. Those are waiting for new pipelines and, "hopefully", oil price increases
engineered by the US by production suppression in Venezuela and Iran.
Count me amongst those that would like oil price increases, although for different
reasons.
The forecasts I saw earlier were that production would peak in the early 2020s, decline
gradually for the rest of the decade, and then fall off sharply.
Arthur Berman has
been predicting exactly this for year. They'll spend more and more pushing production up, but
eventually you get diminishing returns – the drop off in production, when it happens,
will be quite dramatic as the sweet spots run dry.
The equally big question though is the influence of oil and gas prices. A crisis in the
shale fields might be precipitated not by a drop in production, but further downward pressure
on prices. Or likewise, a spike in oil prices could give a boost to yet more capital
investment in those fields. For now, I suspect the producers are far more worried about low
prices than running out of oil/gas. A lot of them are betting on substantial rises in the
future in order to make their balance sheets look better. So that's a lot of rich people who
would welcome a Middle East war.
Just to add – one possible catastrophic outcome for the planet of a shale bust is
poorly capped wells. Properly capping a fracked well is very difficult (you need to plug each
individual geological layer, its not just a matter of putting a concrete plug on the well
head). If they are not properly plugged, they will leak gas for decades and its extremely
difficult and expensive to properly plug. In theory of course they are supposed to be
properly capped by the operators, but if they go out of business .
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
States and provinces have started program to cap old O&G wells abandoned decades ago
that are leaking methane. All they need to do for new fracking wells is put in tight
regulations and enforce them. But that requires political will.
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
When we'd fish, mountain bike or varmint hunt in Western PA., many decades ago (ie:
ancient conventional oil & gas wells only) it was clear; not only was none of the leaking
gas ever flared, but folks were tapping the rusted christmas trees. By the 80's, as we were
building the rail trails, it was far worse than our memories. Fracked ethane/ wet gas wells
are off-limits, unless you have FLIR drones.
Well, gold does a: not explode (oh, yes it DOES!) b: does not cause 20%-89% more global
warming than CO2 (oh yes it DO!) c: "water is precious, sometimes more precious than gold?"
Walter Houston, as Howard: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, who called Bogart, "no, not ME
baby!"
This is old news. Drillers over estimated the production length for fracked wells to help
their Ponzi Scheme. For a natural gas well the production tanks in most cases in 3 years. To
keep production up more wells had to be drilled. Eventually places to drill become hard to
locate.I witnessed this in northern PA. It was boom for about 5 years then came the bust.
Although there is still some fracking it is only minor compared to what it was. A few made
money but the cost to the environment was passed on to the taxpayers.
There may be another factor at work here. Granted that the shale boom was always going to
be a short term play, maybe the move on Venezuela is all about having oil to replace US
production as it taps out – slowly at first, then all at once. Trump & Co could
always buy Venezuelan oil at a market price but I think that the idea is to seize it to
control more of the international oil market by being able to control international prices
and you can't do that if Venezuela is an independent country. I just wonder how much damage
is going to be done in America in terms of the environment and more importantly water
supplies by all the chemicals pumped into the ground. It is going to be a toxic legacy that
will be there for generations to come.
Venezuelan oil is very important to frackers because almost all refineries in the US were
built to handle the mid-density oils from Texas and Alaska. Tight oil (fracked) is super
light (it can't be fracked otherwise), and so it needs to be mixed in with heavy grade oil to
make it refinable. This is where heavy Venezuelan crude and Canadian tar sand oil comes in
– they are essential to create a crude that can be refined in existing plants.
So the relationship between the US tight oil industry and Venezuela/Canada is quite
complex – they all need each other to some extent otherwise they are stuck with oil
that can't be refined. This is of course one reason why Washington absolutely hates not
having firm control of Venezuelan production. But its also why they can't afford to shut it
down entirely (which would happen if there was a military invasion or civil war).
So the calculations are complex, and they are being made by idiots, so there is no telling
what they are planning.
There are several facets to this. The light oil from fracking and elsewhere is needed as a
dilutent for the very heavy Venezuelan crude to enable it to be pumped on and off tank ships
and through pipelines. Dilutents are also needed for the bitumen from the Alberta tar sands.
The reason for the Keystone pipeline system is to pump diluted bitumen (dilbit) from Alberta
to the Texas refineries is that are equipped to process this very heavy material similar to
the very heavy Mexican and Venezuelan crudes. (Crude oils around the world vary greatly in
composition. Refineries are equipped to process only certain types of crude.)
The fracked oil and gas often have low market value. The gas wells may produce relatively
low quantities of high value natural gas liquids. The oil often is so light that it produces
low quantities of high value distillates like diesel fuel. The fracked crude may contain high
amounts of impurities that make it difficult and expensive to refine.
The problem seems to be a lack of pipelines to get the gas to customers.
Not that I disagree with "the boom is over" too much, but Permian is a large area and has a
way to go. But it will fizzle out in time.
Venezuela oil can be delivered directly to the Gulf Coast refineries in tankers that
require no permitting or construction. Canadian oil requires pipelines (e.g. Keystone XL)
which are held up in permitting. So it is ironic that the Keystone pipeline permitting
quagmire is likely to be a proximate cause for the Trump administration dabbling in Venezuela
as many Gulf Coast refineries are geared for Alberta/Venezuela oil.
Using data from field experiments and computer modeling of ground faults, researchers have
discovered that the practice of subsurface fluid injection used in 'fracking' and wastewater
disposal for oil and gas exploration could cause significant, rapidly spreading earthquake
activity beyond the fluid diffusion zone. The results account for the observation that the
frequency of man-made earthquakes in some regions of the country surpass natural earthquake
hotspots.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the largest earthquake induced by fluid injection
and documented in the scientific literature was a magnitude 5.8 earthquake in September 2016
in central Oklahoma. Four other earthquakes greater than 5.0 have occurred in Oklahoma as a
result of fluid injection, and earthquakes of magnitude between 4.5 and 5.0 have been induced
by fluid injection in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas.
I seriously doubt that the shale boom was ever about being profitable. I have long held
that the shale industry has been artificially elevated as a hedge against risks induced by
the long term Middle East geopolitical and military strategy. It was always expected to loose
money and have negative secondary effects, but it had been decided to be necessary. Shale has
survived because of a gentleman's agreement by the power players to cover the costs of the
shale strategy; that along with investment media hype and stealthy subsidies to try to induce
outside suckers to reduce some of the burden of those behind the hedge.
The shale industry was largely small to mid-sized firms that figured out the technology to
go into low-priced leases because the oil was inaccessible. Junk bonds have fueled their
growth and operations. As long as they get the cash flow from wells to pay their junk bond
interest payment, it can keep going. Once they can't, expect a Wile E. Coyote splat in the
junk bonds market and the fracking oil patch. The majors have moved in so they might be a bit
of a flywheel for the system, but ultimately if prices are too low to support drilling, then
the majors will pull the plug as fracking is not a long-term investment play over multiple
price cycles in the same way an offshore oil field is. Instead, it can be turned on and off
at will with new drilling always required to sustain production, so you just stop drilling
when prices are too low.
a couple of on the ground, as it were, observations:
i live in frac sand country("Brady Brown"). there was a crisis of late to my north, as 2 of
the 3 sand plants in and around Voca and Brady Texas suddenly closed(after a few years of
financial shenanigans/scandal, and them being sold to multnational outfits, etc). West Texas
found a way to use the more local, white sand for their purposes, and stopped buying the
Brady Brown.
Immediate local Depression, folks moving if they could sell their houses( for sale signs there
are routinely a decade old ), local pols/big wigs freaking out.
one of them just reopened and all of a sudden, there's gobs of sand trucks heading
South(Eagle Ford). first time in prolly 8 years.
Both of my brothers in law work in the patch in the Permian roughnecking. When i probe them for anecdotes being careful not to ask leading questions they expect more
or less permanent employment. one, against my advice(which he asked for), just bought a house
in Sanderson which has no reason for being save oil.
My cousin, in East Texas, just hired on with a pipeline company headed to either the Permian
or the Bakken(he's waiting to find out).
So there's a spurt of renewed activity in South Texas, and the expectation(both in the
workforce, and in the boardroom) that West Texas(and Dakota) will continue for some time.
and i just remembered my last trip through Pasadena, Texas a year ago
the great big refinery on 225(I think it's Exxon) was putting in a gigantic separater(or
whatever you call those things) easily as tall as the smaller skyscrapers in downtown
houston(maybe 20+ stories) using 2 of the biggest, tallest cranes i've ever seen or heard
of.
Dad says it's for heavy, sour crude(a la Venezuela and Iran). so there's at least year old
expectations there, as well ie: exxon thinks it's gonna need much more refining capacity for
that oil.
it can't last forever, of course.
Midland & Odessa are definitely planning on the continuation of oil production and are
forecasting no busts. This hurts my head to understand as there are still people alive there who have been thru
multiple booms and busts over the past 70 years.
I would imagine its for the same reason there is no global warming or climate change in
Florida. Its bad for business. Those guys know the truth. But theres no advantage in talking
about it.
I don't know about that particular cracker but Exxon is building up refining capability
for the light tight oil and condensate coming out of the Permian. That work is in the Houston
area.
The idea may be Why ship it out when we can make money out of the products? I dunno.
In summary: If you're leaving an exceedingly expensive, but eminently walkable major city,
with acceptable (off peak) mass tramsit, prodigeous gas/coal/nuclear/hydroelectric sources
immediately available to move to a "normal" southern Appalachian city? Don't neglect to
research PV, geothermal, "passive" convection, and plug-in hybrid or EV transportation
options? When we were awaiting news from LA/MS friends in 2005, I'd been wondering about what
my actually retiring atop the Marcellus would be like. We'd all figured Katrina's tour of
Mars, Ursa, Mensa, Bullwinkle & Ram Powell platforms would (given Halliburton ruling the
country) touch off a slick water fracking pyramid scheme that would have the Acela
megalopolis simply killing us for our fracked gas, as they'd simply stolen our coal, gas, oil
and nuclear energy? Silly, substance abusing, deplorables!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
The evidence for production-suppression is opposition to the new Russia to Germany
pipeline and US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. Poland is America's stalking horse in Europe
but is not getting much support from its neighbors.
Its my suspicion that vast sums of speculative money have gone into fracking in USA and UK
because there was nothing better to do with the great increase in the money supply. That
seems to be what's keeping the industry afloat for the time being.
Plutonium Kun's advice about plugging wells points to the frightful environmental effects
that are coming to those countries that have allowed fracking. It will be the people that
suffer.
It was the fruits of Bush admin energy policy. Doubt it was primarily geopolitical, more
like tail wagging the dog. Though the distinction is increasingly blurry now.
Every presidency seems to have a couple of these programs. Mixed range of soundness as
policy
Market innovation (Enron), corn ethanol, developing H2 fuel cells (with the H2 coming from
natgas at the time), subsidies (and loan guarantees!) for electric cars, even bigger ones for
luxury electric cars, natgas import facilities, natgas export facilities, favor pipe to
Canada and block the rail, favor rail to Canada and block the pipe, govt indemnifying the
nuke industry from lawsuit damages arising from accidents, allowing utilities to "bail in"
customers in case of losses from nuke projects, exempting any and all fracking waste products
from clean water regs, actually subsidizing solar and wind, actually retiring coal, also
actually sanctioning or invading no less than big 5 oil producing countries
Whew! Policy!
Destroying limited fresh water is insane. This is a perfect example of the horrible
consequences of capitalism. Profit corrupts the political system as the state merges to serve
the oligarchs.
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
The Shale
Boom Is About To Go Bust Posted on May 10,
2019 by Yves
SmithBy Nick Cunningham, a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate
change, energy policy and geopolitics based in Pittsburgh, PA. Originally published at
OilPrice
The shale industry faces an uncertain future as drillers try to outrun the treadmill of
precipitous well declines.
For years, companies have deployed an array of drilling techniques to extract more oil and
gas out of their wells, steadily intensifying each stage of the operation. Longer laterals,
more water, more frac sand, closer spacing of wells – pushing each of these to their
limits, for the most part, led to more production. Higher output allowed the industry to
outpace the infamous decline rates from shale wells.
In fact, since 2012, average lateral lengths have increased 44 percent to over 7,000 feet
and the volume of water used in drilling has surged more than 250 percent, according to a
new report for
the Post Carbon Institute. Taken together, longer laterals and more prodigious use of water and
sand means that a well drilled in 2018 can reach 2.6 times as much reservoir rock as a well
drilled in 2012, the report says.
That sounds impressive, but the industry may simply be frontloading production. The suite of
drilling techniques "have lowered costs and allowed the resource to be extracted with fewer
wells, but have not significantly increased the ultimate recoverable resource," J. David
Hughes, an earth scientist, and author of the Post Carbon report, warned. Technological
improvements "don't change the fundamental characteristics of shale production, they only speed
up the boom-to-bust life cycle," he said.
For a while, there was enough acreage to allow for a blistering growth rate, but the boom
days eventually have to come to an end. There are already some signs of strain in the shale
patch, where intensification of drilling techniques has begun to see diminishing returns.
Putting wells too close together can lead to less reservoir pressure, reducing overall
production. The industry is only now reckoning with this so-called "parent-child" well
interference problem.
Also, more water and more sand and longer laterals all have their limits .
Last year, major shale gas driller EQT drilled a lateral that exceeded 18,000 feet. The company
boasted that it would continue to ratchet up the length to as long as 20,000 feet. But EQT
quickly found out that it had problems when it exceeded 15,000 feet. "The decision to drill
some of the longest horizontal wells ever in shale rocks turned into a costly misstep costing
hundreds of millions of dollars," the Wall Street Journal reported
earlier this year.
Ultimately, precipitous decline rates mean that huge volumes of capital are needed just to
keep output from declining. In 2018, the industry spent $70 billion on drilling 9,975 wells,
according to Hughes, with $54 billion going specifically to oil. "Of the $54 billion spent on
tight oil plays in 2018, 70% served to offset field declines and 30% to increase production,"
Hughes wrote.
As the shale play matures, the field gets crowded, the sweet spots are all drilled, and some
of these operational problems begin to mushroom. "Declining well productivity in some plays,
despite application of better technology, are a prelude to what will eventually happen in all
plays: production will fall as costs rise," Hughes said. "Assuming shale production can grow
forever based on ever-improving technology is a mistake -- geology will ultimately dictate the
costs and quantity of resources that can be recovered."
There are already examples of this scenario unfolding. The Eagle Ford and Bakken, for
instance, are both "mature plays," Hughes argues, in which the best acreage has been picked
over. Better technology and an intensification of drilling techniques have arrested decline,
and even led to a renewed increase in production. But ultimate recovery won't be any higher;
drilling techniques merely allow "the play to be drained with fewer wells," Hughes said. And in
the case of the Eagle Ford, "there appears to be significant deterioration in longer-term well
productivity through overcrowding of wells in sweet spots, resulting in well interference
and/or drilling in more marginal areas that are outside of sweet-spots within counties."
In other words, a more aggressive drilling approach just frontloads production, and leads to
exhaustion sooner. "Technology improvements appear to have hit the law of diminishing returns
in terms of increasing production -- they cannot reverse the realities of over-crowded wells
and geology," Hughes said.
The story is not all that different in the Permian, save for the much higher levels of
spending and drilling. Post Carbon estimates that it the Permian requires 2,121 new wells each
year just to keep production flat, and in 2018 the industry drilled 4,133 wells, leading to a
big jump in output. At such frenzied levels of drilling, the Permian could continue to see
production growth in the years ahead, but the steady increase in water and frac sand "have
reached their limits." As a result, "declining well productivity as sweet-spots are exhausted
will require higher drilling rates and expenditures in the future to maintain growth and offset
field decline," Hughes warned.
I think everybody knew that the shale boom would prove to be transient –I consider
several years as transient– and it will end with holes in earth and wallets. The Bakken
and Eagle Ford have become mature plays in a relatively short period and we will learn,
sooner than later, how the decline of these plays unfolds. Somehow the shale business model
depends on ever increasing production and production would have increased even faster if it
wasn`t for resource constraints (takeaway capacity, crew availability ). According to the EIA
the Permian is now filled with DUCKS, sorry, DUCs (drilled but uncompleted wells) waiting for
production. Those are waiting for new pipelines and, "hopefully", oil price increases
engineered by the US by production suppression in Venezuela and Iran.
Count me amongst those that would like oil price increases, although for different
reasons.
The forecasts I saw earlier were that production would peak in the early 2020s, decline
gradually for the rest of the decade, and then fall off sharply.
Arthur Berman has
been predicting exactly this for year. They'll spend more and more pushing production up, but
eventually you get diminishing returns – the drop off in production, when it happens,
will be quite dramatic as the sweet spots run dry.
The equally big question though is the influence of oil and gas prices. A crisis in the
shale fields might be precipitated not by a drop in production, but further downward pressure
on prices. Or likewise, a spike in oil prices could give a boost to yet more capital
investment in those fields. For now, I suspect the producers are far more worried about low
prices than running out of oil/gas. A lot of them are betting on substantial rises in the
future in order to make their balance sheets look better. So that's a lot of rich people who
would welcome a Middle East war.
Just to add – one possible catastrophic outcome for the planet of a shale bust is
poorly capped wells. Properly capping a fracked well is very difficult (you need to plug each
individual geological layer, its not just a matter of putting a concrete plug on the well
head). If they are not properly plugged, they will leak gas for decades and its extremely
difficult and expensive to properly plug. In theory of course they are supposed to be
properly capped by the operators, but if they go out of business .
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
States and provinces have started program to cap old O&G wells abandoned decades ago
that are leaking methane. All they need to do for new fracking wells is put in tight
regulations and enforce them. But that requires political will.
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
When we'd fish, mountain bike or varmint hunt in Western PA., many decades ago (ie:
ancient conventional oil & gas wells only) it was clear; not only was none of the leaking
gas ever flared, but folks were tapping the rusted christmas trees. By the 80's, as we were
building the rail trails, it was far worse than our memories. Fracked ethane/ wet gas wells
are off-limits, unless you have FLIR drones.
Well, gold does a: not explode (oh, yes it DOES!) b: does not cause 20%-89% more global
warming than CO2 (oh yes it DO!) c: "water is precious, sometimes more precious than gold?"
Walter Houston, as Howard: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, who called Bogart, "no, not ME
baby!"
This is old news. Drillers over estimated the production length for fracked wells to help
their Ponzi Scheme. For a natural gas well the production tanks in most cases in 3 years. To
keep production up more wells had to be drilled. Eventually places to drill become hard to
locate.I witnessed this in northern PA. It was boom for about 5 years then came the bust.
Although there is still some fracking it is only minor compared to what it was. A few made
money but the cost to the environment was passed on to the taxpayers.
There may be another factor at work here. Granted that the shale boom was always going to
be a short term play, maybe the move on Venezuela is all about having oil to replace US
production as it taps out – slowly at first, then all at once. Trump & Co could
always buy Venezuelan oil at a market price but I think that the idea is to seize it to
control more of the international oil market by being able to control international prices
and you can't do that if Venezuela is an independent country. I just wonder how much damage
is going to be done in America in terms of the environment and more importantly water
supplies by all the chemicals pumped into the ground. It is going to be a toxic legacy that
will be there for generations to come.
Venezuelan oil is very important to frackers because almost all refineries in the US were
built to handle the mid-density oils from Texas and Alaska. Tight oil (fracked) is super
light (it can't be fracked otherwise), and so it needs to be mixed in with heavy grade oil to
make it refinable. This is where heavy Venezuelan crude and Canadian tar sand oil comes in
– they are essential to create a crude that can be refined in existing plants.
So the relationship between the US tight oil industry and Venezuela/Canada is quite
complex – they all need each other to some extent otherwise they are stuck with oil
that can't be refined. This is of course one reason why Washington absolutely hates not
having firm control of Venezuelan production. But its also why they can't afford to shut it
down entirely (which would happen if there was a military invasion or civil war).
So the calculations are complex, and they are being made by idiots, so there is no telling
what they are planning.
There are several facets to this. The light oil from fracking and elsewhere is needed as a
dilutent for the very heavy Venezuelan crude to enable it to be pumped on and off tank ships
and through pipelines. Dilutents are also needed for the bitumen from the Alberta tar sands.
The reason for the Keystone pipeline system is to pump diluted bitumen (dilbit) from Alberta
to the Texas refineries is that are equipped to process this very heavy material similar to
the very heavy Mexican and Venezuelan crudes. (Crude oils around the world vary greatly in
composition. Refineries are equipped to process only certain types of crude.)
Well, and then there is this: https://www.worldoil.com/news/2019/4/11/permians-flaring-rises-by-85-as-oil-boom-continues
"The Permian Basin has produced so much natural gas that by the end of 2018 producers were
burning off more than enough of the fuel to meet residential demand across Texas. The
phenomenon has likely only intensified since then."
The problem seems to be a lack of pipelines to get the gas to customers.
Not that I disagree with "the boom is over" too much, but Permian is a large area and has a
way to go. But it will fizzle out in time.
Venezuela oil can be delivered directly to the Gulf Coast refineries in tankers that
require no permitting or construction. Canadian oil requires pipelines (e.g. Keystone XL)
which are held up in permitting. So it is ironic that the Keystone pipeline permitting
quagmire is likely to be a proximate cause for the Trump administration dabbling in Venezuela
as many Gulf Coast refineries are geared for Alberta/Venezuela oil.
Using data from field experiments and computer modeling of ground faults, researchers have
discovered that the practice of subsurface fluid injection used in 'fracking' and wastewater
disposal for oil and gas exploration could cause significant, rapidly spreading earthquake
activity beyond the fluid diffusion zone. The results account for the observation that the
frequency of man-made earthquakes in some regions of the country surpass natural earthquake
hotspots.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the largest earthquake induced by fluid injection
and documented in the scientific literature was a magnitude 5.8 earthquake in September 2016
in central Oklahoma. Four other earthquakes greater than 5.0 have occurred in Oklahoma as a
result of fluid injection, and earthquakes of magnitude between 4.5 and 5.0 have been induced
by fluid injection in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas.
I seriously doubt that the shale boom was ever about being profitable. I have long held
that the shale industry has been artificially elevated as a hedge against risks induced by
the long term Middle East geopolitical and military strategy. It was always expected to loose
money and have negative secondary effects, but it had been decided to be necessary. Shale has
survived because of a gentleman's agreement by the power players to cover the costs of the
shale strategy; that along with investment media hype and stealthy subsidies to try to induce
outside suckers to reduce some of the burden of those behind the hedge.
The shale industry was largely small to mid-sized firms that figured out the technology to
go into low-priced leases because the oil was inaccessible. Junk bonds have fueled their
growth and operations. As long as they get the cash flow from wells to pay their junk bond
interest payment, it can keep going. Once they can't, expect a Wile E. Coyote splat in the
junk bonds market and the fracking oil patch. The majors have moved in so they might be a bit
of a flywheel for the system, but ultimately if prices are too low to support drilling, then
the majors will pull the plug as fracking is not a long-term investment play over multiple
price cycles in the same way an offshore oil field is. Instead, it can be turned on and off
at will with new drilling always required to sustain production, so you just stop drilling
when prices are too low.
a couple of on the ground, as it were, observations:
i live in frac sand country("Brady Brown"). there was a crisis of late to my north, as 2 of
the 3 sand plants in and around Voca and Brady Texas suddenly closed(after a few years of
financial shenanigans/scandal, and them being sold to multnational outfits, etc). West Texas
found a way to use the more local, white sand for their purposes, and stopped buying the
Brady Brown.
Immediate local Depression, folks moving if they could sell their houses(for sale signs there
are routinely a decade old), local pols/big wigs freaking out.
one of them just reopened and all of a sudden, there's gobs of sand trucks heading
South(Eagle Ford). first time in prolly 8 years.
Both of my brothers in law work in the patch in the Permian roughnecking.
when i probe them for anecdotes being careful not to ask leading questions they expect more
or less permanent employment. one, against my advice(which he asked for), just bought a house
in Sanderson which has no reason for being save oil.
My cousin, in East Texas, just hired on with a pipeline company headed to either the Permian
or the Bakken(he's waiting to find out).
so there's a spurt of renewed activity in South Texas, and the expectation(both in the
workforce, and in the boardroom) that West Texas(and Dakota) will continue for some time.
and i just remembered my last trip through Pasadena, Texas a year ago
the great big refinery on 225(I think it's Exxon) was putting in a gigantic separater(or
whatever you call those things) easily as tall as the smaller skyscrapers in downtown
houston(maybe 20+ stories) using 2 of the biggest, tallest cranes i've ever seen or heard
of.
Dad says it's for heavy, sour crude(a la Venezuela and Iran). so there's at least year old
expectations there, as well ie: exxon thinks it's gonna need much more refining capacity for
that oil.
it can't last forever, of course.
I would imagine its for the same reason there is no global warming or climate change in
Florida. Its bad for business. Those guys know the truth. But theres no advantage in talking
about it.
I don't know about that particular cracker but Exxon is building up refining capability
for the light tight oil and condensate coming out of the Permian. That work is in the Houston
area.
The idea may be Why ship it out when we can make money out of the products? I dunno.
In summary: If you're leaving an exceedingly expensive, but eminently walkable major city,
with acceptable (off peak) mass tramsit, prodigeous gas/coal/nuclear/hydroelectric sources
immediately available to move to a "normal" southern Appalachian city? Don't neglect to
research PV, geothermal, "passive" convection, and plug-in hybrid or EV transportation
options? When we were awaiting news from LA/MS friends in 2005, I'd been wondering about what
my actually retiring atop the Marcellus would be like. We'd all figured Katrina's tour of
Mars, Ursa, Mensa, Bullwinkle & Ram Powell platforms would (given Halliburton ruling the
country) touch off a slick water fracking pyramid scheme that would have the Acela
megalopolis simply killing us for our fracked gas, as they'd simply stolen our coal, gas, oil
and nuclear energy? Silly, substance abusing, deplorables!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
The evidence for production-suppression is opposition to the new Russia to Germany
pipeline and US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. Poland is America's stalking horse in Europe
but is not getting much support from its neighbors.
Its my suspicion that vast sums of speculative money have gone into fracking in USA and UK
because there was nothing better to do with the great increase in the money supply. That
seems to be what's keeping the industry afloat for the time being.
Plutonium Kun's advice about plugging wells points to the frightful environmental effects
that are coming to those countries that have allowed fracking. It will be the people that
suffer.
It was the fruits of Bush admin energy policy. Doubt it was primarily geopolitical, more
like tail wagging the dog. Though the distinction is increasingly blurry now.
Every presidency seems to have a couple of these programs. Mixed range of soundness as
policy
Market innovation (Enron), corn ethanol, developing H2 fuel cells (with the H2 coming from
natgas at the time), subsidies (and loan guarantees!) for electric cars, even bigger ones for
luxury electric cars, natgas import facilities, natgas export facilities, favor pipe to
Canada and block the rail, favor rail to Canada and block the pipe, govt indemnifying the
nuke industry from lawsuit damages arising from accidents, allowing utilities to "bail in"
customers in case of losses from nuke projects, exempting any and all fracking waste products
from clean water regs, actually subsidizing solar and wind, actually retiring coal, also
actually sanctioning or invading no less than big 5 oil producing countries
Whew! Policy!
Destroying limited fresh water is insane. This is a perfect example of the horrible
consequences of capitalism. Profit corrupts the political system as the state merges to serve
the oligarchs.
"... It was comprehensive -- directing military, diplomatic, and propaganda, policies -- regarding the Trump Administration's planned "Overthrow" of Venezuela's Government. His plan has since guided the Administration's entire operation, including "the capacities of the psychological war," regarding Venezuela. ..."
"... Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises." ... ..."
"... intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures." ... ..."
"... Fully obstruct imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make the situation more critical for the population." ... compelling him to fall into mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically" ... ..."
"... To besiege him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of Cuba." ... ..."
"... Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order 'to leave it with no professionals at all', which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame on of Government." ..."
A detailed plan from "UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND" dated "23 FEBRUARY 2018" was issued with the title "PLAN TO OVERTHROW THE
VENEZUELAN DICTATORSHIP 'MASTERSTROKE'" and is here presented complete.
This document was personally signed by
Admiral Kurt W. Tidd , who was the Commander (the chief), at
SOUTHCOM , and he was thus the top U.S.
military official handling Venezuela. But this was far more than just a military plan.
It was comprehensive -- directing military, diplomatic, and propaganda, policies -- regarding the Trump Administration's planned
"Overthrow" of Venezuela's Government. His plan has since guided the Administration's entire operation, including "the capacities
of the psychological war," regarding Venezuela.
It instructed SOUTHCOM:
Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential
goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises." ...
intensifying the undercapitalization of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its monetary
base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures." ...
Fully obstruct imports, and at the same time discouraging potential foreign investors in order to make the situation more
critical for the population." ... compelling him to fall into mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically"
...
To besiege him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of
Cuba." ...
Appealing to domestic allies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate protests,
riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation, with the
intention of deserting this country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such a way the
National Security of neighboring frontier nations. Causing victims and holding the Government responsible for them. Magnifying,
in front of the world, the humanitarian crisis in which the country has been submitted to."
Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order 'to leave it
with no professionals at all', which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame on
of Government."
the presence of combat units from the United States of America and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint
General Staff led by the USA."
It was posted online at the Voltairenet site , and
was first copied to a
web archive on
14 May 2018 . So, it has been online since at least that date. However, because the photo in it of the document wasn't made available
via software which includes the individual symbols, but presented only the full visual image of the paper document, it still hasn't
yet gone viral on the Web.
Here, therefore, is the first appearance, on the Web, of the full document, that's manually copied, character-by-character, so
that each phrase in this document becomes, for the first time, web-searchable, and thereby conveniently available for journalists
and historians to quote from.
This prophetic document -- the source for what has happened afterward in and to Venezuela -- might therefore finally receive the
public attention that it so clearly merits.
The document starts with propaganda against Venezuela's existing Government (and
it totally ignores the extent
to which the pre-existing
U.S. economic sanctions
against Venezuela had actually caused these problems ), and it then proceeds to present the U.S. plan to overthrow the 'dictatorship'.
(Tidd refers to Maduro only as "the Dictator," except at the very start and very end.
At the end, he commands "the denouncement toward Maduro's regimen" and he also uses the phrase "the enemy" to refer to him --
as if there had been the U.S. Constitutionally required authorization, by the U.S. Congress, of this "war." The close urges "the
dispatch of a UNO military force for the imposition of peace, once Nicolas Maduro's corrupt dictatorship is defeated." The U.N. is
militarily to "impose" "peace," after the U.S. and its allies have conquered Venezuela.)
Although Tidd placed 100% of the blame for Venezuela's problems upon Maduro, and ignored the crucial extent to which U.S. economic
sanctions had caused them, his plan emphasized that the U.S. must actively make things even worse for the Venezuelan public than
America's economic sanctions had yet done.
His coup-plan is loaded with such statements, and, in fact, opens with one:
"Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential
goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises."
So: he wasn't naive. America's induced suffering upon Venezuelans was part of his plan for Venezuelans, in order to get them to
do what the U.S. regime wants them to do -- overthrow Maduro. Furthermore, the United States Government has had extensive successes
in previous such operations. One example is that this was how Chile's Salvador Allende was brought down in 1973 (at a time when the
U.S. Government's claims to have done it for 'national security' reasons had much more credibility than its current excuse of helping
the Venezuelan people does, because the supposedly ideological Cold War was still on).
The only excuse that the perpetrators can come up with, this time around, is "to put an end to the Venezuelan nightmare and the
awakening of theirs beloved nation at a luminous dawn, in which the vision of fortune, true peace and tranquility predominate for
their fellow citizens."
Impoverish the nation, in order to help Venezuelans attain "true peace and tranquility." That's the plan.
Here is the document's entire text:
SOUTHCOM
TOP SECRET
23 FEB 2018
PLAN TO OVERTHROW THE VENEZUELAN DICTATORSHIP "MASTERSTROKE"
UNITED STATES SOUTHERN COMMAND 23 FEBRUARY 2018
TOP SECRET/20180223
CURRENT SITUATION
The Venezuelan Chavista dictatorship staggers as a result of its frequent internal problems; there is a great shortage of foodstuffs,
an exhaustion of the sources of foreign currency and a rampant corruption. The international support, won with petrodollars, becomes
scarcer each time and the purchasing power of its national currency is in a constant downfall.
Such scenario is not supposed to change, but the Venezuelan present-day leaders, as they usually do, in their despair to preserve
their power, are capable to appeal to new populist measures that perpetuate their positions of privilege; the only mechanism that
sustains them obstinate to the struggle to hold on their positions.
Maduro's corrupt regimen will collapse but regrettably, the divided opposing forces, legitimate defenders of democracy and
the well-being of their people, do not have power enough to put an end to the Venezuelan nightmare and the awakening of theirs
beloved nation at a luminous dawn, in which the vision of fortune, true peace and tranquility predominate for their fellow citizens.
The internal disputes, the supreme particular likings, the corruption similar to the one of their rivals, as well as the scarcity
of rooting, do not grant them the opportunity to make the most of this situation and to give the necessary step to overturn the
state of penury and precariousness in which the pressure group, that exercises the leftist dictatorship, has submerged the country.
We are at the presence of an unprecedented criminal action in Latin America.
This affects the entire region, there is no respect to international right and local political alternatives are unacceptable.
Democracy spreads out in America, continent in which radical populism was intended to take over. Argentina, Ecuador and Brazil
are examples of it. The rebirth of democracy has the support of the most valuable determinations, and the conditions in the regions
run in its favour.
It is the time for the United States to prove, with concrete actions, that they are implicated in that process, where overthrowing
Venezuelan dictatorship will surely mean a continental turning point.
It is the first opportunity of the Trump Administration to bring forward the vision in reference to security and democracy.
Showing its active commitment is crucial, not only for the administration, but also for the continent and for the world.
The time has come to
Step to speed up the definite overthrow of Chavismo and the expulsion of its representative:
Undermining the decadent popular support to Government.
Encouraging popular dissatisfaction by increasing scarcity and rise in price of the foodstuffs, medicines and other essential
goods for the inhabitants. Making more harrowing and painful the scarcities of the main basic merchandises.
Securing he the present-day dictator's irreversible deterioration
Developing actions to encourage the egocentrism and the verbal incontinence of the Dictator, compelling him to fall into
mistakes that generate greater distrust and rejection domestically, while continuing to minimize the international significance
of his public figure.
To beseige him, to ridicule him and to pose him as symbol of awkwardness and incompetence. To expose him as a puppet of
Cuba. Exacerbating the division among members of the governing group. Revealing the differences in his living conditions with
respect to those of his followers, at the same time to incite them to keep on increasing those divergences. Highlighting examples
as the ones of Rafael Ramirez from PDVSA and Nelson Mercengtes from gthe BCV.
Making his government unsustainable, forcing him to claudication, to negotiate or to run away, as other close collaborators
have done.
Making provisions for a back or escaping door, in case he finally chooses to look for a safe port out of his country.
Increasing the internal instability to a critical level.
Intensifying the undercapitalizatioin of the country, the leaking out of foreign currency and the deterioration of its
monetary base, bringing about the application of new inflationary measures that increase its deterioration and that simultaneously
provoke the citizens with less access -- who support the present-day rulers -- and those who are best positioned, to see their
social status threatened or affected. Establishing that the use of bitcoin, Petro, is a key element in the deterioration of
the economy, which is an unconstitutional and illegal manipulation of the national currency, useable for money laundering.
Fully obstructing imports, and at the same time, discouraging potential foreign investors in order to contribute to make
more critical the situation of the population -- mainly in the sphere of oil, essential for any attempt of recuperation of
the national economy.
Appealing to domestic allies as well as other people inserted from abroad in the national scenario in order to generate
protests, riots and insecurity, plunders, thefts, assaults and highjacking of vessels as well as other means of transportation,
with the intention of deserting this country in crisis through all borderlands and other possible ways, jeopardizing in such
a way the National Security of neighboring frontier nations. Causing victims and holding the Government responsible for them.
Magnifying, in front of the world, the humanitarian crisis in which the country has been submitted to.
Making use of the generalized corruption and the originating profits from their operations with prohibited drugs, to do
away with their image in front of the world and their domestic followers.
Promoting fatigue inside the members of the PSUV, inciting the annoyance and nonconformity among themselves, for them to
break noisily away from the line of the Government; for them to refuse the measures and restrictions which also affect them,
inciting the rising of internal politic factions, which divides it in its schism, making it as weak as the the opposition is.
Creating frictions between the PSUV and "Somos Venezuela".
Structuring a plan to get the profuse desertion of the most qualified professionals from the country, in order "to leave
it with no professionals at all", which will aggravate even more the internal situation and along these lines putting the blame
on of Government.
Using the army officers as an alternative of definite solution.
Continuing hardening the conditions inside the Armed Forces to carry out a coup d'etat before concluding 2018, if the crisis
does not make the dictatorship to collapse or the dictator does not decide to move aside.
Continuing setting fire to the common frontier with Colombia. Multiplying the traffic of fuel and other goods. The movement
of paramilitaries, armed raids and drug trafficking. Provoking armed incidents with the Venezuelan frontier security forces.
Recruiting paramilitaries mainly in the campsites of refugees in Cucuta, La Guajira and the north of Santander, areas largely
populated by Colombian citizens who emigrated to Venezuela and now return, run away from the regimen to intensify the destabilizing
activities in the common frontier between both countries. Making use of the empty space left by the FARC, the belligerency
of the ELN and the activities in the area of the Gulf Clan.
Preparing the involvement of allied forces in support of the Venezuelan army officers or to control the internal crisis,
in the event they delay too much in taking the initiative.
Establishing a speedy time line that prevents the Dictator to continue winning control on the internal scenario. If it's
necessary, act before the elections stipulated for next April.
Getting the support of the allied authorities of friendly countries (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Panama and Guyana).
Organizing the provisioning, relief of troops, medical and logistic support from Panama. Making good use of the facilities
of electronic surveillance and signals intelligence, the hospitals and its deployed endowments in Danen, the equipped airdromes
for the Colombian Plan, as well as the landing fields of the old-time military bases of Howard and Albrook, as well as the
one belonging to "Rio Halo". In addition, the Humanitarian Regional Center of the United Nations, designed for situations of
catastrophes and humanitarian emergency, which has an aerial landing field and its own warehouses.
Moving on the basification of combat airplanes and choppers, armored conveyances, intelligence positions, and special military
and logistics units (police and military district attorneys and prisons).
Developing the military operation under international flag, patronized by the Conference of American Armies, under the
protection of the OAS and the supervision, in the legal and media context, of the Secretary General Luis Almagro. Declaring
the necessity that the continental commandment be strengthened to act, using the instrument of the Inter-American Democratic
Charter, in order to avoid the democratic rupture.
Binding Brazil, Argentina, Colombia and Panama to the contribution of greater number of troops, to make use of their geographic
proximity and experience in operations in forest regions. Strengthening their international condition with the presence of
combat units from the United States of America and the other named countries, under the command of a Joint General Staff led
by the USA.
Using the facilities at Panamanian territory for the rear guard and the capacities of Argentina for the securing of the
ports and the maritime positions.
Leaning on Brazil and Guyana to make use of the migratory situation that we intend to encourage in the border with Guyana.
Coordinating the support to Colombia, Brazil, Guyana, Aruba, Curacao, Trinidad and Tabago and other States in front of
the flow of Venezuelan immigrants in the event of the crisis. Promoting international participation in this effort, as part
of the multilateral operation with contribution of the States, Non-Profit Organizations and international bodies. Supplying
the adequate logistic, intelligence, surveillance and control support.
Anticipating, specially, the most vulnerable points in Arauca, Puerto Carreno and Ininda, Maicao, Barranquilla and Sincelejo,
in Colombia, and Roramia, Manaos and Boa Vista, in Brazil.
Information Strategie
Silencing the symbolic presence of Chavez-representative of unit and popular support-, and in the other way around, keeping
the harassment to the Dictator as the only responsible of the crisis in which he has submerged the nation.
Holding the Dictator and his closer followers responsible, in the first place, for the prevailing crisis due to his inability
to find the way out that the Venezuelans are in need of.
Intensifying the media denouncement about the cubanization of Venezuela.
Outstandingly intensifying the denouncement toward Maduro's regimen, considering him:
A criminal
A illegitimate
A thief of the wealth of the Venezuelan people
Someone who plunders the national treasury to carry out his evasion
Highlighting the incompetence of the mechanisms of integration created by the regimens of Cuba and Venezuela, specially
the ALBA and PETROCARIBE, in order to tackle the situation of the country and their inability to find solutions to the problems
that the citizens are facing.
Increasing, inside the country and through the mass media established abroad, the dissemination of designed messages based
on testimonies and publications originated in the country, making use of all the possible capacities, including the social
networks.
Claiming, through that mass media, the need to put an end to this situation because of its unsustainable essence.
Justifying and assuring through violent means the international backup to the deposal of the dictatorship, displaying an
extensive dissemination, inside the country and to the entire world, through all the open means and the capacities of the psychological
war of the US ARMY.
Assuring that the disclosed images and reports of the military actions are approved by the General Staff to prevent their
manipulation and use by the enemy.
The United States should entirely back up the OAS, strengthening the image of the OAS and other multilateral institutions
for the inter-American system, as instruments for the solution to the regional problems.
Promoting the request of the the dispatch of a UNO military force for the imposition of peace, once Nicolas Maduro's corrupt
dictatorship is defeated.
The US military learned their international terrorism activities from the best, the Mossad. This country is run (since at least
Lincoln) by terrorists. Money stolen from us every year in the form of taxes used for ******** that destabilizes nations, destroys
heritage and expands greater isn'treal.
All this and **** none of us even heard of yet...while our own borders remain wide open and our infrastructure crumbles.
It's fake. The military doesn't engage in such things, the spooks at the CIA do-along with the NSA. Just looking at that pic
is humorous -- as if that's what they would title the document.
BLah, blah, blah... in other words, the usual.... same as always... CIA's Crowley complained about these idiots after he retired...
one example is the difference in Bush 1 and Bush Jr....
This plan is just the usual regime change script written about in many books... the only difference is how 'western' it is
in targeting the mind of the masses... which only happens in 'democracies'.... real ones make you do that....
Wait till the puppets in DC really get frustrated... .and then see how frustrated their puppet masters get when their plans
go awry as well... time is running out for both puppet and its master... Imagine being Putin and having to deal with these freaks.
I have a conspiracy theory. Since one of my theories is this: We want to gain control of Venezuela oil in order to secure oil
imports coming into the US for when we attack Iran for the sake of Israel. The 22% of imports we get from the middle east, much
of which comes from the Persian Gulf region, will be disrupted due to this war. And we would have a shortage here in the US along
with skyrocketing oil prices. And we would surely bitch about it. But Venezuela oil will keep the oil coming into the US uninterrupted.
And for those of you who believe we are energy independent, we are not. We use about 19 million barrels of oil per day, we produce
about 12 million barrels per day, and we import about 6-7 million barrels of oil per day to help feed our craving for oil.
But to add to this conspiracy theory, I believe the window of opportunity is closing and the Zionists have to act quickly.
So they will just say, OK, lets take Venezuela with our military and see how the world responds. We will never know until we try,
so let's do it. And if it was a bad idea, don't worry boys, we are untouchable. We got away with it in Iraq, so let's do it again.
Venezuela today, Iran tomorrow, and Israel always. They pay very well.
But this is just a conspiracy theory of mine, perhaps even a foolish one.
trucks vs rail vs pipeline vs tanker
Regarding using trucks via an overland route, that is extremely expensive and asking a lot of
Iran. The most efficient means to transport oil is by pipeline, less than 50 cents per barrel
of oil, tanker is almost but not quite as good, when you get to truck and rail we get into
the $5 - $10 range. Even with the differential in labor it would still be expensive for Iran
to use trucks, assuming they have that many.
Can't stand our politicians or our newspeople, they talk about the U.S. as being the most
generous country on earth when we are the most mean spirited, petty and vicious but we cannot
salute ourselves enough.
There used to be a pipeline between Iraq and Syria but it has fallen into disrepair and if
it was repaired I'd bet my last dollar the Israeli's or even the U.S. would find an excuse to
bomb it.
Half of the Syrian-Iraq border is South of Deir ez Zur and Al Bukamal and is completely
controlled by Syrian and Iraqi troops/paramilitaries. The old oil pipeline runs along the
highway and the Syrian Army controls the critical T4 pumping station and the Tiyas airbase
just South of the highway. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/syria/tiyas.htm
You will recall the Paveway4 first brought the importance of this T4 pumping station about
a year ago.
Unfortunately ISIS still has forces in the desert just North of the highway. Time for some
Russian Night Hunter search and destroy missions!
The US and Great Britain are trying to economically cripple Syria via cutoff of oil
supplies as "The Syrian government is scrambling to deal with its worst fuel crisis since
the war began in 2011, aggravated by U.S. sanctions targeting oil shipments to
Damascus." https://www.apnews.com/a99a22ad2598474ca39a7d8cde560c31
"Under the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Great Britain, no Iranian oil tankers are
allowed to transit the Suez Canal if they are destined for a Syrian port, a Syrian military
source told Al-Masdar News this morning."
Thus the Egyptian government is apparently technically lying about their role in the
sanction when they state "Egypt's government denied Wednesday banning the passage of oil
tankers to Syria through the Suez Canal. Navigation in the canal is going according to
international conventions and treaties that guarantee the right of safe navigation to all
tankers without discrimination."
https://syrianobserver.com/EN/news/49720/cairo-denies-syrian-accusations-on-banning-iranian-oil-tanker-passage.html
Consequently, Iran is shipping Syria oil via tanker trucks.
"1200 Iranian tankers loaded with oil products reached Syria through Iraq in the past
week," Al- Iraqia reports, adding, "The number of Iranian oil tankers are expected to reach
1500 per week, and after providing current Syrian needs, they will be fixed at 500 tankers
per week."
Those that oppose US and Israeli world domination has to buy time and promote economic
collapse within the Empire. Eventually the Sparta like militarism will bankrupt both
countries. The wild card is Venezuela - if they can get their hands on this oil they, and
their allies, can continue to spread chaos for a couple more decades. As it now stands the US
proven oil reserves are between 36-39 billion barrels and the US is consuming that oil at a
rate of about 4.3 billion barrels/year.
The US is also putting pressure on Turkey in hopes of deposing the current government that
supports the GNA in Libya and opposes the gulf states and Saudi Arabia. Turkey needs the
Iranian heavy crude for its Tupras refinery. Substituting heavy crude from Russia is an issue
as Russia has already contracted with Italy and Greece to supply heavy crude to their
refineries. https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2019/04/turkey-iran-usa-ankara-seeks-alternative-sources-iranian-oil.html
B wrote "The Syrian oilfields, which could produce enough to keep the country running, are under
control of the U.S. proxy forces. The U.S. prohibited to sell that oil to the Syrian
government."
It is about the money. It is another spinning plate trying to be war just like Iran,
Venezuela, etc. And when the money music stops (which is only when enough nations stop buying
US Treasuries) the elite are going to say that the poor should pay for those attempts at
war.
I like the comment by frances above about the drunk on the canal boat and China/Russia/et
al are trying to keep us alive, hoping the drunk passes out.....and we all get to watch and
learn how not to run a world where the drunk owns the punch bowl.
"... ...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed. Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is highly volatile. ..."
The removal of U.S. waivers for leading oil importers of Iranian oil and gas is putting the
Tehran regime under severe pressure. While Trump's target of reducing Iranian production to
zero is unrealistic, the impact of the sanctions is undeniable.
...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly
successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high
level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed.
Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is
highly volatile.
...In the coming weeks, as analysts focus on production figures, storage volumes and demand,
OPEC will be focusing on defusing pressure to increase production, while at the same time the
Saudi-led faction will likely confront the Tehran-Venezuela (and possibly Iraqi) axis. Iran has
openly threatened to undermine OPEC's stability if no support can be gathered before the June
meeting. In several statements to the press, Iran's oil Minister has warned that OPEC is in
danger of collapse. Tehran threatens at present to take all necessary measures to block oil and
gas flows from OPEC members that are supporting the U.S. sanctions regime. At the same time,
Tehran has warned to take measures against countries trying to fill in the supply gap left by
Iran. Zanganeh reiterated the latter during a meeting with OPEC secretary general Barkindo in
Tehran. Barkindo reacted by saying that OPEC will do its utmost to depoliticize oil and gas
policies of the organization. OPEC's SG statements however look very bleak in light of the
growing heat in the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Much of the shambolic belligerence and pointless aggression of Not-A-Neocon Trump can be
seen as cutting down world oil production in service of higher prices for SA's royals and, a
very distant second, US shale producers. Venezuela isn't an existential threat to the US, not
like Goldman Sachs, but embargoes on oil would keep the price up. Iran's not an existential
threat, but oil embargoes... Syria's not an existential threat but putting the oil on the
black market...
"... First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration. ..."
"... Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger. ..."
"... The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile? ..."
"... Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him. ..."
"... He was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are few wise heads in this administration. ..."
"... You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to "improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda. ..."
"... Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it? ..."
"... Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy. ..."
Patrick Lawrence gauges the backfiring potential of Pompeo's withdrawal on Thursday of U.S.
sanction waivers from eight major importers.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's announcement last
week that no importer of Iranian oil will henceforth be exempt from U.S. sanctions is as risky
as it is misguided. The
withdrawal of waivers as of this Thursday effectively gives eight importers dependent on
Iranian crude -- India, Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy, and Greece -- 10
days' notice to adjust their petroleum purchases.
This is now a full-court press: The intent is
to cut off Iran's access to any oil market anywhere as part of the administration's "maximum
pressure" campaign against Tehran. "We are going to zero,"
Pompeo said as he disclosed the new policy.
Nobody is going to zero. The administration's move will further damage the Iranian economy,
certainly, but few outside the administration think it is possible to isolate Iran as
comprehensively as Pompeo seems to expect.
Turkey immediately rejected "unilateral sanctions and impositions on how to conduct
relations with neighbors," as Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu put it in a Twitter
message.
China could do the same, if less bluntly.
Other oil importers are likely to consider
barter deals, local-currency transactions, and similar "workarounds." In the immediate
neighborhood, Iraq is so far
ignoring U.S. demands that it cease purchasing natural gas and electricity from
Iran.
Insights on Overreach
There are a couple of insights to be gleaned from this unusually aggressive case of policy
overreach.
First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat
for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is
now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent
useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration.
Weakened by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little
chance now of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North
Korea, as he has long advocated.
In a Face the Nationinterview Sunday, Iranian
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran would be open to bilateral talks under the
right conditions. It was the second time in a week that Zarif made this point. But those around
Trump, not least Bolton and Pompeo, are sure to block any such prospect -- or sabotage talks if
they do take place, as they did
Trump's
second summit with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader, in late February.
Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character
that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's
near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident
indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this
week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger.
Persian Gulf Chokepoint
Iranian officials, including Zarif, now
threaten to close the
Strait of Hormuz, chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, if Iranian tankers are prevented from passing
through it. This is an indirect warning that the Iranian military could confront the U.S. Fifth
Fleet, which operates in the Gulf and adjacent waters.
A sharp spike in oil prices is another danger with which the administration now lands
itself. Taken together, U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Iran are intended to take roughly
2 million barrels of oil a day out of the market.
Saudi Arabia has pledged to make up the lost supply, but
many analysts question its ability to sustain an increase in output given the advancing
depletion of its long-productive Ghawar field. Spare capacity among producers is already
wafer-thin. Do we need to risk another oil crisis, given the flagging global
economy?
Trump's foreign policy minders also risk alienating allies -- South Korea, Japan, India, the
Europeans -- whose cooperation the U.S. needs on numerous other policy questions. In the case
of China, the administration puts progress on a
nearly
complete trade deal and Beijing's leverage with North Korea in jeopardy.
There are other cases demonstrating the Trump administration's apparently thorough
indifference to collateral damage and the animosity of allies. Since the U.S. abandoned the
Paris climate
pact and the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear program, the Europeans have hardly
contained their anger; they are openly furious now about the tightened sanctions against Iran.
The South Koreans, frustrated with Washington's intransigent stance toward Pyongyang, now search
for ways to engage the North despite many layers of UN and U.S–imposed sanctions.
The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and
discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so
thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile?
Trump arrived in Washington an outsider: This is where answers to these questions begin.
This limited the New York dealmaker to a shallow pool from which to build his administration.
His never-ending Russia-gate problem further handicaps him. This administration is among the
most opaque in recent history, so certainties as to its internal workings are hard to come by.
But Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed
upon him.
However his advisers arrived in the administration, they are a toxic combination of
neoconservatives, many
drawn from the Heritage Foundation , and
evangelical
Christians . Bolton is emblematic of the former, Pompeo of the latter. This is the current
complexion of American foreign policy.
Zealots and Crusaders
Both camps are populated with zealots and crusaders; both cultivate irrational world views
rooted in extremist ideology and sentiment. Bolton's obsession is the restoration of
unchallenged U.S. supremacy. Pompeo is said to view adversaries such as North Korea and Iran as
George
W. Bush did : The U.S. is in an "end times" war with Gog and Magog, biblical manifestations
of the evil abroad in the world.
To be clear, there is more wrong than right in the president's foreign policy thinking. He
was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the
announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan
Heights.
"This is very important strategically for victory, heights, because you're up high, very
important,"
Trump said over the weekend. "Fifty-two years ago this started [when Israel captured Golan
from Syria in the 1967 war] and I did it quickly. Done. It's all done."
It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan
Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have
significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own
miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are
few wise heads in this administration.
At the same time, Trump's desire to negotiate with adversaries -- Russia, Iran, North Korea
-- is entirely defensible. But the "down to zero" Iran policy to take effect this week can be
read as a signal of the president's failure to counter the foreign policy Manicheans who
surround him.
There may be skirmishes to come, but the battle is over. We must now watch as extremist
ideologues accelerate America's already evident decline as a global power -- along with its
increasing isolation.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web
site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
Brian James , May 2, 2019 at 12:23
Apr 30, 2019 A New Mega Cartel Is Emerging In Oil Markets
China and India -- two of the world's largest oil importers and the biggest demand growth centers globally -- are close
to setting up an oil buyers' club to have a say in the pricing and sourcing of crude oil amid OPEC's cuts and U.S. sanctions
on Iran and Venezuela, Indian outlet livemint reports, citing three officials with knowledge of the talks.
Thanks for that link, I'm sure I'll follow this. I feel the same apprehension the
narrator's inflection seemed to convey in closing "We'll have to see where this leads." That
apprehension is that this will push the war-mongers to accelerate the timetable for an attack
on Iran.
Stuart Davies , May 1, 2019 at 09:00
Sorry to see that Consortium News still maintains their commitment to the ludicrous
premise that Trump is "pro Russian" at heart:
" the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for
President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders .Weakened
by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little chance now
of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea,
as he has long advocated."
Utter nonsense. You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to
"improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly
laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by
the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office
demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and
profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda.
Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global
empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it?
Asymmetric warfare with Iran has already begun. Internet based "worms" and economic
sanctions have, so far, been successfully coordinated in concert with our rather reluctant
Western Occident allies. These attacks have been more or less been kept at bay. The
alternative, direct military intervention would prove to be a new "holocaust" and would
target roughly seventy separate nuclear research sites and dozens of scattered air force
bases. The weapons of choice would be DU-38 munitions and huge bombs. DU has a proven record
against fortified concrete and armored structures. It has an infamous reputation for leaving
permanent, radioactive "ground shine" wherever used. Lest we all (never) forget the
absolutely horribly deformed children born in southern Iraq who suffered prenatal exposure to
radiation poisoning! In war, it's always the most vulnerable and innocent to suffer the most
for example; Yemeni civilians.
The militant factions of our Pentagon and Congress (found within both sides of the
political aisle) will continue to pursue the long range plan I outlined some time ago in a
CONSORTIUMNEWS commentary. To recap it, this tug-of-war is not so much about trading in the
USD as it is about a global oil glut. I believe it was Bandar bin Sultan who commented that,
and I'm paraphrasing him here; there's plenty of relatively easy oil everywhere, the idea to
grasp is, what countries will be permitted to extract and sell it? Thus, the global and
persistent NeoCon plan seems to be to cap or severely restrict, Libyan, Iranian and Iraqi oil
reserves, meanwhile making backroom deals that permit a few SCO, (reluctantly) Russian,
Saudi, African and US/Canadian reserves to flourish on the open market. Venezuelan oil will
act as the back up resource should, a regional nuclear war in the middle east result in
irreversible damage to "friendly" refineries and ready access to them. Again, ground shine
due to a deployment of neutron A-weaponry (N-Bombs)..most likely from Israel. Ah!, sweet
treachery in times of war eh? Need I remind our CONSORTIUMNEWS readership of Hitlers last
minute betrayal of Stalin? The Israelis want a "piece of the oil action" too!
So sorry to see the country ripped apart. Hatful , boasting reprobates behind the steering
wheel
vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:05
Thank you Mr. Lawrence for, if nothing else, hypothesizing or postulating why the Trump
administration foreign policy is as you say, so amateurish and discombobulated. But I do
agree with Drew Hunkins below that for whatever reasons(*), Trump himself has always vilified
and mocked Iran. He is nothing if not a scurrilous opportunist, and threatening Iran just
fits his personality as a bully. Very few if any of the other kids on the playground have the
guts or integrity to come to Iran's defense.
It lightened my spirit just a little bit when you said that the Trump administration "is
one of the most opaque in recent history." Why, just yesterday I heard our glorious leader
say that his administration is the most transparent ever in American history. I wish that I
should live long enough to see the use of such superlatives disappear from our discourse.
I somehow missed Mr. Zarif's several statements concerning a willingness to engage in
bilateral talks. That is almost flabbergasting. Which Iranians could possibly believe there
is an honest negotiator now anywhere close to the levers of power in DC? But Zarif continues
to hold to and operate in the terms of classic diplomacy: do not close any doors forever,
and; do not relinquish the high ground of sensibleness and integrity to your opponent. But,
surely there aren't ANY Iranians who believe that the US would make any concessions,
de-escalate any of our threats, or place a muzzle on our two rabid dog allies.
(*) It is my firm belief that the overwhelming motivation for much of what Trump does goes
back directly to the annual DC correspondents dinner where Obama publicly and rightfully
humiliated and mocked that fat-assed moron. And well he should have. It didn't miss my notice
that Trump once again skipped that event. He will never attend – it was the absolute
lowest point of his public life (so far), everybody laughing at him and that horrible skinny
n####r twisting the rhetorical knife relentlessly. I'm reminded of a short story of Harlan
Ellison's called "Stardust." I'll leave it to the curious to follow that lead. Narcissism as
a genetic "addiction."
vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:17
Right after the 2016 election I posted something to the effect that perhaps we should ask
native Americans if they think it is unusual that an unprincipled real estate speculator is
now the captain of the state.
Zhu , April 30, 2019 at 01:22
Thanks for confirming that Pompeo is a Dispensationalist, eager for the End of the
World.
Roberto , April 30, 2019 at 08:01
The neocons, Bolton and Pompeo, are not going to put an end to the world, because the
Greek Islands need nothing from the United States. They only need a little gasoline for their
cars and motor scooters. However, the neocons are going to put an end to the petrodollar,
because no one on earth can trust the "out of control government" of the United States, any
longer.
CitizenOne , April 30, 2019 at 01:06
During the Iraq war there were many calls from conservatives to not stop at the border
with Iran. They supported a plan to roll US tanks and other offensive forces until they
reached Tehran and obliterated it defeating the rogue nation and securing Iranian oil
fields.
The scenario proposed today to strangle resource rich nations by war hawks is similar to
the post war imaginings posed by Patton to keep on going until the US armed forces reached
Moscow. It is similar to the plans of MacArthur to lay down a nuclear radiation barrier along
North Korea's northern border with China to create a lethal ionizing radioactive zone or no
mans land to prevent China from sending Chinese troops across the border.
Each one of these proposed but never implemented war strategies in hind sight would have
probably netted the US great gains at minimal risk.
On one hand, the current administrations strategy and tactics to wage economic war against
US "enemies" which are all rich with oil reserves seems like the right aggressive maneuvers
to make easy wins for the USA. On the other hand the World has changed since those times.
Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like
Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with
sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an
exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy.
There is thousands of years of history of nations including the US to takeover the riches
of nations and profit from the resources.
"... As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams, things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain. ..."
"... The answer here is simple. When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered the murders inside those sovereign states -- ..."
"... He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least election were stifled until that moment. ..."
"... Sanctions and blockades are acts of war. Try doing it to Washington or one of its vassals, and watch the guns come out. ..."
"... Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it. Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation. ..."
"... All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer. ..."
"... Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly can someone not see that. ..."
"... Venezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another. The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas. ..."
"... Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet! ..."
"... America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords. ..."
"... Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture. ..."
"... If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion. ..."
"... Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus. ..."
"... The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change wars. ..."
"... I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the globalists. ..."
Venezuela illustrates why a 3.0 movement is necessary.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed at
articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime change
wars.
The Trump administration's interventions in Syria and Venezuela are victimizing mainly poor
brown people in Third World countries. And yet, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is extremely
animated and stirred up in a rage at the neocons who are currently running Blompf's foreign
policy. Similarly, it has cheered on the peace talks between North Korea and South Korea.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians
while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol are less adverse
to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die than the
"racists"?
It is ironic. There is also the issue of economic-based US interventionism, particularly in
the oil-gifted nations mentioned. It's their oil. Since the US economy is oil-dependent --
and since fracking is a short-lived "miracle" of unprofitable companies that have already
extracted the easy pickings -- it is the role of US leaders to make sure that we can buy oil
from nations like Venezuela, keeping relations as good as possible for those means. But US
leaders have no business telling them who should rule their country, much less stirring up
trouble that can end up in bloodshed.
There's a comment on here about US forces and the Kurds in Syria, helping themselves to
oil, while Syrians wait in long lines for gas in a country that is an oil fountain. I have no
idea whether or not it is true, and since the US press would rather gossip than report, we'll
probably never know. But since oil prices have gone up recently in the USA, it might be true,
especially since politicians always want to pacify the serfs facing other unaffordable
expenses, like rent. If true you can see how that would make the people in an oil-rich
country mad.
Isn't it the supreme irony that the "racists" in American politics are the real
humanitarians while the so-called "humanitarians" like Sen. Marco Rubio and Bill Kristol
are less adverse to bloodshed and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people
die than the "racists"?
There is nothing ironic about your simple statement of fact. The humanitarians you mention
are about as much interested in human rights as John Wayne Gacy. There is gold in them there
hills, and their "friends" no longer control that gold. So we must go to war.
Rubio is running neck and neck in my mind as one of the most disgusting political whores
of all time.
As much as Trump has proven to be a disaster with his appointments of Bolton/Pompeo/E Abrams,
things could still be worse. We could have wound up with Little Marco, the John McCain of his
generation. All praise to Tucker for having the guts to go against the grain.
How is that working out now?
Those are rocks those guys are throwing..right?
Why not let THEM do the fighting and keep the guys from Ohio and Alabama here?
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela
What Trump administration military intervention? Number of Boots on the ground:
Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
Iran -- ZERO
Venezuela -- Again ZERO
It is quite amazing that Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] can take ZERO troops and falsely
portray that as military intervention. In the real, non-deranged world -- Rational thought
shows ZERO troops as the absence of military intervention.
Trying to use non-military sanctions to convince nations to behave better is indeed the
exact opposite of military intervention. If the NeoConDem Hillary Clinton was President. Would the U.S. have boots on the ground in
Iran And Venezuela?
Why is the Trump Derangement Syndrome [TDS] crowd so willing to go to war for Hillary
while misrepresenting TRUMP's non-intervention?
Those who pathologicially hate Trump are simply not rational.
The answer here is simple.
When the President of of the US stated that he believed Russia under the instructions of
Pres. Putin attempted to sabotage the democratic process, and from the mouths many of our
leadership -- was successful he made a major power on the world stage a targeted enemy of the
US. When that same president accused Pres. Putin of plotting the same in Europe and ordered
the murders inside those sovereign states --
He essentially stated that our global strategic interests include challenging the Russian
influence anywhere and everywhere on the planet as they are active enemies of the US and our
European allies. What ever democratic global strategic ambitions previous to the least
election were stifled until that moment.
Until that moment foreign policy could have been shifted, but after that moment
Don't forget the genocide in Yemen. Wanting to exclude Yemenis from the USA means you're an
evil racist, but turning a blind eye to mass murder is A-OK.
Gold, Black Gold and Pirates : all about wealth and people getting in the way of the 21st
Century Privateers who will stop at nothing including overthrowing governments in Syria,
Libya, Iraq and elsewhere.
@A123Historically, sanctions are not an alternative to war; they are a prelude to it.
Sanctions are how Uncle Scam generally softens up foreign countries in preparation for an
invasion or some sort of 'régime-change' operation.
I appreciate the fact that Team Trump has not actually sent in the tanks yet, whereas
Hellary probably would have by now. Believe me, that is probably one of the very few good
arguments in favor of Trump at this point. But if we want to make sure that he never does
attack, then now is the time to make some noise– before the war starts.
All of this is smoke in mirrors. The real story is that Washington is headed for default on
it's 22 trillion dollar debt and the Beltway Elites are losing it. They are desperate to
start a conflict anywhere, but especially with an oil rich nation like Venezuela or Iran
install their own puppets and keep this petro-dollar scam running a little while longer.
If we weren't on the brink of economic collapse I could never see the Washington Elites
risking it all with a game of nuclear chicken with Russia and China over Ukraine and
Taiwan.
This commentator lost me when he decided Guaido was as socialist as Maduro. Nope. He would
not have US backing were that the case.
I checked out Telesur on Youtube on April 30 – its continued functioning was one sign
the coup attempt had failed. The comments section was full of Guaido supporters ranting about
how much they hated Chavistas and socialists and some were asking where Maduro was, probably
trying to sustain the myth that he had fled.
"When was the last time we successfully meddled in the political life of another country" The
answer to that, Tucker, depends on who you ask. While Syria, Iraq and Libya were "failures"
because we were told we would bring peace and prosperity to those countries, that was not the
goal of the architects of those wars, neither was it oil. The primary goal was to pacify
these countries and neuter them so they would not stand up to their neighbor and enemy
Israel. And if they had to be destroyed to accomplish that, that's fine. Minus Egypt, those
three countries were Israel's primary enemies in the three Arab-Israeli wars. Venezuela is
not "another" war for oil, but it might be the first.
Syria, Iraq and Libya were not destroyed for oil. Oil provided cover for the
real reason. In fact, oil companies opposed war for oil. It doesn't benefit the US or those
companies. Those three countries were and are Israel's primary enemies and neighbors and that
is why they were destroyed. Only if you stick your head in the sand and ignore the enormous
power of Israel and their Jewish supporters which is constantly on full display constantly
can someone not see that.
@EliteCommInc.
The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the yankees
are nor european .
If the yankees were the allies of the europeans , why they should need hundreds of
military occupation bases in Europe ? why they should impose on europeans self defeating
trade sanctions against Russia ? , strange " allies " .
@conatus
you are late conatus , the russians are building in Venezuela a factory of Kalasnikov rifles
, and Maduro is traing a militia of two million men , to help the army .
@conatusVenezuela has one of the highest murder rates in the world. I'm pretty sure there are still
lots of guns around. They're not using rocks to kill one another.
The U.S. military richly deserves to get itself trapped in a Gaza type situation of house
to house fighting in the favellas above Caracas.
@War
for Blair Mountain{If JFK were alive ..and POTUS in 2019 he would give the order to
overthrow the Maduro Goverment .}
JFK was alive way back then, when he gave the order to overthrow Castro and the result was
the Bay of Pigs disaster. And – for better or worse – Cubans are still running
their own country, not some foreign installed puppet.
'The order to overthrow Maduro' today would have the same disasterous end.
It should be obvious by now, that despite all the hardships, majority of Venezuelans don't
want a foreign installed puppet.
Carlson is right on Venezuela but was wrong on 911 truthers which he said back in September
2017, that 911 truthers were nuts! 911 which was done by Israel and the zionist controlled
deep state lead to the destruction of the mideast for Israel and the zionist NWO!
Trump is a Trojan horse under zionist control who had 5 draft deferments but now is the
zionists war lord sending Americans to fight and die in the mideast for Israel just like
obama and bush jr. , same bullshit different puppet!
America is Oceania , war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength and I would
add to what Orwell said, war in the zio/US is perpetual for our zionist overlords.
One more thing, if Venezuela did not have oil the zio/US would not give a damn about
it!
Imperialists always see themselves as spreading good things to people who will benefit from
them. And imperialists necessarily always dilute their own culture.
If the imperialist culture is already rootless cosmopolitan, it will see no downside to
the above. If the Elites of a culture have become cosmopolitans divorced from any meaningful
contact with their own people (i.e. those of their own blood and history), then they will
lead their people into ever more cultural pollution and perversion.
Jews are a people who fit the opening sentence of the preceding paragraph. The WASP Elites
fit the second sentence.
If "no one is more opposed to destructive regime-change wars than the Alt-Right", it means
that the Alt-Right are traditional conservatives, paleo-(as opposed to neo)conservatives.
Real conservatives have always opposed getting into foreign wars that posed no threat to the
U.S. They opposed Wilson lying us into WW1, Roosevelt lying us into WW2. When the
neo-conservatives (American Jews loyal to Israel) got Washington under their thumb, we
started our decades of disastrous regime-change wars based on lies, starting with the
invasion of Iraq. Those neocon mf ers are still in charge.
An Alt Right 2.0 concept that is compassionate with the damage done by US war and economic
exploitation against the poorest people of the world who are mostly brown people is an
interesting concept.
But I think it will ultimately fail, since so many of the white people who make up the Alt
Right are angry with minorities and see them as a lower race. And these white people are more
interested in playing the victim card anyways.
@A123
You speak truth and cite facts, these loons go bananas.
Thank God they have no real power.
Hopefully they don't even own a hamster . probably would make the little fella read Mien
Kempf.
Because a hamster reading is just as cogent and linear as their arguments.
They are frustrated they cannot find a way to blame the Jews! for Maduro being a greedy
murdering sweathog who lets zoo animals starve while he looks like animated male
cellulite.
Funny- in their prostrations to dictators ( these retards actually defend and admire
Jong-Un) they conveniently have omitted Putin is cutting Russia from the WWW- the
Internet.
They will have a Russia intranet.
Pointing out to the obtuse daily commenters that under the tyrants that practically
fellate- they would be arrested and tortured for their Unz hissy fits and word diarrhea
Nationwide radio talk show? Wow! What's the station name, number and air time?
If you listen to people with actual media shows, they don't call people TROLL just because
they have a different opinion. They don't engage in female hysterical ranting because someone
has a different idea about the mechanics of the world.
Who are your sponsors? I can't imagine you would not want the free publicity .
I agree, there is irony in labels, in trying to tell who is more disposed towards 'bloodshed
and destructive wars in which hundreds of thousands of people die'. Why do we fight? It is
for power. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past
– no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might
change, but not power. Interest cuts across all apparently unifying principles: family, kin,
nation, religion, ideology, politics – everything. We unite with the enemies of our
principles, because that is what serves our interest. It is power, not any of the above
concepts, that is the cause of war. And that is what is leading the world to nuclear
Armageddon. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@TKK
My sponsors are truth and America first. All Zionist hucksters are on my hit list. Again, I
suggest you and yours consider "making aliyah". https://www.nbn.org.il/
Number of Boots on the ground:
-- Syria -- Reduced vs. Obama, at most a few thousand
-- Iran -- ZERO
-- Venezuela -- Again ZERO
We will see in the future. Trump has to stir the pot. The foaming at the mouth media and his political opposition, in
both parties, need something to blather on about. Jus like rasslin'. Remember. The choice was between Trump and Clinton. Not Trump and Jesus.
@TKK
Oh, I see a point there, and it's an interesting one – openly Christian presidents
discredit their Christianity by engaging in non-righteous wars. After contemplating the
point, I don't think the foreign policy of W or Trump is anywhere close to being the primary
factor in the decline in church attendance. After all, the Catholic Church and other
denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals, the internet pulls people from God with
private depravity, science offers compelling hows if not whys, entertainment options abound,
and so on. Nonetheless, an orthodox and faithful Christian president committed to peace and
not fighting for oil or foreign interests would be a thing to behold. With caveats relating
to perceived sanity, that person would get my vote.
"The russians are not the ennemies of the europeans , the russians are europeans , the
yankees are nor european . "
These comments don't make any sense to me based on what I wrote. My comments have no
bearing on whether the Russians are an actual threat or not. I see them as competitors with
whom there are some places to come to some agreements. They doesn't mean I truth them.
Furthermore, my comments have no bearing on the territorial nature of Russian ethos.
That's not the point. Europeans have been at each other since there were Europeans. From the
Vikings and before to Serbia and Georgian conflicts. But none of that has anything to do with
my comments.
You might want to read them for what they do say as opposed to what you would like them to
say.
Jul 26, 2017 CIA director hints US is working to topple Venezuela's elected government
CIA Director Mike Pompeo indirectly admitted that the US is pushing for a new government
in Venezuela, in collaboration with Colombia and Mexico.
Feb 22, 2019 An Ocean of Lies on Venezuela: Abby Martin & UN Rapporteur Expose
Coup
On the eve of another US war for oil, Abby Martin debunks the most repeated myths about
Venezuela and uncovers how US sanctions are crimes against humanity with UN investigator and
human rights Rapporteur Alfred De Zayas.
"After all, the Catholic Church and other denominations are mired in myriad sex scandals . .
."
Not even to the tune of 4%, and I am being generous. The liberals have managed to make the
Church look a den of NAMBLA worshipers -- hardly. In the west the Churches are under pressure
from the same sex practitioners to reject scriptural teachings on the behavior, but elsewhere
around the world, Catholic institutions, such as in Africa -- reject the notion.
@TKK
Thanks. Ignoring mindless trolls is a necessary skill for the site.
____
Given the end of the Mueller exoneration, both Trump and Putin are looking to strengthen
ties. Thus it is:
-- Unlikely that Putin is heavily committed to helping Maduro. The numbers are too small
for that. Also, what would Putin do with Maduro? The last thing Putin needs is a spoiler to
the developing detente.
-- Much more likely the troops have a straightforward purpose. Brazilian
military/aerospace technology would jump ahead 20 years if they could grab an intact S-300
system. Russia doesn't want a competitor in that market, so they have a deep interest in
reclaiming or destroying S-300 equipment as Maduro goes down.
@EliteCommInc.
You are certainly right. I have no doubt that the vast majority of priests are good men
innocent of these charges, and that there are more public school sex scandals (by both raw
numbers and percentage) then similar Church scandals. The scandals do have public currency
and legs, though, and are one reason often cited as to why the pews are empty. I am at fault
for helping to keep this ruinous perception alive with my online rhetoric, and thank you for
pointing it out.
' It's the oil ' canard has always been the excuse cultivated for suckers, and boy
do suckers fall for it.
US oil companies have not received the big oil deals in countries where the US, at the
behest of "that shitty little country", have interfered militarily. However, Russia, China,
& to a limited degree, a few European companies have.
@PeterMX
Bibi's biggest enemy, his main prize, has always been Iran. He is afraid that, if Trump
refuses to do his bidding now, it may well be too late in an election year. One way or
another Bolton and Pompeo are going to convince their token boss to green light a massive
bombing campaign, especially if Iran attempts to shut down the Straits of Hormuz. It will
happen this year if Trump fails to come to his senses.
@Scalper
In the first place, your bizarre partisan rant is a little out of place. There aren't too
many QAnons here at Unz, and there are probably a fair number of regulars here who wouldn't
even identify as Republicans or 'conservatives' (whatever that term means today).
Secondly, some of your talking points aren't even accurate:
Trump administration will declare Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation,
increasing the animosity from Arab countries in the ME to unbelievable levels. This
includes non Arab country Turkey also, a traditional ally until neocon Trump took
power.
If Trump were truly to declare the Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization, a lot of
Arab rulers would actually thank him. You see, the Brotherhood is actually illegal in
most Arab countries today, precisely because it has a history of collaborating with foreign
intelligence services such as MI6, the CIA and Mossad. More recently, it was strongly
associated with failed régime-change projects in countries like Egypt and Syria; so
with a few exceptions (like Qatar), the Brotherhood is not well liked by Arab rulers.
Immigration restrictionism is a traditional pro working class, leftist policy.
Traditionally leftist? Sure up until the Hart-Celler Act of 1965! The sad fact is,
we don't an anti-immigration party in the US at all today. Neither the Republicans nor the
Democrats have any interest whatsoever in halting–or even just slowing
down–immigration.
@PeterMX
It's obvious that FOX is giving Tucker a lot of latitude. They continued to support him when
advertisers left, and when accusations of racism emerged from a radio interview he'd done
years ago with a shock jock. They dare not fire him as he has the largest and most fervent
base of supporters on cable news. But Tucker knows that there is one big issue, the Elephant
in the room, of which he dare not speak. It's that shitty little country calling the shots,
whose name begins with an I.
@Anonymous
I think there may be more alt-righters opposed to foreign wars and exploitative 'free' trade
treaties than you assume. Most of the alt-righters I know oppose the current régime's
"invade the world, invite the world" policies (to borrow a phrase from our own Steve Sailer).
But unlike the anti-imperialist left (with whom they often do ally), they usually argue
against such policies based on popular self-interest rather than abstract universal morality.
They usually choose to argue that being a mighty world empire has worked to the
detriment of the majority of people in America; that the whole thing is just a scam to
enrich and empower a small, corrupt élite.
what goes unremarked here and elsewhere is the ethnic composition of Venezuela. From a few
searches, Whites are only about one-third of V.
The Tipping Point for chaos is clear. Brazil is half White, Argentina is near 100 % White,
ditto Chile.
(Argentina ca. 1900 exterminated a large number its "Indigenous." )
The most stable of Latin America is Costa Rica, which is apparently about three quarters
White.
Meanwhile the jewyorktimes reports the narco-traffickers in the Maduro administration.
Hopeless. Any Brown or Black Country is doomed. Brazil works cuz Whites know how to
control the 45% mulattos and 5 % Blacks. For now anyway. Mexico is a narco-state with the
only 9% Whites able to control the half breeds and Indigenous thru co-option. Wait for Mexico
to blow up.
The funny thing is, the Alt-Right or the 2.0 movement is united to a man on opposing the
Trump administration's military interventions in Syria, Iran and Venezuela, but has failed
at articulating its own ardent opposition to imperialism and its commitment to humanity and
international peace. No one in American politics is more opposed to destructive regime
change wars.
That's an amazing point. I'm not sure what "Alt-Right" or "2.0 movement" really means in the current
shills-vs-people wars but all the best and the brightest in our ranks are clearly against the
globalists.
@Avery
The Deep state/CIA did the Bay of Pigs. JFK was not informed about it before it happened. JFK
was fighting the CIA and deep state throughout his presidency. He wanted to shatter the CIA
into a million pieces. Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. His peace speech
on June 10, 1963 was too much for our deep state. That speech was the biggest triggers that
set the motion for his assassination.
Whatever anyone thinks about the Alt-Right it did expose a lot of things about our current
era, our history, our politics, and power paradigms that once seen can not be unseen.
And what are you going to do about it? What can anyone really do, honestly?
Not too much at least in America. Eastern Europe still has a good chance.
In America, the trajectory and machinations of power have been set for a long time and
revolutionary romanticism tends to work better for the Left than the Right. A quick look at
the data easily reveals this.
So what do you do when you realize how so much of everything that's presented as real and
true isn't real or true? And there are so many truly bad human beings with major power over
our culture, politics, and society?
Well, when has that not been the case in human history? At some point, acknowledging all
the black pills is sort of like accepting your human limits, your finitude, your genetics,
the unanswered mysteries of existence, the nothingness of Earth in the grand scheme, and just
basic gravity.
You could become a courageous online revolutionary and eventually trigger some unstable
person to get things shut down and deplatformed.
Or you could organize with socially and psychologically healthy and mature adults who try
to prioritize attainable and realistic goals and gain some moralizing victories that can
buffer against the demoralizing defeats.
Luckily, out of the winter of our discontent have emerged many healthy tendrils of new
growth.
"... The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice. ..."
"... Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. ..."
"... Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either. ..."
"The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless"
The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in
China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in
practice.
Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. Almost
all of Latin America now has pro-US governments. CIA linked Bolsonaro took over in Brazil.
Turkey is in deep recession and Erdogan lost the big cities.
India is moving closer to the US. Europe remains a vassal. Russian economic growth is
weak. The US won the trade war against China as Andrei Martyanov himself admitted.
Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third
of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage
crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either.
There is no doubt that they will be weaker in the future, but they will fight hard to stop
this and gain time.
"... Currently the only countries on Earth with production capacity above their production is Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, and possibly Russia. The rest are producing at their capacity. ..."
"... Russia is within 100,000 barrels per day of their peak possible production. ..."
"... Sending troops into Venezuela in the 2020's might be the coup de grace to both our budget and sense of unity as a nation. Here's hoping the politicians don't go there. ..."
"... For years and years Ukraine paid GAZPROM a price for natural gas roughly 1/3 what the EU was paying. But heavens, that must never actually have happened because no one would ever price things lower than the "free market". Coup actions were then taken to put a stop to this, because of the evils of Ukraine paying a lower price. ..."
"... And, is that Brent or WTI, not that it makes that much of a difference. I don't think it will ever get close to the $50 range in my limited lifetime. ..."
"... The law of supply and demand is an example of a perfectly useless law. It can be used neither to predict future prices nor supply. What is it good for? I think it much more instructive to think about feedback cycles. ..."
"The OPEC nations are not philanthropists. They don't give a shit about what Trump wants.
They are laughing at him."
I don't believe they are laughing at him at all. All they need to do is recall what
happened in Iraq and Libya to know the US controls them. KSA, Kuwait, Iraq, etc are all
puppet states of the US. To believe otherwise is just folly. The USA seeks to control all of
the remaining independent Oil producers. This is why the US is in Syria, and is working on
controlling Venzeula via a political Coup. If the Coup fails in VZ, it will eventually send
in Troops (probably by the early 2020s)
It does not matter who the President it is, Obama followed the path after Bush with Wars
in Syria & Libya. if Hillary won, she would be doing the same thing as Trump. Who ever
wins in 2020 will continue the same long term plan to control as much foreign oil as they
can.
Just what would be the definition of a "Puppet State"? That would be someone who does the
bidding of the puppeteer. No OPEC state does the bidding of Trump, or did the bidding of any
previous president. Yes, we played havoc with their people and sometimes their economy. But
the King of Saudi Arabia or the Emir of any of the other OPEC states are not at the beck and
call of Trump.
And yes they are laughing at him. Trump actually thinks he could pick up the phone and
tell the King of Saudi Arabia, or the director of OPEC, to do what is necessary to lower the
price of oil. That is laughable. Trump is an embarrassment to all the people of the United
States.
On Wednesday Saudi Arabia's energy minister Khalid al-Falih said that the kingdom will
not be taking any immediate action to increase oil production, ..
"Inventories are actually continuing to rise despite what is happening in Venezuela and
despite the tightening of sanctions on Iran. I don't see the need to do anything
immediately," Falih was quoted by CNBC in Riyadh. "Our intent is to remain within our
voluntary (OPEC) production limit."
One major group, however, seems surprisingly unruffled. Even after Trump mentioned the
Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by name, suggesting that they will be
stepping up to fill in any supply gaps once Tehran is edged out, members from OPEC themselves
have remained extremely measured on the issue, saying that they will not be rushing to ramp
up production.
They are saying, "screw you, Trump, we are not raising production."
On Wednesday Saudi Arabia's energy minister Khalid al-Falih said that the kingdom will
not be taking any immediate action to increase oil production, adding that they respond to
market fundamentals as opposed to pricing and that the nation, the top oil exporter in the
world, will remain focused on maintaining a balanced global oil market above all other
concerns.
"Other concerns", meaning doing Trump's bidding. Or more correctly, not doing Trump's
bidding.
In my opinion, if there's no sustained output increase before the end of the year from the
big OPEC producers Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, and Iraq, it's because these countries have
peaked. And I don't count emptying storage tanks as output increase.
Currently the only countries on Earth with production capacity above their production is
Iran, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, Canada, and possibly Russia. The rest are producing at their
capacity.
They are in the driver's seat now. Of course they are not going to ramp up production. They
are going to make a nice profit, before doing anything. By then, it will be far, far too
late. But, it's already too late, anyway. I don't even think reversing directions on Iran
would stop the slide.
Sending troops into Venezuela in the 2020's might be the coup de grace to both our budget and
sense of unity as a nation. Here's hoping the politicians don't go there.
Let's examine this absurdity of pricing oil lower, because this would ignore the "free
market." Imagine how absurd it is to think anyone would do such a thing.
My God, if you did that then Iran would not ship oil to Syria, knowing Syria cannot pay
for it. They would never do such a thing. And if you dared to laugh at the concept of free
market, my God, then Saudi citizens from 2000-2006 would have had to endure the horrors of
paying $1/gallon for gasoline while the rest of the world paid double or triple that. No one
would ever do such a thing.
Argentina's Vaca Muerta is going to flow about a 50% increase in shale oil and gas this
year over last year, because they, too, would never dare to declare a price to be something
other than what this "free market" says.
For years and years Ukraine paid GAZPROM a price for natural gas roughly 1/3 what the EU
was paying. But heavens, that must never actually have happened because no one would ever
price things lower than the "free market". Coup actions were then taken to put a stop to
this, because of the evils of Ukraine paying a lower price.
Of course, if you owe $22 Trillion and are absolutely desperate to have inflation cheapen
that debt, maybe lower prices for anyone for anything becomes, indeed, the horror of
horrors.
Watcher, of course, nations often subsidize their products to their own citizens. They
sacrifice the price they could get on the open world market in order to keep their citizens
happy and supporting the status quo. That doesn't prove a goddamn thing as far as the free
market goes.
Bottom Line: People, companies, and nations sell their product for the highest price they can get.
People, companies. and nations buy products for the lowest price they can find.
That is just common sense. You arguing against supply and demand reminds me of people who
still argue that the earth is flat.
Never paid any attention to the technicals. Only fundamentals. Made some good money on calls
over the past year, but I don't see it in puts for a good while. Only short term swings, and
I don't have the nerve for those. And, is that Brent or WTI, not that it makes that much of a
difference. I don't think it will ever get close to the $50 range in my limited lifetime.
The Earth is measurably not flat. Curvature is a physical parameter. It can be measured from
orbit. It has been measured from orbit.
The number of occasions when a transaction takes place with a price determined by
something other than this alleged psychological behavior derived from supply and demand
almost certainly far exceeds the number of occasions when such a thing might determine price.
We've done this before. Through all history, every item ever stolen, every item ever acquired
via conquest, every item ever acquired via donation, every item ever acquired via
inheritance, via Royal award -- these far, far exceed the number of, and certainly the value
of, transactions in a marketplace.
So why aren't these methodologies considered the definitive pricing technique for
transactions in general, and simply accept that only the most rare and quaint of transactions
take place via a marketplace.
Oh and by the way, since this pricing process is psychological, determined by the minds of
buyer and seller, you do realize you are saying that the price is determined by something
imagined by both parties, meaning their presumption of supply and demand. You do realize this
means that the actual supply and the actual demand does not determine the price, even for
these rare transactions.
You are saying that reality doesn't determine the price. Only imagination. How can anyone
think this is a science or a law of nature.
Watcher, you've likely seen the following scenario. Two service stations kitty corner to each
other. One sells gas for a few pennies less than the other one and has way more people
filling up than the more expensive one. This is a real life example of demand driven by lower
cost.
The law of supply and demand is an example of a perfectly useless law. It can be used
neither to predict future prices nor supply. What is it good for? I think it much more
instructive to think about feedback cycles.
A couple of other examples off the top of my head:
A school, I believe in Israel, experimented with charging parents for bringing their
children to school late. The result was more late children when the parents were charged. The
explanation was that parents felt less guilty for bringing children to school late if they
could pay off the school.
Paying people to give blood can reduce the number of donors. Giving blood for a cause can
make people feel good, if they get paid to give the blood they lose the good feeling. The
hospital taking the blood decided to give an option to have the payment go to a charity.
During times of famine, farmers do not make more money (this is a comment in Graeber's
book). For example in Venezuela where food security is currently very critical the government
is forcing farmers to sell their production below cost.
It seems that there are 230 legacy rigs still working in the USA. These are the less
efficient & slower rigs. And so there is still some room for efficiency gains when those
legacy rigs are replaced.
It reads like he is saying that 600 to 700 legacy rigs have gone since 2014
2019-04-25 (Seeking Alpha) Helmerich & Payne, Inc. (HP) CEO John Lindsay on Q1 2019
Results – Earnings Call Transcript
I think it's also important when we have this conversation that we also mentioned that
there's still about 230 legacy rigs, mostly SCR but even some mechanical rigs that have been
upgraded in some capacity or another to do some of this more challenging horizontal work. And
those rigs are out there working today, obviously, much fewer SCR rigs working today than
what you saw in 2014.
Seeking Alpha ->
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4256850-helmerich-and-payne-inc-hp-ceo-john-lindsay-q1-2019-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
For a sustained hit to growth, economists say oil would need to hold above $100. It also depends on dollar
strength or weakness, given crude is priced in greenbacks. Analysis by Oxford Economics found that Brent at $100
per barrel by the end of 2019 means the level of global gross domestic product would be 0.6 percent lower than
currently projected by end-2020, with inflation on average 0.7 percentage points higher.
"We see increased risks of significantly higher oil prices," Oxford economists John Payne and Gabriel Sterne
wrote in a note. "In the short-run, it is likely the supply impact will be offset by higher production elsewhere,
but the market is tightening and all it would take is one more shock to supply and oil could reach $100."
3. How will Iran and Trump impact the market?
An upending of global oil trade around the Iran-Trump spat could continue to have a sizable impact on financial
markets, as the affected supply is as much as 800,000
barrels
a day. Uncertainties around availability have already
whipsawed oil markets
. And the political sensitivities of these developments have other markets bracing for
volatility.
Trump has pledged to help, alongside Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., those needing to shift orders from Iran to
another supplier. But U.S. claims that its domestic supply can help offset the loss are a high bar to meet, given
that the daily American output for
similar
crude is about a quarter of Iran's.
4. Who wins from higher oil prices?
Emerging economies dominate the list of oil-producing nations which is why they're affected more than developed
ones. The increase in revenues will help to repair budgets and current account deficits, allowing governments to
increase spending that will spur investment. Winners include Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Nigeria and Ecuador
according to analysis by Nomura.
5. Who loses?
Those emerging economies nursing current account and fiscal deficits run the risk of large capital outflows and
weaker currencies, which in turn would spark inflation. That in turn will force governments and central banks to
weigh up their options: hike interest rates even as growth slows or ride it out and risk capital flight. Nomura's
losers list includes Turkey, Ukraine and India.
6. What does it mean for the world's biggest economy?
While U.S. oil producers try to take advantage of any sales boost from customers moving away from Iran, the
broader U.S. economy won't necessarily see benefits with oil price tags as high as $100 a barrel.
It would be a squeeze on American consumers that are the backbone of
still-steady economic growth
. Prices at the gas pump already have risen more than 7 percent this month to
$2.89 a gallon, which could weigh on retail sales that jumped in March by the most since 2017.
And if things go awry in global oil markets, there's risk that political blame shifts back to the U.S. for the
sanctions, which could mean backlash via investment or other channels that threatens economic stability.
7. Will it lead to higher inflation around the world?
Because energy features prominently in consumer price gauges, policy makers look to core indexes that remove
volatile components. If the run-up in prices proves to be substantial, and sustained, those costs will filter
through to transportation and utilities.
8. What does it mean for central banks?
Led by the Federal Reserve, central banks around the world have taken a
dovish tilt
as the absence of inflation allows policy makers to shift their focus to slowing growth. That's
unlikely to quickly change. The International Monetary Fund this month lowered its global growth forecast and said
the world is in a "delicate moment."
"... In a properly accounted world all of those wells from 2 years ago which cannot be repay their debt should have that debt apply to the new wells that are drilled now -- and erase their profit. This is forever, by the way. Anytime oil drops below whatever 60, or 55 or 50, the wells drilled then and the money borrowed to drill them is essentially guaranteed to get applied to future wells. ..."
"... But this won't happen. When you have to have the oil you get the oil. ..."
Not going to scroll up for the spreadsheet above, not easy where I am sitting right now.
Concerning net revenue and production. The problem is not future price of oil. The problem
is the past price of oil. Two-thirds of the total lifetime production of one of these shale
wells comes out of the ground in the first two years. The price was sub-60 a couple of years
back and that oil flowed and generated only that much money. That well's debt is not going to
get repaid by that well. The oil came out at a lower price and that deal is done.
This means that the month number where revenue becomes negative is much sooner. And if
things were logical and money was not created from thin air, the fact that the well in
question cannot repay its debt does not make the debt go away.
In a properly accounted world
all of those wells from 2 years ago which cannot be repay their debt should have that debt
apply to the new wells that are drilled now -- and erase their profit. This is forever, by
the way. Anytime oil drops below whatever 60, or 55 or 50, the wells drilled then and the
money borrowed to drill them is essentially guaranteed to get applied to future wells.
But this won't happen. When you have to have the oil you get the oil.
He called OPEC? Just whom at OPEC did he speak with? OPEC is a group of oil exporting
nations. They meet once every six months or so to decide what they will do, if anything.
No one can just call OPEC and OPEC will decide to produce more oil. They have to meet, talk
it over, and decide what to do.
This just shows what a fucking liar Trump really is.
"... The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with Iran. ..."
"... We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they are ready to pull out from the deal. ..."
"... He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition. ..."
It's hard to foresee how US efforts to bring Iranian oil exports to zero will play out in
future, Vladimir Putin admitted, saying OPEC members should live up to their obligation to keep
output as low as possible if it comes true. Russia has an agreement with the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut their output by 1.2 million barrels per day,
which remains in effect until July of this year, Putin said. But the US waivers – which
gave a host of countries an exemption from the existing anti-Iran sanctions – expire much
earlier, he reminded.
I don't imagine how the global energy market will react to that.
In November, the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran's energy, shipbuilding and banking sectors
in a bid to deprive Tehran of its main sources of revenue. But it simultaneously issued waivers
to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey – the main importers of Iranian crude
– so that they can find alternative vendors of oil.
The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions
beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American
restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with
Iran.
Commenting on the issue, Putin said he hopes the market will eventually avoid the deficit of
Iranian oil and that Iran will still be able to sell it. The comment came on the heels of
conflicting reports that Donald Trump persuaded Riyadh to ramp up oil output this lowering fuel
costs; these reports were denounced by OPEC officials.
Nevertheless, there is "no evidence" that any country is going to withdraw from the
OPEC+ agreement to drop oil outputs, Putin said.
We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they
are ready to pull out from the deal.
He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed
by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to
withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition.
So oil prices with rise which threaten Trump bid in 2020. Interesting times.
Notable quotes:
"... As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its new patron's will. ..."
The announcement by India's Oil Minister that his country will replace US-sanctioned
Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" despite the dramatic Bollywood show that New Delhi has made up until this point out of "defying" US sanctions makes
one seriously wonder whether India's preparing to ditch Russia next if the US imposes CAATSA
sanctions against it over the S-400s.
Shattering The "Indian Illusion"
The "
Indian Illusion " has been shattered after India's Oil Minister tweeted that his country will
replace US-sanctioned Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" such
as the Islamic Republic's hated GCC foes of Saudi
Arabia and the UAE that America said will
step up their exports in order to stabilize global prices after Washington announced that
it won't renew its anti-Iranian oil sanction waivers. New Delhi made a dramatic Bollywood-like
show over the past year out of "defying" US sanctions, with External Affairs Minister Sushma
Swaraj announcing last May that India will
only obey UNSC sanctions and not those unilaterally imposed by the US in contravention of
international law.
The Oil Minister himself said back in October before the waivers were issued that India will
continue buying Iranian oil in spite of the US sanctions, later
crediting Prime Minister Modi a month later when the US eventually granted it the waiver.
Adding "credibility" to the illusion that India's perception managers were masterfully
creating, it was then reported that the country will
use rupees instead of dollars when trading with Iran, a bold move that even fooled an RT
columnist who headlined his op-ed on this development as a " response to US global
bullying ".
As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality
the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its
new patron's will.
Some pretty strange ideas if we are taking about oil. What they are smiling at RAND?
Notable quotes:
"... That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms. ..."
"... of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is all so very sad.. ..."
"... No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian ethos.) ..."
"... I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced. ..."
"... Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give “free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets? ..."
According to RAND the best option to overextend and unbalance is to produce more oil:
Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia's economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension,
its defense spending. By adopting policies that expand world supply and depress global prices, the United States can limit Russian
revenue. Doing so entails little cost or risk, produces second-order benefits for the U.S. economy, and does not need multilateral
endorsement.
That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make
a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production
comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields
at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There
is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to
survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms.
The second best option says RAND is to increase sanctions of Russia. This also doesn't make much sense. Russia can produce everything
it needs and it has free access to the world's largest markets, China and India.
The best military options listed by RAND are all useless. All the new weapon systems Russia has revealed over the last two years
are way more capable than anything the U.S. is able to field. If the U.S., as RAND advocates, invest more in certain fields, it will
only be to catch up. That does not impose any new costs on Russia.
... ... ...
In all I find it a bit impertinent to publicly argue for "overextending and unbalancing Russia". Where is the need to do such?
The study demonstrates again that strategic analysis by U.S. think tanks is woefully shallow-minded. The "experts" writing these
have no deep understanding of Russia, or even of the economic-political complexity of the real world.
Four of the eight best options the RAND study found start with the words "Invest more in ...". It is a sign that the foremost
motive its writers had in mind is to grab more taxpayer money. Fine. Give it to them already. Overextending and unbalancing the U.S.
by more abstruse expenditure for weapon systems that do not work will neither hurt me nor Russia.
thanks b.. of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools
for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more
money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is
all so very sad..
@1 steven.. well, as i read you, you are essentially supporting a continuation of the usa pouring endless
money into the military then, regardless the accuracy of the accounts on the new Russian weapons.. do i have that right?
No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think
it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is
the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian
ethos.)
However, since I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think
pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced.
>> The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production
beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers.
Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give
“free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal
subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets?
Of course, the money is not “free”. Depreciating the currency, an inflation tax, shows up in lower-quality goods (like frankenfood—
we cannot afford healthy food any more) and higher prices in everything. But, again, who’s counting? The BLS and the media? Yep.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says unilateral sanctions against Iran are illegal, and show the
ascendancy of John Bolton; they intensify tension with China and threaten our international
position
The Trump administration is ramping up its campaign against Iran by announcing it will end
waivers allowing eight countries to continue importing Iranian oil -- part of an attempt to
drop Iranian oil exports to zero. This follows the Trump administration's categorization of
part of Iran's army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, as a terrorist organization, and
unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
"This administration, for all intents and purposes in my view, is working against the
interests of the United States," Colonel Larry Wilkerson told The Real News Network's Marc
Steiner. China and Turkey have already said they will not abide by the U.S. ending of the
waivers, but India will possibly follow along, all of which could lead to a more profound trade
war.
The decision also represents the influence of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was
in favor of these sanctions, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wanted the waivers to
continue.
Steiner noted that the sanctions violate international law and asked whether this brings the
U.S. closer to war with Iran, or if the sanctions are "in lieu of war." Wilkerson explained
that John Bolton wants war even if Trump does not, and that regardless, these oil sanctions are
"economic warfare" -- an especially risky international gamble.
"We're getting away with it [only] because we are the most powerful country in the world,
economically, financially, and militarily," Wilkerson said. "That's not always going to be the
case."
Wilkerson suspects that countries such as China, Russia, or India will eventually respond to
U.S. sanctions with their own, or make an end-run around them.
"I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways we can't really calculate right
now," Wilkerson said. "And by that I mean we're going to have everything from the Chinese
attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar to the Chinese and the Russians
perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial network that
will eventually supplant that of the United States."
He told Steiner that it appears as though the U.S. is "suicidal," lacking any interest in
diplomacy, and continuing to distance itself from its allies.
"We just lost badly in Syria, and we lost to a triumvirate of Syria under Bashar al-Assad,
Russia, and Iran. Look at what happened, what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot of men and
women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion, but
nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we have
in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a boy
king who's losing one war on one flank and alienated Qatar on the other," Wilkerson said. "It's
all falling apart. We're losing everywhere I look in the world, losing badly to that man in
Moscow who picks up the pieces and you know, goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't
like Cuba, goes to Venezuela when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that will
include military force. Putin is the strategist in the world right now picking up on every
piece we drop -- and we're dropping too many." Story Transcript MARC STEINER Welcome to
The Real News Network. I'm Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us. Trump is stepping up
his campaign against Iran once again, announcing that he will end waivers that allowed eight
countries to continue importing Iranian oil. He wants to drive Iranian oil exports to zero. All
this comes on the heels of officially labeling the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist
organization and of course, forcing the U.S. to unilaterally pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Well what course are we on? Are we inching toward a war with Iran? Are these intensified
sanctions just an alternative to all-out war? How could the U.S. just unilaterally impose
international sanctions? Doesn't that violate international law? Can he do it because the U.S.
has a vital role in the international system of finance? Both Turkey and China have already
announced they will not abide by Trump's unilateral declaration of sanctions. Does this
intensify our trade war with China? We'll see. Joining us here at The Real News once again is
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Chief-of-staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, retired from U.S. Army, and is now Distinguished Adjunct Professor at the College of
William and Mary where he teaches U.S. National Security. I welcome and good to have you back
with us here on The Real News.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be back again.
MARC STEINER So before we start, let's run this short piece by Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and what he had to say about the intensifying of sanctions.
MIKE POMPEO Today I am announcing that we will no longer grant any exemptions. We're going
to zero, going to zero across the board. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor
compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should due it's diligence and err on the
side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits. We've made our
demands very clear to the Ayatollah and his cronies: end your pursuit of nuclear weapons, stop
testing and proliferating ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring and committing terrorism, halt
the arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens. Our pressure is aimed at fulfilling these demands and
others and I will continue to accelerate until Iran is willing to address them at the
negotiating table.
MARC STEINER So what's your instant analysis of what we've just seen here, what we're
seeing, Larry?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON First, the dispute within the administration -- much ballyhooed
between Bolton and Pompeo and Brian Hook, Pompeo's main man on Iran -- is apparently over and
Bolton won. Pompeo and Brian Hook were not in favor of going all the way on oil sanctions. They
were in favor of continuing the waivers for countries like China and India, and so forth. So
that means Bolton's won. That's an ominous victory in my mind. More ominous was Bolton and
Pompeo and Pompeo in particular's testimony to the Congress about the "connections between
al-Qaeda and Iran." I've been there done that. I remember when George Tenet very forcefully and
powerfully in late January-early February of 2003, pointed out to Colin Powell who had just
said, toss that stuff out of my presentation to the United Nations. It stinks. That stuff
being, connections between al-Qaeda and Baghdad over 9/11. Pompeo essentially said to Rand Paul
in questioning him in the Senate and elsewhere, that there were connections between al-Qaeda
and Iran, and implied that those connections gave the president the right to go to war with
Iran without having to go to the Congress of the United States. In other words, the original
A.U.M.F. authorization for the use of military force issued after 9/11, pertained some
seventeen to eighteen years later to Iran.
MARC STEINER And that's where you skin yourself. Most people who know this arena, know that
area, the contradiction of saying Iran and al-Qaeda are one or are working with one another,
just on its face doesn't make any sense.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Nonsense just as it was with Saddam Hussein. We all know now, but it
was a very powerful thing for Colin Powell to tell the U.N. Security Council and even more
powerful for him to tell the American people that. And that's what Trump and Bolton and Pompeo
now are trying to duplicate: another specious case for war.
MARC STEINER So do you think -- speaking of that -- are we inching our way towards war with
Iran, or do you think what we're seeing, these sanctions, are actually in lieu of war? What do
you think the dynamic is here?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't think Trump wants war, but I know John Bolton does. So I
have to imagine that there is going to be a come to Jesus meeting or some such resolution with
Donald Trump if Bolton persists in wanting to use military force and Donald Trump doesn't. On
the side of all of this, is Trump's new partner in crime, Bibi Netanyahu. We don't know what
Bibi promised Donald Trump when Donald Trump weighed in on Bibi's election. I'm told by people
who know these sorts of things in Israel, that had Trump not weighed in heavily for Bibi, that
he might not have won, that it might have been a lot closer that it was, and it was pretty
close anyway. So I don't know what Bibi promised Trump in return. It might be that he conducts
whatever military operation is conducted with respect to Iran. Anything's possible here with
these two characters.
MARC STEINER But the whole Bibi question is something we've spent a half-an-hour, hours just
talking about what that relationship is, and who's driving whose foreign policy when it comes
to Iran especially.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. Gideon Levy in Haaretz was right when he said U.S.-Middle East
policy is not made in Washington. It's made, he said Tel Aviv, but now he would say
Jerusalem.
MARC STEINER So let me ask you another question. How can the United States just unilaterally
impose international sanctions? I thought that's something the Security Council would have to
do and people are writing this as a violation of international law. So from your perch when you
were the Secretary of State and now, how does that play into all this?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think it plays very dangerously. We are becoming -- through our
manipulation of the Swiss system and other means in the world for financial transactions -- a
pariah in the world. Very much despised and even hated in the world and increasingly, by our
own friends and allies like Germany, France, Britain, and so forth. This manipulation of this
system that we largely set up for tracking terrorist monies and so forth, has been turned into
a very sophisticated weapon. It's economic warfare in anybody's book and the only reason we're
getting away from it, you just hinted at. We're getting away with it because we are the most
powerful country in the world -- economically, financially, and militarily. That's not always
going to be the case and I suspect there are going to people like China, like Russia, like
India, like other countries in the world, finally getting tired of this and start reciprocating
and building other systems to go around ours.
MARC STEINER Stepping up the sanctions against Iran and saying nobody can buy any oil from
Iran at all, zeroing them out -- China and Turkey have already said we're not abiding by this.
You can't tell us how to run our economy and what we're doing. India is caught between a rock
and a hard place. They don't want to go with this. Ten percent of their crude oil comes from
Iran, but they're in a tough bind given who finances them as well. So how is this going to play
out? This can lead to greater trade wars between China and the U.S. How do you see this all
tumbling out, both in terms of Iran and our relationship with those other nations?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways that we
can't really calculate right now. By that I mean, we're going to have everything from the
Chinese attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar, to the Chinese and the
Russians perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial
network that will eventually supplant that of the United States. So this has enormous potential
for backfiring, just like all the enemies we are creating in the world right now and the allies
that we're distancing ourselves from. These are not positive moves by the United States. If I
were on Mars looking down at the United States right now, and I were some wise Martian
statesmen, and I was trying to figure out what the United States -- the current hegemon of the
world -- was trying to do, I would think we were trying to commit suicide. It's as if we do not
have any means of doing anything diplomatically or otherwise, that doesn't rebound to our
discredit. Look at what's happened. We just lost badly in Syria and we lost to a triumvirate of
Syria under Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran. Look at what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot
of men and women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion,
but nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we
have in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a
boy-king who's losing one war on one flank, and alienated Qatar on the other. Our latest NATO
in the Middle East just lost its most formidable partner, Egypt. It's all falling apart. We're
losing everywhere I look in the world and losing badly to that man in Moscow who picks up the
pieces and goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't like Cuba. He goes to Venezuela
when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that would include military force. Putin
is the strategist in the world right now, picking up on every piece we drop, and we're dropping
too many.
MARC STEINER So very quickly here before we run out of time, one quick question. If you were
sitting in the halls of power at this moment, and your job is Chief-of-staff or the Secretary
of State, I'm curious what you would be saying to a president that said we have to do this.
What would you say is the alternative? What would you be saying at this moment?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Which one do you want to pick? [laughter] Kim Jong-un is going to
fire a ballistic missile or he's going to do a nuclear test or both sometime around
Christmas.
MARC STEINER Right.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON This administration for all intents and purposes, in my view, is
working against the interests of the United States. So the first thing I would do is sit down
and say, Mr. President, please before I walk out of here and go back to Foggy Bottom and retire
from my position because you are going to fire me, I want to know what you think the national
interests of the United States are. You said you were going to "make America great again." You
are destroying America. You said you were going to bring jobs back. You have only brought the
jobs back that the last three years of the Obama administration generated, because no president
ever generates them instantly. So you haven't done anything yet that looks like it's in the
interest of the United States and you've done a whole load of things that are clearly not in
our interest, not the least of which is to drive our allies away and make many enemies whom you
said all options are on the table confronting. Please, Mr. President. Tell me what you think
our interests are.
MARC STEINER And with that, I want to say thank you once again. Colonel Larry Wilkerson,
always a pleasure to have you here at The Real News. And thanks so much for your thoughts and
wisdom.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Thank you.
MARC STEINER And I'm Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining
us. Take care.
Rising gasoline prices is what Bolton and Pompeo essentially prepared for Trump in 2020.
Notable quotes:
"... So while Trump cheerleads more oil production through fracking and deregulation, he also implores Saudi to keep production up for the same reason. ..."
"... No one, including Trump, is very worried about the financial health of the US oil oligarchy. ..."
...falling oil prices benefit US consumers more than consumers anywhere else. In fact, one
of Trump's biggest domestic political vulnerabilities going into 2020 is rising retail
gasoline prices.
The other oil producing countries are more dependent on petroleum exports than the US
where the energy sector, while huge, has a smaller impact on the health of the overall
economy.
So while Trump cheerleads more oil production through fracking and deregulation, he also
implores Saudi to keep production up for the same reason. He's more concerned with lowering
oil prices than he is with supporting the profits of US petroleum companies.
No one, including Trump, is very worried about the financial health of the US oil
oligarchy.
Indeed, this looks like a potentially much more dangerous situation. If these major nations
obey Trump (I suspect some will not), Iran might be tempted to take more aggressive action,
with blocking the Straits of Hormuz among the more serious. This would really spike the price
of oil, and quite possibly trigger a war. This may be what the Trump people want, with their
real policy apparently being "regime change." However, so far the only regime change seems to
be rising influence of hardliners, with a new hardline commander for the now sanctioned
Revolutionary Guards being appointed. He has been talking about missiles getting fired on
Israel from Lebanon by Hezbollah. Is this what Netanyahu really wants?
I think those who think the Iranian regime will easily be overthrown are more deluded than
those who advocated invading Iraq (and some of them are the same people, see John Bolton
especially). This has the potential of really seriously distracting people from the Mueller
Report, but not at all in a good way.
... ... ...
Another Addendum: In WaPo
this morning they report that the other three nations are Greece, Italy, and Taiwan, and that
they have already stopped buying Iranian oil under US pressure. Also, apparently Japan has been
stockpiling oil from there and has stopped further purchases already in anticipation of just
this move by the US. OTOH, both China and Turkey are talking about not obeying the US order. No
word out of either India or South Korea so far.
Bolton says that this is all designed to make Iran be a "normal country," as if Saudi Arabia
were such. As it is, indeed the hawkish new leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has
spoken publicly of possibly blocking the Straits of Hormuz, as I suggested they may well be
contemplating.
It can manipulate short term trading because that's driven by headline reading computers and
other algos. Anything longer than that, talking price doesn't work if there's a serious
supply or demand issue. It's a near-zero elasticity industrial commodity.
He called OPEC? Just whom at OPEC did he speak with? OPEC is a group of oil exporting
nations. They meet once every six months or so to decide what they will do, if anything.
No one can just call OPEC and OPEC will decide to produce more oil. They have to meet, talk
it over, and decide what to do.
The price of oil slipped on Friday, more than offsetting Thursday's gains on a
"knee-jerk" reaction to the suspension of some Russian exports on quality concerns.
Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, on Thursday rose above $75 a barrel for
the first time in six months as Germany and Poland halted imports from Russia because of
contamination in the Druzhba pipeline.
But analysts said the market had over reacted and Brent pared its gains later in the
day, with the slip in price continuing into Friday as the marker fell 1.3 per cent to
$73.39.
"Fears of a supply shock were greatly exaggerated," said Stephen Brennock, an analyst
at PVM. "After all, refineries usually hold ample crude stockpiles to guard against such
disruptions. Little wonder then that the initial knee-jerk price reaction petered
out."
Damn, and all along I thought Trump got the credit. :-)
Well, I wouldn't classify the loss of one million barrels a day as exactly a knee jerk
reaction. We are supposed to have a 1.3 million barrel a day increase in demand. Ok, that's
2.3 more we need. Oops, US can't supply that, Canada is down, and Brazil and Argentina will
be essentially flat. Oh, oh, we need to add another 600k loss from Venezuela, and probably
another million from Iran, making about 3.9 million more needed. Other depletion .3 to .6
million? Spare capacity from OPEC is 3 million? Or, that's the fairy tale. Yeah, it's ok to
dream.
Just pay attention to how fast the ship is sinking.
It should, don't you think? Ninety nine out of 100 people in America believe the USGS
"discovered" 50 billion more barrels of oil last year in West Texas. Neither it nor the EIA
go to near enough lengths to qualify these type of "surveys;" accordingly they are misleading
and confusing to an uneducated public, including but not limited to, politicians in charge of
implementing America's energy policies.
The USGS mean average EUR in the Delaware Basin does not come close to paying out a $9MM
well. How then can operators drill 244K more wells in the Delaware costing nearly $2.4
trillion dollars to recover 46.2 billion more barrels of oil? What earthly good does it do
anybody to make an assessment of remaining resources over 8,000 square miles "if economics
are not considered?" As stupid as the shale oil industry is, even its smart enough to know
better than that.
My comment was directed at using so called unlimited, cheap shale oil resources as a
foreign policy tool, not getting in a pissing match about the USGS.
He called OPEC? Just whom at OPEC did he speak with? OPEC is a group of oil exporting
nations. They meet once every six months or so to decide what they will do, if anything.
No one can just call OPEC and OPEC will decide to produce more oil. They have to meet, talk
it over, and decide what to do.
This just shows what a fucking liar Trump really is.
He probably did call someone, and the conversation went kinda like this:
This is Donald Trump.
Aren't you the guy who owns all those hotels?
Yes, but I am also the President of the United States.
I'm sorry to hear that, what can I do for you?
We need for you to pump more oil, and lower gasoline prices.
Why? They are not high enough, yet.
We think they are, and if you don't get pumping I will agree to Nopec.
Then, we will no longer use the dollar to trade with, and you can watch the value of your
currency plummet.
Don't you realize who you are talking to? I am the President of the United States!
Oh yeah. The US, we used to trade with you. Good luck, and good bye!
President Trump didn't say who he had spoken to. Various OPEC officials say that they haven't
spoken to him
Wall Street Journal: OPEC Chief Barkindo Has Not Spoken to President Trump -- Source
Saudi officials: President Trump Has Not Discussed Lowering Oil Prices With Saudis
Trump said he called OPEC
One of the reasons oil prices sank today was because Trump said he "called OPEC" and asked
them to lower oil prices.
OPEC Chief Barkindo said he hasn't spoke with Trump, according to a report. Saudi
officials also say they haven't discussed lowering oil prices with Trump.
Update: Trump is now back and saying he spoke to Saudi Arabia and others about oil
prices.
Lies just roll off Trump's tongue. He thinks people will believe everything he says
without checking anything. What a blooming idiot.
OPEC must have put Trump on hold as gas price is still the same in my neck of the woods.
Laughed like hell when I saw the headline earlier today. Probably eighty percent of folks
believe he can actually do that. The heads of the OPEC countries probably laughed so hard
they spit out their dentures. Difficult to satirize this guy as he does a stellar job of it
himself!
Overproduction of capital – seeking a high, no risk return – is a certainty.
Especially with continuing QE. There is no end game now. That capital will find its way into
derivative casino capital gambling – of which only 2% ends up as a commodity changing
hands. The rest is hidden toxic exposure making the banking system untenable. Other outlets
include mergers and acquisitions (toward oligopolies of power); leveraged buyouts; and asset
stripping destroying any last real productive capacity for short term 'Global Death Protocol'
(GDP returns – one of the sensible points Monbiot made it is no substitute Human
Development Index). Pension fund raiding: there is thought to be a $30 tn black hole already
– now they want to release $90tn 'locked assets' without even the slightest chance of
ever getting an ROI. Overproduced capital will also find its way in to the tech bubble
– funding our AI-redundancy. Oil-rent, commodity-rent, bio-pharma-rent, agi-rent, and
tech-rent seems to be a major part of the capitalist death throes. But you cannot rent a host
humanity by making them redundant. Now they also want to rent nature back to us. Add in
spiralling exponential debt; EROI and a slow-burn falling net-energy crisis; and
authoritarian states merging with bureaucratised corporate capital down to the local
infrastructure level its humanity versus corporate state insanity.
And the bleated hope of sheep is that a nativist leader – like Jeremy Corbyn –
will come along and save us. Reality is going to have to hit the majoritarian massif really
hard in the face to wake people up to the systemic fragility of globalised capitalism.
Unfortunately, its internecine internal contradictions may prove fatal before that. My hope
is that something better may rise from the ashes: a humanist society contra all the fatal
contradictions of relentless coercive capital accumulation. Given the level of political and
ecological acumen we encounter on a daily basis I'm presently not too optimistic. But that
can change, rapidly. Consciousness is not timebound or limited by causality (see below). Now!
would be a good time for a consciousness evolutionary explosion a Big Bang of a new reality.
Depending on what the Big Bang of the old leaves intact! There will be a solution. It might
not be optimal though. I presently can't see any smooth transition taking place. Carpe deum
and enjoy the ride over the ever quickening rapids of the net energy falls!
Pepe's item mentions the $2.5 Quadrillion of derivatives "would start a chain reaction of
destruction" in response to rapid spikes in oil price that per previous discussions would
rebound asymmetrically onto Outlaw US Empire and generate a massive crisis far worse than
soaring gasoline prices as that would constitute a direct hit on Deep State interests and it
would take casualties for the first time.
"Diplomatic communication and dialogue coupled with the strong defence these ships provide
demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations with the United States, it must
cease its destabilising activities around the world."
Two Imperial carrier groups are now in the Med offering themselves as juicy targets.
Huntsman's bluff and buster is yet another example of Pompeo's idiocy. I thought the
RT headline "Mask off? US ambassador to Russia says US practices diplomacy with
aircraft carriers" more appropriate for its item about Huntsman's hubris.
A check of San Francisco gas prices
via GasBuddy shows a very broad range from $3.99-4.59/gal, while here in Oregon it's
@3.25; and at Refinery Central--Houston--it's not over $3/gal yet. So, there's a ways to go
before the pain threshold is reached nationally.
Today marks day 2 for the 8th annual Moscow Conference on International Security whose
"main topic" this year focuses on Middle East Issues ,
which will certainly include the undeclared hybrid war between Iran and the Outlaw US Empire.
Hopefully we will get some reporting on the discussions taking place there. Shoigu spoke
yesterday, while Lavrov speaks today.
In a related development, the Parliamentary Baghdad Summit had its one day and
reportedly didn't accomplish much aside from getting former adversaries together in the
same room. I'm hopeful of finding a more detailed report. That most of the GCC wasn't invited
seems to be due to the Summit's theme being Iraqi neighbors. One might have expected either
Iran or Saudi to not send a representative given past/current enmity, but both attended and
didn't attack each other. That Saudi and UAE sent flood relief aid to Iran is a very good
sign that the Umma is finally reforming to deal with its primary enemies--Zionistan and the
Outlaw US Empire. Of course, in any armed conflict between Iran and the Empire, being on
better terms with GCC and Saudi will be important--there'll be no coalition of the bullied
and bribed Arab NATO.
What I'm seeing is Iran gaining more regional allies at the expense of the Outlaw US
Empire. The just concluded visit of Pakistan PM Khan to Iran is a major case in point as is
the détente between Iran and Qatar. And continued flack targeting Saudi within the US
Congress is certainly affecting King Salman's viewpoints. Blowback from previous Imperial
hubris initiated by Bolton and Pompeo's CIA predecessors is working against their policy
goals. IMO, the "waiver holders" are unlikely to waver as there're no market substitutes for
Iranian oil. If they get targeted too, then an escalation in blowback will occur as every
Outlaw US Empire move is illegal and immoral.
Most of the of the amateurs reporting "derivative amounts" are stated in notional values,
which is wrong (Love Pepe's work, but he is not a financial economist.) It's the offset value
(not including counter-party amounts) that matter and it's far less than notional. So, no end
of the world hysteria needed.
Also, it's marginal price of gas relative to a person's balance sheet that matters. I
think that's what b is referring to. In english, most people have a fixed monthly income and
gas is a big chunk of expenses (for those who actually work). A gas price increase of $0.25
or more means that they have to reduce expenses somewhere else (unlikely since 'mericans love
their lifestyles) or go further into debt, which means they pull-forward future consumption.
That's what partly causes the slowing of economic future activity. That is ONE reason this
extended (FED) monetary policy is so destructive to the real economy.
a) violate sanctions and risk severe penalties; or
b) go along with sanctions but if Iran pulls the pin on the world economy, China could
very well completely crash economically, to the point that I wonder if there could be a
revolution. Also, everyone knows about China's Muslim issues, Iran could say "it would be
shame if someone armed those tens of million of Muslims you have".
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif has
conducted an interview with Reuters saying Trump didn't want war but could be "lured into
one." As usual, Reuters doesn't just provide a transcript of the interview, only publishing
what it wants to publish. We'll need to await the official Iranian transcript to note what
else was said and what was reported out-of-context.
China will ignore the illegal Outlaw US Empire diktat and carry on as before. If it's
challenged, it has the means to defend itself and will. The Empire is beholden to China not
the other way-round.
@39
Nobody cares what Italy and Greece need. They are good little vassals and will do what told.
Turkey is of course a bigger problem, but might just be mostly overlooked and ignored.
The big fish are China and India. Those are the major users of iranian oil, and neither of
them is likely to desist. What will the US do with them? Not possiple to financially sanction
China.
That's why I think there will be lots of talk, but no action against anyone still buying
iranian oil. Especially since Venezuela is not resolved. Nobody, not even the US, intends to
march into Venezuela to "liberate" any oil wells any time soon.
While Maduro might some day collapse under his camarilla's corruption and his own
incompetence, it will take a long time, probably years. Especially the opposition against him
is similary incompetent. My guess is, it will take longer than Trump will be in office.
One would think hindsight would be 20:20 on the US ending Iran oil waivers on Monday and the
surging
price of oil in the first 48 hours since that happened. The Trump Administration remains
upbeat, however, and confident that what clearly just happened won't happen.
Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow made comments Tuesday at the National Press Club,
comments which again came two days after the announcement, and after two days of prices going
up substantially, assuring that there would be no price increase.
"I don't see any palpable impact. The world is awash with oil," Kudlow told the audience.
That clearly appears to have been the administration's rationale, with several officials
emphasizing the excess oil on the market before this move was ultimately made.
Their math was a bit off though. Estimates of tens of thousands of additional barrels of oil
supply being available were slammed headlong into a US move that aimed to stop Iran's roughly
one million barrels of daily oil sales. This has already lead to a rush on the market, with
nations trying to secure supply while they can, and at higher prices.
All of this was well predictable. Indeed, financial outlets had already predicted that the
administration would have to keep the waivers program going specifically because they couldn't
afford this increase in global prices. Instead, they deluded themselves into thinking it
wouldn't happen, and when it did, continued to maintain that it didn't, or wouldn't.
Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil
exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil
from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has
Economic Sanctions === Economic Terrorist Attack Recent terrorist attacks indicate that
the United States is using extremist organizations to provoke religious wars. The aim is to
split Eurasia and make troubles for Europe. The United States is very afraid of peace in
Eurasia, because it will make the United States a third world country.
Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil
exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil
from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has
What it really means. 42 more years, and it's gone. 1.531 trillion bbls divided by a no
grow of 100 million bbls consumption a day, simple math. And we rant about finding another 50
billion bbls. That only takes the total of the recoverable oil to 1.581 trillion bbls.
Oil will leave us before we leave oil. We are heading for mass starvation. There are no
electric fire engines, there are no electric ambulances, there are no electric farm
machinery, there are no electric military machinery, there are no electric boats or ships or
ferries, there are no electric airplanes, fighter jets, helicopters, there are 1.4 billion
cars in the world of which 3 million are electric, if Tesla quadruples production it couldn't
replace the gas and diesel powered vehicles in 1200 years, and the Chinese electrics are
crap.
This map is complete BS. No one, especially some spy agency, knows how much of anything is
underground.
The only known fact is current production. "Known Reserves" is a hopelessly politicized
exercise in conjecture, primarily for the purpose of securitizing international loans at
favorable rates.
Proved reserves of crude oil in the United States increased 19.5% (6.4 billion barrels)
to 39.2 billion barrels at Year-End 2017, setting a new U.S. record for crude oil proved
reserves. The previous record was 39.0 billion barrels set in 1970.
The USGS says all 20 billion barrels of oil are "technically recoverable," meaning the
oil could be brought to the surface "using currently available technology and industry
practices."
Between the corrupt politicians, and oil execs. these morons can't even concoct a decent
lie anymore.
"... Al Gore is worth half a billion from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune much of it protected by the paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man. ..."
"... Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress. ..."
"... The reality is most people in this world, regardless of political belief, are worker bees. As it should be. This doesn't mean they are unthinking automatons. Too many Chiefs and not enough Indians makes for a bad organization. ..."
We don't really have a two party system in this country. There's only the party of incumbency, then wealthy retirement as "lobbyist"
or "consultant". We see Obama on billionaires' yachts and don't blink an eye.
Al Gore is worth half a billion from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune
much of it protected by the paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man.
Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out
how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress.
Shuffling the deck might have been the best thing for the country. Politicians aren't our friends
On 4/10/2019 at 1:16 AM,
Ward Smith
said: We don't really have a two party system in this country. There's only the party of incumbency, then wealthy retirement
as "lobbyist" or "consultant". We see Obama on billionaires' yachts and don't blink an eye. Al Gore is worth half a billion
from a net worth of 2.5 million when he left office. The Clintons control a $2.5 billion fortune much of it protected by the
paper thin veneer of a "foundation" from the tax man. Because when they ran on higher taxes on the rich, they meant thee, not
themselves. It's going to take awhile to figure out how Paul Ryan was bought off, but bought off he was. In some ways, the
biggest tragedy of 9/11 was that flight 93 couldn't find Congress. Shuffling the deck might have been the best thing for the
country. Politicians aren't our friends
You are correct. This is what I meant but I was not very clear. Unfortunately most people think there are 2 parties in the
US but there is really just one and they cooperate to enrich themselves, their families, and their friends at the expense of everyone
else.
I think the public gets confused because their rhetoric can be different but the way they behave once in office is very different.
On 4/9/2019 at 9:49 PM,
shadowkin
said: The irony of the Mueller investigation that was demanded by Democrats because they thought it would show Trump colluded
with Russia to win the Presidency is that it has blown up in their faces by exposing in greater detail how Obama and the Deep
State attempted first, to throw an election in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and second, attempted a coup once Trump
was elected via investigations and false claims.
Once Trump won the election, the Deep State used their accomplices in the msm to convince the American public that Donald
J Trump stole the election with the collaboration of the Russians. In this way they sought to remove him by impeachment.
It turns out the Deep State were the ones who were acting as agents of Russia seeking to tear America apart.
Consider:
John Brennan, Obama's CIA director, by his own admission, played a key role in instigating the investigation of Trump before
the election. In the aftermath of the election Brennan has repeatedly called Trump a traitor on social media and old media.
We now know in August 2016 Brennan gave a private briefing to Sen. Harry Reid. Subsequently, Reid sent a letter to the FBI
which included info that clearly came from the now infamous dossier, manufactured by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and
Fusion GPS contractor. This dossier would later be included in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application
that was used to justify investigations into Trump, his campaign, and his family. It now appears very likely Brennan later
lied under oath that he did not know who commissioned the dossier.
This dossier was originally funded by none other than Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Since the conclusion of the Mueller report has come out Brennan, probably fearing an investigation into his actions pre/post
election, now says he had "bad information". A more accurate description might be that he was willfully spreading disinformation
to bring down a President.
James Comey himself described this dossier as "salacious" and "unverified" yet he did not bother to have the FBI attempt
to verify the contents of the dossier.
This didn't stop Comey from lying 4 times to the FISA court that ex-British spy Steele was the source of an article by "journalist"
Isikoff, which was used to corroborate claims in his own dossier.
So Comey, in essence, told the FISA court that the Steele dossier had been corroborated by Steele.
Some background: Steele also worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. So the only person who had any verifiable evidence
of working with the Russians in any capacity is an ex-British spy, contracted to manufacture a false dossier on behalf of Hillary
Clinton to smear Trump and later weaponized to impeach Trump after he won the election.
Comey lied to the FISA court so he could obtain, as he did, a warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump staffer) and the Trump
family during the election.
Moreover, in addition to Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe,
and former Attorney General Sally Yates were required to sign off on the FISA warrant application. They are either incompetent
or were engaged in a conspiracy but regardless, this was a fraud on the FISA court.
Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the time at the Justice Department, acted as a middleman between the FBI and Steele. He
passed along information from his wife Nellie Ohr, also a Fusion GPS contractor like Steele , with, presumably, unverified
and false info regarding Trump and his campaign.
The FBI later terminated Steele's relationship as a confidential informant with them after he revealed this relationship
to the press. However, for up to 1.5 years after, Bruce Ohr continued to act as middleman between Steele and the FBI, even
after Mueller took over the investigation .
Americans should be marching in the streets at this attempted coup but we are so doped with mindless entertainment that
we no longer care. We are becoming a system where as long as you don't challenge the 2 party system you are allowed your freedom
to make money and to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't have consequences.
Any more details of Mueller's report due to be released by AG Barr are likely to reveal more of the rotted core of the Deep
State and their machinations and not, as Democrats think, damaging info about Trump.
In my opinion, Russiagate was a fraud and a hoax. However, I do not view "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity. I believe
there are various factions and interests, some more in common with others, and it's never clear in the shadowy netherworld of
intelligence and intrigue. What we see on the media are the figureheads and cartoon cutouts - the Ted Lieus, the Adam Schiffs,
the Muellers, the Maddows, etc.
In my opinion, the Trump election reflects a slight conflict precisely within the 'Deep State' factions. The neoliberal establishment
that has long since reigned does not like Trump for various reasons, including likely his geopolitical opinions. The Russiagate
narrative served to vilify Russia has the number enemy. Unfortunately, most in the American ruling class were and still are asleep
to the fact that the greatest geopolitical rival and threat to the U.S. actually comes from China, not Russia. Former candidates
like Mitt Romney are completely oblivious to the geopolitical tectonic shifts that are currently underway that will determine
the fate of the 21st century.
Russiagate did a whole lot of nothing, but the lasting effect of Russiagate has been online censorship of mostly right-leaning
personalities who dare questioned the official media narrative. Social media sites have largely silenced or banned those who did
not necessarily tow the main line. Russiagate will soon be in the public memoryhole, but you can bet the censorship tactics of
most of the social media corporations will remain intact.
Although I do not agree with Trump on most items, he was correct to see China as the true geopolitical rival to the U.S. and
his (at least) verbal overtures to woo Russia could be viewed as an attempt to mend ties with Russia. If the U.S. has any hope
of trying to stay relevant not just as a superpower but as a country, it will need to realize the reality and court proper alliances
on the grand chessboard, especially Russia.
We need a grassroots, bipartisan groundswell for term limits. Otherwise, in my opinion, we are doomed. The Swamp controls everything.
Unfortunately, half the population has Trump Derangement Syndrome, and aren't willing to focus on anything else.
On 4/10/2019 at 10:07 PM,
AncientEyes
said: In my opinion, Russiagate was a fraud and a hoax. However, I do not view "the Deep State" is a monolithic entity.
I believe there are various factions and interests, some more in common with others, and it's never clear in the shadowy netherworld
of intelligence and intrigue. What we see on the media are the figureheads and cartoon cutouts - the Ted Lieus, the Adam Schiffs,
the Muellers, the Maddows, etc.
In my opinion, the Trump election reflects a slight conflict precisely within the 'Deep State' factions. The neoliberal
establishment that has long since reigned does not like Trump for various reasons, including likely his geopolitical opinions.
The Russiagate narrative served to vilify Russia has the number enemy. Unfortunately, most in the American ruling class were
and still are asleep to the fact that the greatest geopolitical rival and threat to the U.S. actually comes from China, not
Russia. Former candidates like Mitt Romney are completely oblivious to the geopolitical tectonic shifts that are currently
underway that will determine the fate of the 21st century.
Russiagate did a whole lot of nothing, but the lasting effect of Russiagate has been online censorship of mostly right-leaning
personalities who dare questioned the official media narrative. Social media sites have largely silenced or banned those who
did not necessarily tow the main line. Russiagate will soon be in the public memoryhole, but you can bet the censorship tactics
of most of the social media corporations will remain intact.
Although I do not agree with Trump on most items, he was correct to see China as the true geopolitical rival to the U.S.
and his (at least) verbal overtures to woo Russia could be viewed as an attempt to mend ties with Russia. If the U.S. has any
hope of trying to stay relevant not just as a superpower but as a country, it will need to realize the reality and court proper
alliances on the grand chessboard, especially Russia.
Agree about China and censorship.
I also agree the Deep State isn't monolithic which is true of just about every large bureaucracy. There are definitely government
officials sympathetic to Trump.
But based on the high-level government officials involved and the intelligence agencies they represented I think what was done
to Trump can only be described as an attempted coup.
Further, I think we've crossed the Rubicon in terms of American democracy; what it means and where it goes from here.
The rabbit hole goes deep. They never thought Hillary would lose. Here's just one of the many reasons why I use
DuckDuckGo for my research searches rather than Google:
"... Americans should be marching in the streets at this attempted coup but we are so doped with mindless entertainment that we no longer care. We are becoming a system where as long as you don't challenge the 2 party system you are allowed your freedom to make money and to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't have consequences. ..."
The irony of the Mueller investigation that was demanded by Democrats because they thought it would show Trump colluded with Russia
to win the Presidency is that it has blown up in their faces by exposing in greater detail how Obama and the Deep State attempted
first, to throw an election in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and second, attempted a coup once Trump was elected via
investigations and false claims.
Once Trump won the election, the Deep State used their accomplices in the msm to convince the American public that Donald J
Trump stole the election with the collaboration of the Russians. In this way they sought to remove him by impeachment.
It turns out the Deep State were the ones who were acting as agents of Russia seeking to tear America apart.
Consider:
John Brennan, Obama's CIA director, by his own admission, played a key role in instigating the investigation of Trump before the
election. In the aftermath of the election Brennan has repeatedly called Trump a traitor on social media and old media.
We now know in August 2016 Brennan gave a private briefing to Sen. Harry Reid. Subsequently, Reid sent a letter to the FBI
which included info that clearly came from the now infamous dossier, manufactured by ex-British spy Christopher Steele and Fusion
GPS contractor. This dossier would later be included in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application that
was used to justify investigations into Trump, his campaign, and his family. It now appears very likely Brennan later lied under
oath that he did not know who commissioned the dossier.
This dossier was originally funded by none other than Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Since the conclusion of the Mueller report has come out Brennan, probably fearing an investigation into his actions pre/post
election, now says he had "bad information". A more accurate description might be that he was willfully spreading disinformation
to bring down a President.
James Comey himself described this dossier as "salacious" and "unverified" yet he did not bother to have the FBI attempt to
verify the contents of the dossier.
This didn't stop Comey from lying 4 times to the FISA court that ex-British spy Steele was the source of an article by "journalist"
Isikoff, which was used to corroborate claims in his own dossier. So Comey, in essence, told the FISA court that the Steele dossier had been corroborated by Steele.
Some background: Steele also worked for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. So the only person who had any verifiable evidence
of working with the Russians in any capacity is an ex-British spy, contracted to manufacture a false dossier on behalf of Hillary
Clinton to smear Trump and later weaponized to impeach Trump after he won the election.
Comey lied to the FISA court so he could obtain, as he did, a warrant to spy on Carter Page (Trump staffer) and the Trump family
during the election. Moreover, in addition to Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe, and
former Attorney General Sally Yates were required to sign off on the FISA warrant application. They are either incompetent or
were engaged in a conspiracy but regardless, this was a fraud on the FISA court.
Bruce Ohr, a senior official at the time at the Justice Department, acted as a middleman between the FBI and Steele. He passed
along information from his wife Nellie Ohr, also a Fusion GPS contractor like Steele , with, presumably, unverified and false
info regarding Trump and his campaign.
The FBI later terminated Steele's relationship as a confidential informant with them after he revealed this relationship to
the press. However, for up to 1.5 years after, Bruce Ohr continued to act as middleman between Steele and the FBI, even after
Mueller took over the investigation .
Americans should be marching in the streets at this attempted coup but we are so doped with mindless entertainment that
we no longer care. We are becoming a system where as long as you don't challenge the 2 party system you are allowed your freedom
to make money and to say whatever you want so long as it doesn't have consequences.
Any more details of Mueller's report due to be released by AG Barr are likely to reveal more of the rotted core of the Deep
State and their machinations and not, as Democrats think, damaging info about Trump.
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
Gordon begins her
comparison by exploring the main charge levied against Nazis during the Nuremberg trials, which was
committing a crime against peace due to Germany's breach of the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact, which, she
explains, "essentially outlawed war." American prosecutors in the mid-20th century insisted that this
initial crime was the unlawful act from which all other crimes committed by the Nazis originated.
"By comparison," the author tells Scheer, "I look at the Bush-Cheney administration's decision to make
an unnecessary and illegal war, both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq.
"It's very clear from the documentary record that exists that the main reason people were being
tortured [by the U.S. before the Iraq War began] was because they wanted to get somebody somewhere to say
that Saddam Hussein was in league with al-Qaida, so that there could be an excuse for invading Iraq,"
Gordon says.
Throughout the so-called war on terror, the ethics expert says, the U.S. has also violated several
rules set forth in just-war theory, including what constitutes collateral damage and proportionality, in
its slaughter of countless Iraqi civilians.
"We took what had been one of the most vibrant, developed and cosmopolitan countries in that part of
the world -- which was Iraq -- and we essentially did what [U.S. military officials] used to say they wanted to
do to North Vietnam: bombed it back to the Stone Age," Gordon says.
Listen to Scheer and Gordon discuss a range of moral issues that Americans for several generations
have swept under the rug as the government both openly and secretly commits crimes in their name abroad.
You can also read a transcript of the interview below the media player.
Robert Scheer:
Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence.
The intelligence comes from my guests. In this case, it's Rebecca Gordon. And she has her doctorate in
ethics and social theory. I teach ethics at USC; you teach at the University of San Francisco, which is a
Catholic school, so presumably with all their difficulties they're still concerned about ethics. And
actually we have a good pope, in major ways, who's dealing with the subject I want to talk to you about:
the ethics of war making, and the violence that has been unleashed on the world. And you wrote two very
important books, maybe the most important in some ways. One is called
Mainstreaming Torture,
and
another is called
American Nuremberg.
So the question I want to ask you, you know, because we've
always treated the crimes of others, particularly the Germans, the worst crimes of modern history, as an
aberration in the development of the human race. Those people went berserk, crazy, and they were evil;
now we have another category, Muslims are evil, they do terrible things. We're recording this on a day
where in New Zealand, some 48 people trying to practice their religion were killed. So we see a lot of
crime against Muslims, as there was obviously a lot of crimes against Jews and other people. And in your
writing, you're very clear that the crimes of Nuremberg, of the Nazis, are a low level of evil. But the
real question is, the Germans are so much like Americans. They were–largest number of immigrants in this
country were Germans; they're a white, Anglo-Saxon population; they're highly educated, probably the
highest level of music and science at that point. And can it happen here?
Rebecca Gordon:
And that, of course, is the question many of us have been asking at
least since the election of 2016, and probably before that. And the answer in some ways, of course, is
that it did happen here with the invasion of the Americas by people from Europe, and the destruction of
all the peoples who were living here at the time. So there has been a genocide on this continent and in
South America that, you know, we just forget about, because it happened a while ago. But coming to
Nuremberg, what I was trying to do in the book is to say how important the principle was that was
established at Nuremberg, which is that international law is real law. And when you break international
law, there are genuine consequences, and people can and should be held accountable. So what I looked at
was the conduct of this so-called War on Terror in the post-September 11th period, and asked: Could the
United States be accused of the same categories of crimes for which the Nazi leadership were held
accountable? And there were three categories that were established by the prosecution, and these were
crimes against peace; ordinary war crimes, which had already been well described in the body of
international law; and a new category, crimes against humanity, which was created in order to take in the
enormity of what had been done in Europe by the Nazis. But what was very interesting is that it was
Americans who insisted that the first of these crimes should be crimes against peace. So what's that?
That means making an aggressive war. It means starting a war that was not a war of self-defense, that was
not a war of so-called necessity, but making an aggressive war. Why was that illegal? It was illegal
because Germany and the United States and many other countries in Europe had signed a treaty in 1928
called the Kellogg–Briand Treaty, which essentially outlawed war. It said that nations will not use war
to settle their disputes. And the argument that the U.S. prosecutors made was that all the other crimes
that the Germans committed actually sprang from this first crime of making this aggressive, unnecessary,
illegal war. And so by comparison, I look at the Bush-Cheney administration's decision to make an
unnecessary and illegal war, both in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq. And just as the Nazi crimes
arose from this making of a war that was wrong and illegal, the U.S. crimes–and specifically now because
my area of expertise is torture, I look at the reasons why the United States became involved in torture.
And in the beginning, it's very clear from the documentary record that exists, that the main reason
people were being tortured, both in the CIA dark sites and also at Guantanamo under the Department of
Defense, was because they wanted to get somebody somewhere to say that Saddam Hussein was in league with
Al-Qaeda, so that there could be an excuse for invading Iraq. And so the other crimes–
RS:
But wait, let's be very clear about that. This would be like the Nazis saying,
Jewish bankers destroyed our economy and colluded with Western powers, and therefore made life untenable
in Germany. That was the vicious scapegoating argument to justify Nazi expansion and destruction of other
societies. So this thing of whether Bush–you know, it's kind of become part of folklore–they lied us into
the war in Iraq. But what you're saying, and very clearly, the very idea of going to war in Iraq over the
9/11 incident, which not only did Saddam Hussein have–
RG:
Nothing to do with.
RS:
–nothing to do with, but actually he was opposed to Al-Qaeda, and it was the one
country where Al-Qaeda could not operate in, was Iraq. But instead of going to war with Pakistan, or
going to war, you know, elsewhere–no. We–
RG:
Or Saudi Arabia.
RS:
Well, of course, Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 hijackers–
RG:
Came from.
RS:
–came from. You could actually make an argument to go into–hey, you attacked us,
you supplied the money and so forth. No, we whitewashed the Saudi Arabia thing and went to war with Iraq.
So your analogy, listeners should understand, is very precise. It is inventing an excuse, a defensive
excuse, to engage an offensive invasion.
RG:
Exactly. And from that spring all of these other kinds of crimes. So then I look
at ordinary war crimes, and if you go over the Geneva Conventions and the various other laws of war, you
can see that there are a number of categories of crimes. Many of them have to do with failing to make the
distinction between civilians and fighters, combatants. And of course the Bush-Cheney administration very
early on decided to create a third, nonexistent category called unlawful combatants. But this designation
doesn't exist in the International Red Cross's understanding; it doesn't exist in the Geneva
Convention's. It was just a convenient way of saying this particular group of people, whoever it is that
we choose to capture, detain forever, torture–they have no legal standing in the world. They exist
outside of international law.
RS:
So let me pick up on that also. And I don't want to lose the earlier thread of
the invention of war, and connecting with this incredibly important work you've done on torture. And you
made the statement, which I think people should ponder: the reason we were torturing these people was not
to get information about a future attack. We already had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and everything, we knew
everything about it, and so forth. The real reason for it was to invent an alibi for the invasion, to get
somebody to say Saddam Hussein was backing them. And I think that's a very important–a reason, by the
way, to read your book,
Mainstreaming Torture
; let me give a plug here. But this other argument
is also interesting, the whole idea of the noncombatant. And we are doing this interview at a time when
Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, is in prison–
RG:
Yes.
RS:
–again, because they want to fabricate a story about WikiLeaks and all that, and
get everybody off the hook for all of the crimes and torture and everything they've done. But the
interesting thing is, if you look at what did WikiLeaks–and they were just like in the position of the
Washington Post
with the Pentagon Papers, they're the publisher–what did Chelsea Manning reveal?
She revealed the death of noncombatants, including journalists. So why don't you develop that a little
bit, because that is so critical to the moment, that no one–no one has been prosecuted for those attacks
that she revealed with the data. But she is now sitting in prison.
RG:
And this is, of course–the fate of whistleblowers all over the world, and
certainly in this country, is exactly that. That the matters that they have revealed disappear in a story
that becomes about the crimes of the revealer. And of course in the war in Iraq, there was tremendous
amounts of civilian death. And it falls into a number of categories; one category is those people who had
actually been detained and were being held by U.S. forces. And for example at Abu Ghraib, we know–which
is the prison outside of Baghdad that had been Saddam Hussein's major torture site, and which the U.S.
decided in its wisdom would be the perfect place to hold detainees, and where we know a group of
reservists ended up torturing people. But the real torture was going on upstairs, by the employees of
various C.I.A. contractors, and by the C.I.A. itself. And that's where people actually died. So there's
that whole category of people, but that's a much smaller category than the category of ordinary civilians
whose lives were either ended or destroyed by the regular U.S. use of warfare in places like Fallujah and
other cities. So that we took what had been one of the most vibrant, developed, and cosmopolitan
countries in that part of the world–which was Iraq–and we essentially did what they used to say they
wanted to do to North Vietnam, bombed it back to the Stone Age. And so in just war theory, there are
these rules about discriminating between combatants and noncombatants, and you are permitted a certain
number of civilian deaths as long as they are side effects of your attempt to go after some legitimate
military target. And this is called collateral damage; it's, collateral means on the side, right? But in
fact, in Iraq, we don't know because there are many different counts, but anywhere between 500,000 and a
million people have died in the U.S. invasion and occupation in Iraq. And when you lay that against the
3,000 people who died on September 11th, none of whom were killed by anyone even from Iraq, you also see
that we have violated another rule of just war theory, which is proportionality. We have destroyed human
life out of all proportion.
RS:
And let me just–you know, it's so difficult to grapple with these questions. And
you are teaching at one of the major Catholic universities here.
RG:
It's a Jesuit university, and that's a little different. And these are the
left-wing Jesuits.
RS:
I'm not putting down your school. [Laughter] Hey, I teach ethics at the
University of Southern California–
RG:
Enough said.
RS:
–and clearly, yes, we are ethically challenged at this moment. I was about to
actually celebrate the pope in this regard. And so there is a certain necessity for being consistent in
the application of these principles, or they mean nothing.
RG:
Exactly.
RS:
And I think that's the body of your life's work, to remind us of that. So in a
sense, you are at a good place where you're teaching. I'm just wondering, how is this disregarded so
widely? I mean, people make a big deal about don't kill the unborn child. You know, I could see arguments
about that. But if that's the beginning of a consistent, pro-life position, yes, it makes certain sense.
If it's the end of a pro-life position, and then you end welfare and you don't care what happens to the
baby and so forth, you're into a deep immorality. And it seems to me you're at a very interesting place.
Because for better or worse, this pope seems to be the only one able to challenge, let's call it U.S.
imperialism or imperial ventures, on a moral basis.
RG:
I think that's right. He certainly is doing a better job of that than either of
his last two predecessors.
RS:
Or the major–
RG:
Other major, yeah. No, I think that's right. And I think, you know, it's
interesting that at USF, we have Reserve Officers' Training Corps. We have people who are training to be
second lieutenants when they leave university in the U.S. Army. And I have had students tell me, I had a
student from Guam who told me, you know, Professor Gordon, I know that when they send me to basic
training, they're going to try to take me apart and change me from being a person into being a soldier.
And I just want you to know that I'm not going to let them do that to me. He said, but you know, ROTC was
my ticket off the island, and I have a duty now to follow through with my promise. And I just, my heart
broke for him. Because what they do to you in basic training is actually a slightly lighter version of
what they do when they train torturers. Everyone who becomes a torturer–and people don't just torture on
a whim; people are trained to be torturers. And part of that training involves being brutalized first
yourself, and having survived that ordeal, you emerge with this sense of yourself as an elite person who
therefore has the right, as a superior being, and now the skills, to turn around and abuse and torture
people who come along behind you. And the U.S. has its own methods of training, and its own locations
where this happens.
RS:
[omission for station break] I'm back after our break with Professor and Doctor
Rebecca Gordon. And we were just talking about how we train people to be torturers. And this is
fascinating, because if you don't consider this question, that you're getting basically good people to do
horrible things, you're missing the whole point. But I just want to say something about the good German.
Because the basic appeal of Hitler was the solid–you know, he was going to make Germany great again. And
this is, I'm not demonizing Germans here, but Donald Trump's father was obviously familiar with this in
his lineage, in that tradition. And the whole appeal, even though this dictator Hitler was this
funny-looking guy, hardly the Aryan model–was to a notion of order. And even in the concentration camps,
keeping direct bookkeeping of how many teeth you pulled and gold you found in the teeth, and so forth.
But it's not–manners. They had the manners. And what bothers me about the very simplistic Trumpwashing
that we're going through now, that Trump is uniquely evil–it's all about manners. He's crude, he's
boorish, he's a misogynist, he says these things, he does these things, he grabs people's private parts,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That's not his crime. His crime is he's continuing a tradition of
bombing people who we have no right to bomb. And so I want to push this a little bit more, the whole
question of manners. Because what Nuremberg did is unmask the manners. And this was also true in the
Eichmann trial that Hannah Arendt talked about, when she talked about the banality of evil. Evil can be
masked by manners. Smile while you learn to kill, right?
RG:
That's exactly right. And I especially know, when you talk about the meticulous
records that they kept, this is a hallmark of torture regimes all over the world. This very careful
record-keeping, this documentation of the work that's been done–because there's no shame about the work.
The process of becoming a torturer includes developing a sense of yourself as doing something uniquely
courageous, uniquely necessary, a unique sacrifice that you as the torturer, more in sorrow than in
anger, are being forced to do by the tremendous evil that confronts you. And so you're absolutely right
that especially among upper-class liberals in the United States, the objection to Trump is his manner,
and his manner is crude and obnoxious, as you say. But what he's really doing is not only continuing to
kill people, and in fact increasing the number of drone strikes, for example, over the already great
number that the Obama administration–
RS:
A man of impeccable manners. Barack Obama. I even feel that way about Bill
Clinton. When Bill Clinton's on television, I smile. I like him. He's warm, he's encouraging. And then I
forget, he's the guy that ended the welfare system, for example. Yes.
RG:
Exactly. Exactly right. And you know, Trump is now with his, I don't know if
you've taken a look at his so-called budget, but he's planning to take away our Medicare and Medicaid,
just in case you might have wanted to have healthcare. Obviously, that's dead on arrival. But
nonetheless, the point is that he is masking what he is actually doing by distracting us with this
bombastic display. And in fact, one of his officials in the EPA actually recently said exactly that, that
they've been able to make all these regulatory changes because every time it looks as though the press is
going to notice, Trump fires off a tweet, and everybody's like, ooh, shiny!
RS:
This is a really important point. Because if you look at the Nuremberg Trial or
you look at the Eichmann trial, these people all hid behind manners. They were well spoken, they were
well educated, and they were following a Charlie Chaplinesque figure, a ludicrous figure; Hitler was
certainly a, yes, he was a more ludicrous figure than Trump, in terms of manners and style and
everything. But his popularity was largely based on being a sort of comic figure, in a way. He inspired a
whole nation of logical, scientific, well-educated–probably the best-educated population in the world.
And so I've had this experience, I've talked to people in the business community and they say well, you
know, but Trump is good for business. And we did have a mess before, and then look at what's happened to
unemployment, and so forth and so on. And so we are really at the limit of manners as a guide. And that's
really what Nuremberg is about. Nuremberg was unmasking manners. Now, we didn't continue after that; we
had the brief Eichmann trial. But what we didn't really ever do in this country–and this is why I want
people to listen or to read your book, better to read it, although listening is great–we never really
took apart the Nazi experience. Because we wanted the ex-Nazis and other Germans to be our allies in the
Cold War. So we have never had that investigation of how an incredibly well-educated, Christian,
law-and-order nation goes into madness.
RG:
Not only that, we never did what the next step was supposed to be, which is
establish a venue in which U.S. war crimes could also be examined in World War II. And there were a
number of people who developed the Nuremberg principles, and worked on the original trial, who really
honestly believed that this would be the prelude to establishing an international court for trying
offenses committed during war, and expected that the United States would in fact be held accountable, not
only for the firebombing of German cities, but for the destruction of up to 60 Japanese cities which were
constructed of wood and paper and reduced to ashes, in a campaign that really very few people in this
country even know about. Although Robert McNamara actually describes it in that excellent documentary–
RS:
The Fog of War
, yeah.
RG:
--
The Fog of War.
RS:
And it's excellent because you see that McNamara was involved in designing the
bombing of Japan and Germany. But also, I mean–like, we talk about Korea. Oh, North Korea, animals, and
Kim Il-sung and his progeny–nobody I ever run into knows we leveled every single structure in North Korea
during the Korean War. Again, a war that was not needed; it was an attempt to get a Chinese communist who
had come to power the year before. I mean, it's bizarre. Then you look at what we did to North Vietnam,
and the carpet bombing, and everything. So this is critical. American exceptionalism–I've mentioned this
a number of times on this podcast–to my mind, is a really, it's the most profound problem that American
people have to face.
RG:
It's a vicious idea. And it's been taken up in different ways by both the liberal
democratic world, and by the, you know, the hard right in this country. The idea that by definition, the
United States can do no wrong, because we are the leader of the so-called free world. Which is a locution
I don't even understand anymore, given that we're not competing anymore with the unfree communist world
that supposedly we were in opposition to. But the idea that–and this was the argument, actually, that the
Bush administration made about torture. By definition, the United States is a country that does not
torture. Therefore, whatever it is that you are observing, it cannot be torture, because that would be a
logical contradiction, because we are the nation that doesn't do that. And it's almost impossible to
enter into that understanding of the world, because no amount of evidence that you can present to the
person who believes that is going to break that worldview. And so American exceptionalism allows us not
only to have military bases in over 100 countries around the world; not only to conduct secret wars that
the people in this country don't even know about–we just suddenly woke up and said, oh my gosh, we're
having a war in Somalia! Who knew. And not to mention Yemen–I was very heartened to see that the Senate
had actually voted with the House to reprimand the U.S. alliance with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. But leave
that aside. This whole idea that we are a unique bearer of human rights and democracy in the world–it's
very hard to break, because it's a concealed, hermetically sealed worldview that people imbibe in grade
school. And they imbibe it as they grow up, and it takes a lot of effort to break through. And one of the
sad things that I see, especially with younger people that I've worked with in organizations like War
Times/Tiempo de Guerras, is that once you've broken through, it then becomes very hard to imagine that
the United States is not permanently and always going to be the hegemon. It almost, having made the
effort and understood the danger the U.S. actually presents to the world, it becomes almost impossible to
recognize when the U.S. actually loses one. And I think it's very important we claim our victories.
RS:
Well you know, you hit it clearly with this, the abandonment by the Democratic
Party of any serious oppositional role. [With] control of the House now, there should be hearings about
what are we doing in these different countries. And instead they're actually criticizing Trump for being,
kind of selling out by getting out of Afghanistan, or not fighting more aggressively in Syria. And we've
actually sort of lost the peace movement, in a way, is a theme I get back to once in a while here. And we
forget, actually, most of the terrible wars since World War II have been fought under democrats, and
financed enthusiastically. So I want to get back to basic moral principles, because they don't mean
anything if you're not consistent. You have to call out people on the left or on the right, you have to
call out war crimes, you have to call out the attacks on homosexuals, black people, Jewish
people–anybody, any other, and so forth. It's something that Jesus reminded us of in the tale of the Good
Samaritan, if you can believe that Luke is the word of God, and not the others, [Laughter] where the Good
Samaritan doesn't appear. I don't want to get into your whole Catholic university thing here. But it's
interesting to me, this notion of consistency. Because it's painful to be consistent. It requires
examining the motives of people you voted for. And this was the problem of Germany: people forget Hitler
was elected. People forget Germany had all the trappings of a–
RG:
Of a democracy.
RS:
–of a democracy. And more important, the conceit that somehow
education–education, and manners–will prevent genocide is a lie. Maybe it's time to recognize this whole
notion of American greatness is the end of thought; if you are by definition great, there's nothing to
question. And it seems to me that main religions that we've had, their one demand that they have in
common is you must question not only your nation's morality, but your own. The devil is in you. We have
to struggle with this devil, we have to struggle with these forces. Yet as a nation, we think America the
beautiful absolves us all. And that's what you're saying in your torture book. That basically, you take
these young recruits that have a very limited knowledge of our history, and you convince them that they
are the agents, really, of a higher power.
RG:
Absolutely right. And in doing that, you pervert the very virtues that we say the
United States is supposed to represent. The virtue of courage, for example, becomes the courage to
suppress your squeamishness at causing pain to another human being. And justice becomes the idea that you
give the punishment first and the trial later, if ever. Right? And this is exactly what we see in the way
our detainees have been treated. And honestly, another locus of this that we don't often recognize is
what goes on on the U.S. soil prisons and jails in this country, where we have 2.2 million people locked
up in cages, and where torture is a regular feature of prison life. It's no accident that the reservists
who were downstairs at Abu Ghraib, they were from West Virginia, and most of them in their civilian life
were prison guards. They were corrections officers. And there's a famous email that one of the
ringleaders, Charles Graner, sent home which said: The Christian in me knows it's wrong, but the
corrections officer in me loves to see a grown man piss himself. And that is exactly the attitude of the
people who are caging up 2.2 [million] largely, vastly disproportionately, black and Latino, Latinx,
people in this country today. And so torture actually is a red thread that runs through the entire
history of the United States, beginning with the Native American population. Slavery itself would not
have been as successful as it was at allowing the amassing of capital–which is, you know if you're a good
Marxist, the congealed labor of these unpaid, captive people, who when they got to the United States, or
what was not even yet the United States, would not work unless, the farmers figured out, they were caused
physical pain. And it was the use, the concerted, intentional, well-documented use of physical pain in
the cotton fields a century later that forced people to develop a physical technology of their bodies
that allowed them, in the course of 40 years, to multiply by eight times the amount of cotton a human
being could pick in a day, because the alternative was to have the skin taken off your back with a whip.
RS:
You know, increasingly in my life I have been a bad Marxist. And I've embraced
some truths that seemed to come out of these religions that, growing up, really frightened me or were
intimidating, and also were on the wrong side. But let's take it back to the pope, let's take it back to
the Jesuit school, University of San Francisco, where you teach. There's a wisdom that I daresay Karl
Marx did not sufficiently embrace. It is that we all have a capacity for evil. That we have virtue; we
care, we bring children into this world, we nurture them, we care about others, we can cry over a
refugee. On the other hand, the 2.2 million–I've been on Death Row quite recently interviewing Kevin
Cooper, who I believe is an innocent man. And fortunately, the governor of California has suspended the
death penalty, and I think Gavin Newsom deserves great credit for his courage. But–and it is a cage, and
we don't care; we don't care about these people. And we don't care about the people we bomb, and we don't
care–they're expendable, they're throwaway people. You want them out of sight, out of mind. It's very
deliberate. And the problem is, if Marxism were accurate [Laughter]–I don't know, not too many people
care, anyway, but since the two of us are talking about it–you know, if it was just the economic motive,
we'd probably do better. The libertarians, for instance–to the degree that they're right, they're right,
yes. But the wars don't make sense. And growing that cotton that way didn't ultimately make sense. And
slavery didn't make sense. Except–except if we have a barbaric part of our nature, if we have a need to
exploit others. Not just for economic reasons; if power corrupts. And this, not to quote Marx, but to
quote Jefferson or Washington, these people who came to power in this great experiment of ours, with all
its contradictions–I repeat this ad nauseum on these podcasts. All their, yes, white, male, I got it, I
got it, slave owners, the whole thing–they were on to a wisdom about their own corruption. And the reason
we have the First Amendment, the reason we have all the amendments, the reason we have separation of
powers, is that power corrupts.
RG:
Absolutely.
RS:
And what comes through in these torture stories and so forth–I talked, I have one
student, just like you, I've had students go off to these wars. I had one who ended up at Abu Ghraib and
at Guantanamo, a reserve officer. He was outside with the families. I'm not going to compromise his
privacy. But he told me what shook him up was he was being told all these things about the people inside
the jail, but his job was to herd the families that were trying to visit. And he could not deny that
there was some kind of humanity going on with these people inside, or why would all these people care so
much about them. And I think we need to be reminded of our own capacity for evil. I think that's what
Nuremberg was about, that the people who commit evil don't present as evil and are not inherently more
evil than we are.
RG:
Exactly.
RS:
And we have to struggle with this. And the good liberals who accommodate this,
and say well, you know, Barack Obama had to do this with the drones, and governor so-and-so had to kill
these people even though he didn't believe in the death penalty–we have to challenge that. Because that
is the fount of evil.
RG:
So, my favorite virtue, Aristotle calls it phronesis, or practical wisdom. St.
Thomas Aquinas calls it prudentia, prudence. But what it really is, is that capacity of the mind that
allows you to actually understand the moral questions that are in front of you. And not to be fooled by
the fog of American exceptionalism, by the distraction of a Trumpian tweet, but to be able to actually
examine and really see, in this case, the effects of U.S. policy on actual human beings around the world.
And this requires a kind of courage to be willing to accept that your own self-understanding, and the
understanding of your people, your country, might be wrong. But it also requires a willingness to look,
to actually see and examine what's in front of you. And if there's one virtue I would like to see
developed, and that I try to develop in my own students, it's this virtue of practical wisdom, where you
actually are responsible for what the effects of your actions can reasonably be foreseen to be. And this
is something that we in the United States really don't have. It's trained out of us, we don't have it.
And part of it, yes, is that capacity to understand that the ability to do evil things exists in all of
us, and it's also to understand that when you multiply that capacity by the technological and economic
power that a country like the United States has, the results–well, the results
Powerful video about US propaganda machine. Based on Iraq War propaganda efforts. This is a
formidable machine.
Shows quite vividly that most US politicians of Bush era were war criminal by Nuremberg
Tribunal standards. Starting with Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. They planned the war of aggression
against Iraq long before 9/11.
The Saker: What will happen once Nord Stream II is finished? Where is Europe heading
next, especially in its relationship with the USA and Russia?
Dmitry Orlov: The new pipelines under the Baltic and the Black Sea will be completed, along
with the second LNG installation at Sabetta, and Russia will go on supplying natural gas to
Europe and Asia. I suspect that the fracking extravaganza in the US is entering its end game
and that the dream of large-scale LNG exports to Europe will never materialize.
The nations of Europe will gradually realize that its relationship with Russia is mostly
beneficial while its relationship with the US is mostly harmful, and will make certain
adjustments. The Ukraine, its natural gas pipeline system decrepit and beyond repair, will
continue to import natural gas from Europe, only now the methane molecules will actually flow
to it from the west rather from the east.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and
flourishing careers. Now they're angling for war with Iran.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
"... As the supply-side structure has changed, the spread between sour and the historically far more expensive light, sweet crude has thinned and even flipped in some instances. ..."
"... "All refiners are looking for Urals or a Urals replacement," said a third trader in an international trading firm. "And we see that it won't be enough for everyone." ..."
Initially, Europeans gravitated to heavy, sour Venezuelan oil when sanctions on Iran hit in
early November but then Washington also placed sanctions on the Latin American country in late
January in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.
Even though sanctions on Venezuelan crude will not come into effect until the end of April,
the oil is effectively already untouchable as the U.S. State Department has exerted direct
pressure on foreign companies to stop all dealings.
The two sets of sanctions combined have taken at least 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) out of
the market, which is as much as what the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
agreed to cut.
The United States granted waivers on Iranian oil to six jurisdictions including three
countries in the region - Italy, Greece and Turkey - but only Turkey was able to continue
purchases. It remains unclear whether the current waivers will be extended in May.
THE SOUR RUSH
The situation is set to worsen as European refiners emerge from their springtime maintenance
just as Middle Eastern Gulf sour crude producers increasingly favor Asia, where refining
capacity in the near term is set to jump.
Saudi Arabia, a major sour crude producer, is shouldering the bulk of the OPEC and non-OPEC
cuts. Between October 2018 and March this year, the kingdom slashed its exports to Europe by
nearly half, Refinitiv Eikon data shows.
Iraq reduced its contracted volumes for European refiners in 2019 and increasingly sells its
oil to the highest bidder via tender. Iraqi supplies to Europe fell by over 40 percent to
355,000 bpd in March compared with 615,000 bpd in October 2018, Refinitiv Eikon data
showed.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan's 200,000-bpd STAR refinery in Turkey is slowly ramping up and will be
a new competitor for dwindling sour oil.
Designed to run on sour grades such as Russian Urals and Iraqi Basra and Kirkuk, the
refinery took 184,000 bpd of Urals in March, Refinitiv Eikon data showed.
"One expected STAR's launch to be a serious jolt for the market, but little did we know it
would make the sour shortage this bad ... refiners are rushing for sours," a European trader
said.
As the supply-side structure has changed, the spread between sour and the historically far
more expensive light, sweet crude has thinned and even flipped in some instances.
In the Mediterranean, the light grade Kazakh CPC Blend trades at a discount to Urals and
Kurdish crude, which used to be one of the region's cheapest oils.
The Urals price out of the Black Sea has also increasingly traded at a premium to Urals out
of Baltic ports - previously a rare occurrence. The trend has prompted commodity
price-reporting agency S&P Global Platts to start an industry consultation on changing how
the Urals market is assessed.
"All refiners are looking for Urals or a Urals replacement," said a third trader in an
international trading firm. "And we see that it won't be enough for everyone."
gdpetti ·
Regional development for the NWO command structure.... out with the OWO, in with the NWO.... thus the idiocy in the West
as it outs itself in this prep work for global regime change... the American Empire simply isn't needed in it.... 'others'
will take the reins soon enough.... but until then, let the outing continue...
It makes good theater of the absurd.... if we are going to go down in flames, best to enjoy the show, right?
RBHoughton
I believe its not just the departments of the US Government that inhibit purchases of Venezuelan crude or any other
sanctioned goods. There is also the attitude of the banks that handle the transactions. They have been repeatedly hit with
huge fines for facilitating trade to the point that they are reluctant to provide facilities to any country that Washington
DC dislikes whether there are sanctions in place yet or not. This seems to be particularly true of European banks.
The effect on world trade is threatening to us all including USA. The sanctions policy cannot be maintained for long without
hurting us as well. A second limitation on its usefulness is the efforts of the world's trading countries to agree
alternative finance to the USD which is nearly complete now. Once that new financial system is floated, sanctions will have
to end.
I recently spoke to some college students who, I realized, were in fifth grade when I got on
a plane to Iraq. They now study that stuff in history classes like "Opportunities and Errors:
21st-Century America in the Middle East." About halfway through our conversation, I realized
it's coming up on 10 years since I first went to Iraq. Now that's real history.
I was a Foreign Service Officer then, a diplomat, embedded with the U.S. Army at a series of
forward operating bases and in charge of a couple of reconstruction teams, small parts of a
complex failure to rebuild the Iraq we wrecked. I ended up writing a book about it all,
explaining in tragicomic terms how we failed (those "Errors").
The book, We Meant Well: How I Helped
Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People was -- and wasn't --
well-received. People laughed at the funny parts, but my message -- it didn't work and here's
why -- was largely dissipated at the time (2012) by government and media propaganda centered on
The Surge. That was David Petraeus's plan to pacify the Sunnis and push al-Qaeda away, while
clearing, holding, and building across the country, apparently to make room so ISIS and the
Iranians could move in.
Meanwhile, the new American president, elected in part based on his "no" vote on the war in
2003, proclaimed it all a victory and started bringing the troops home even while I was still
in Iraq. Meanwhile my employer, the U.S. Department of State, was unhappy with my book. After a
year-long
process , State pushed me into early retirement. My career was history.
Advertisement
Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that
traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing
witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I
might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in,
three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands. Around us, Iraqis blew
themselves up alongside children. Everyone was a potential killer and a potential target. I did
this at age 49, on antidepressants and with a good family waiting back home. I cannot imagine
what it would have done to 18-year-old me. And I had it easier than most, and much easier than
many.
People asked in line at Trader Joe's and in interviews on semi-important TV shows, "Was it
all worth it to you?" I always answered yes. I'm not important, I said, but the story is. And
now we're making the same mistakes in Afghanistan. The only way to even start to justify it was
to think there might be some meaning behind it all. It didn't do anything for me but fill my
soul with vodka but maybe somehow it helped?
See, my book wasn't aimed at cataloging the failures in Iraq per se, but in trying to make
sure we didn't do the same thing in Afghanistan. The initial title wasn't We Meant Well,
but Lessons for Afghanistan from the Reconstruction of Iraq . The early drafts were
pretentious scholarly stuff, outlining our mistakes. Harvard Business School-like case studies.
Maps. Footnotes. It would have sold maybe five copies, and so my editors encouraged me to add
more funny parts. NPR's Fresh Air actually added a laugh track to my
interview . I figured I'd get the lessons across with humor more effectively anyway. In
such situations, you have to think that way. You can't believe that what you went through
didn't matter and keep getting out of bed every morning.
I now know officially that it did not matter. It was pointless. SIGAR shows I accomplished
nothing.
SIGAR is the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction, a government oversight
body that is supposed to prevent waste, fraud, and mismanagement of the billions of dollars
being spent rebuilding Afghanistan but that has its hands full just keeping a CVS
receipt-length history of what's wrong. Sound familiar?
SIGAR just released its " 2019 High-Risk List ," which
points out especially egregious things that will follow in the wake of any peace agreement in
Afghanistan. Here are some quoted highlights:
set the
cash ablaze on the streets of Kabul for all the good it will do."
That last line really got me. In my book, I'd written, "While a lot of the money was spent
in big bites at high levels through the Embassy, or possibly just thrown into the river when no
one could find a match to set it on fire ." Had SIGAR read what I'd written? Or was the
joke just so obvious that we'd both come to the same punchline 10 years and two countries
apart?
Word for word as in Iraq, and after over 17 years of American effort, the U.S. has failed to
establish a viable government in Afghanistan, eliminate the local
insurgents/patriots/residents, establish a civil society, tamp down corruption, and ensure some
sort of national defense. Afghanistan has almost no chance of survival except as a Taliban
narcoland with financial support needed indefinitely to avoid whatever "worse" would be in that
calculus.
But there still are semi-believers. One former State Department colleague is on her fourth
assignment in Kabul, roughly half her career. Her job is to liaise with the few NATO officials
still hanging around. She says it's easy work; they've known each other for years. She's heard
we're making progress.
Around the same time as the SIGAR report, the Army War College released its history of the Iraqi Surge, a quagmire of dense
prose that I'm only about halfway through, but so far no mention of the impact of
reconstruction. The theme seems to be that the Army had some good ideas but the politicians got
in the way. Fair enough, but they misspelled Vietnam as I-r-a-q all throughout.
The post-9/11 wars have metastasized across three presidencies so far. Pick the thing you
detest most about Bush, Obama, and Trump, and complain about how it was never investigated
enough and how there weren't enough hearings. And then I'll disagree, for most everything that
happened and continues to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan has gone uninvestigated, unheard of,
and unpunished. It's ancient history.
We all want to believe that what we did, what we didn't do, the moral injury, the PTSD, the
fights with spouses, the kid at home we smacked too hard when she wouldn't eat her green beans,
all of what we saw and heard, mattered. You read that SIGAR report and tell me how. Because
basically I'm history now.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for
the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People and Hooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan.
"... We can, however, demand reserve transparency in our own country and that we are NOT getting. In essence the lies being said about "economically" recoverable shale oil reserves in America are way bigger whoppers than any lies the Middle East has ever told. ..."
"... U.S. shale drillers have run into a series of problems that have resulted in increased scrutiny on their operations. The difficulties span their operations – production issues, poor financials and less love from Wall Street. ..."
"... Even as WTI has moved solidly above $60 per barrel, the U.S. shale industry is trying to find ways to right the ship. As Reuters reports, a series of drillers, even prominent ones, are laying off workers. Pioneer Natural Resources – often held up as one of the better of the bunch – and Laredo Petroleum announced just this week that they will be cutting staff. As Jennifer Hiller of Reuters points out, Pioneer has not laid off workers since 1998. ..."
"... In March, Devon Energy eliminated 200 jobs. ..."
"... According to a report from Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., the recent layoffs may not be the end of the story. Everyone should expect more job cuts "over the coming quarters as companies address right-sizing the corporate cost structures," the firm said in its report. ..."
Hello Dennis. Have you ever really thought about why the Saudi's would keep their
production info as a state secret? I think it has much less to do about quotas than maintaining
the status quo of a country and society much different than our western norms.
I have guessed their remaining reserves around 80 gb before, and still believe its in that
area. Of course ANYONE without actual production and reservoir info is also guessing whether
they are economists, engineers, geologists, or whoever.
If my guess is correct, we will see KSA production declining on a accelerating rate within a
few years. Kuwait will not be far behind. North American shale will likely be topped out by
then. Gee, that might be post peak.
I hope they have more recoverable oil than my guess, because its going to be a difficult
transition.
Mr. Patterson, thanks for the article. You have defended it quite well, this in spite of
Dennis Coyne's constant interjections.
Estimating remaining reserves from mature fields is not difficult from an engineering
standpoint and how one tinkers with known reservoirs in that field (stuffing gas back into
them, HZ laterals above O/W contacts, etc.) does not magically create "new" reserves, it
simply speeds up the rate of extraction (arrests natural decline rates). The Saudis lie about
their sovereign wealth and it's their right to lie, I suppose; all we can do is try to
outsmart them, as you have. America cannot control the Saudi's, regardless of tweets.
We can, however, demand reserve transparency in our own country and that we are NOT
getting. In essence the lies being said about "economically" recoverable shale oil reserves
in America are way bigger whoppers than any lies the Middle East has ever told.
Mike, thanks for the kind words. I am quite used to Dennis' interjections. They don't bother
me. In fact, I enjoy the dialogue with him. It keeps me on my toes.
I can feel the tide turning concerning peak oil. I think OPEC peaked in 2016, politically
suppressed production notwithstanding. However, the bigger surprise may be right here in the
good old USA. The shale bubble could be bursting a lot sooner than a lot of people think.
U.S. shale drillers have run into a series of problems that have resulted in increased
scrutiny on their operations. The difficulties span their operations – production
issues, poor financials and less love from Wall Street.
Even as WTI has moved solidly above $60 per barrel, the U.S. shale industry is trying
to find ways to right the ship. As Reuters reports, a series of drillers, even prominent
ones, are laying off workers. Pioneer Natural Resources – often held up as one of the
better of the bunch – and Laredo Petroleum announced just this week that they will be
cutting staff. As Jennifer Hiller of Reuters points out, Pioneer has not laid off workers
since 1998.
In March, Devon Energy eliminated 200 jobs.
According to a report from Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., the recent layoffs may not
be the end of the story. Everyone should expect more job cuts "over the coming quarters as
companies address right-sizing the corporate cost structures," the firm said in its
report.
Nevertheless, the EIA still expects the boom to continue for years and years. We shall
see.
Nice summary, Ron. Brought to mind the old Oil Drum days. Thanks for taking the time to
provide this information. Given the admittedly not high-confidence prognostications in
Saudi/world oil production, it looks to me like the global economy may be in for at least one
serious oil shock in the 2020s.
"... add to that the usual woes of increasing internal oil consumption (3 mbd and rising fast) and the need to try and build their way out of their demise (requiring more oil and money), and the usual predictions of the 'export land model' look very reasonable, and disastrous for the House of Saud. There will be a tapered end, but the potential for acute instability in production and the in political and social environments of the country within the next decade is real. ..."
A great article that offers a more realistic view of the very old giant oil fields. It is
very obvious that what they are doing to maintain production will result in a more rapid
decline in the future. When that happens KSA will be in a lot of hurt, and the world will
have an abrupt awakening.
So my simple math says: 256 URR was to last 53 years, 74 URR at the same production rate will
last 15 years. Seneca with a vengeance! Rite? EOLAWKI here we come!
add to that the usual woes of increasing internal oil consumption (3 mbd and rising fast)
and the need to try and build their way out of their demise (requiring more oil and money),
and the usual predictions of the 'export land model' look very reasonable, and disastrous for
the House of Saud. There will be a tapered end, but the potential for acute instability in
production and the in political and social environments of the country within the next decade
is real.
"... Oil consumption has been increasing in all sectors and the growing global economy will require more oil in industry. You seem to think oil is just used in transportation. NOT true. ..."
"... Imagine oil production peaked today. In order for aviation to continue to grow, along with other industries that use oil. How many of the 98 million vehicles sold this year would need to be electric cars? How many electric motorcycles would have to be sold? ..."
"... I believe a Seneca cliff scenario would be a catastrophic one hence the reaction to such a scenario would also be catastrophic. ..."
"... World demand is currently over 100 mb/day, while production is at about 99 mb/day. Does that mean we are using up the already produced reserves? ..."
At some point the Seneca Cliff will be hit. If they are doing all this advanced recovery to to keep flow rates up then fields
will probably hit a wall and crash rather than slow decline. Is my thinking correct on that? Karen
Oil consumption has been increasing in all sectors and the growing global economy will require more oil in industry. You seem
to think oil is just used in transportation. NOT true.
Imagine oil production peaked today. In order for aviation to continue to grow, along with other industries that use oil. How many of the 98 million vehicles sold
this year would need to be electric cars? How many electric motorcycles would have to be sold?
The Seneca cliff for World output requires heroic assumptions which are unlikely to be true in practice.
I strongly disagree with that assessment. I believe the probability of a Seneca cliff is increasing. I think oil extraction is an economic phenomena, not a geological phenomena. During economic expansion, a positive feedback loop is in place: oil extraction produces economic growth which encourages investment in oil extraction producing more economic growth. Once peak oil occurs, I anticipate that this feedback loop will go into reverse: decreased oil production will produce economic contraction which will discourage investment in oil extraction reducing extraction rates leading to economic collapse.
Without investment the IEA estimates that production would fall by 50% in 2025 and by 80% in 2040.
I actually think economic collapse is a great opportunity to introduce a new economic system. The one we have is not only unfair, it encourages environmental devastation.
David Graebner asks rhetorically how a theory such as neoclassic economics based on false hypotheses perdures. His answer is that you teach the biggest lies in the first year. That's why false preconceptions about the economy are so common. I think neoclassical economics chose the wrong mathematical tool to analyse the economy, they chose optimisation. I don't see anything optimal in the economy, I think differential systems would be a much more appropriate mathematical tool with which to analyse the economy, keeping track of money flows.
I assume a Seneca cliff scenario would imply rapid economic collapse, as a result i think there will be war over resources.
Between which countries i don't know, but i assume U.S will go to war with Russia and or China, via direct war or proxy wars in
regions were the countries national security depends on specific resources. So the middle east would as usual be a key area of
conflict.
I believe a Seneca cliff scenario would be a catastrophic one hence the reaction to such a scenario would also be catastrophic.
U.S will go to war with Russia and or China, via direct war or proxy wars in regions were the countries national security depends
on specific resources.
Perhaps! However modern warfare tends to be very energy intensive. It seems to me a rather safe bet that in a post peak oil
world, mostly running on renewables, it might be more likely that societies will be trying to conserve their energy resources
and not waste it on war.
But the verdict is not yet in, on whether or not humans are smarter than yeast!
It simply means we are using oil that is being stored, the so-called oil stocks, eventually as these are reduced, oil prices
start to rise and demand (consumption) decreases while supply (production) increases in response to the change in oil price.
Well, no, Ghawar is not declining at 2% per year. Ghawar did not start declining in 2004. And
the southern two fields are not declining at all. The northern three fields reached their
Seneca Cliff somewhere around 2010 and began declining at several times 2%. They will decline
to near nothing in the next few years. Then Ghawar will have level production at somewhere
around 2 million barrels per day and hold that level for a decade or two.
Ghawar cannot possibly be adequately described as one field. It is five different fields
with five different decline and depletion rates.
When Saudi said, in 2006, that their average decline rate was down to almost 2%, that was
the average for all their fields. Some fields were declining at a much faster rate and some
fields were not declining at all. Khurais and Manifa were still to be ramped up. Those fields
had been in mothballs and would be brought back on line. Now they are likely not declining at
all but other fields are declining at a much faster rate than 2%.
But here is the important point. The depletion rate is another matter altogether. That
figure is likely above 8% per year.
Do you have production data for the various fields from 2006 to 2018?
Dennis, you know better than ask such a silly question. Saudi production of individual
fields is a closely guarded secret.
Dennis, have you ever wondered why the Saudis keep all this data such a secret? Why don't
they just let the actual data known to the world? What was the production data from Safaniya
in 2018? Or what was the production data from Manifa in 2018? Or what was the production data
from Khurais in 2018, or from Berri, or from all their other fields? And how did that compare
to the production in 2017, or 2016?
Dennis, we don't know shit about any of this. We don't know because it is a closely
guarded secret. Why, Dennis, Why?
They know Dennis, they know and they don't want you to know. Why?
I know why Dennis. Because what they actually report, which is almost nothing, is a lie.
You simply choose to believe it. I do not. I choose to believe the analysis who try to figure
out why they are lying. You choose to simply believe the Saudis.
Dennis, the idea that Saudi Arabia has 266 billion barrels of reserves is preposterous
beyond belief. Even the Saudis realize that now are trying to slowly reduce that figure. Yet
some people, like you, Robert Rapier and Michael Lynch, seemed perfectly ready to believe
such an absurd figure. That just floored me. Goddammit, have some people gone insane?
Okay, I have said my peace here and showed my ignorance as to what Saudi Arabia actually
can produce for the next 50 years. But you know, it is what they say they can produce.
You believe them. I don't. And neither of us can prove our case. And there it must rest
until the actual production data comes in next year and next year and ..
When this is true, that's the reason China is pushing electric travel as hard as they
can.
They have more possibilites to know the truth (secret service) than we reading reports.
And with SA and Russia having only round about 80 GB left, and producing each round about 10
mbpd, there are not many years left before a major oil incident.
I wonder why oil prices are that stable at the moment. Oil production fell hard this year
so far, down everywhere except USA. And there the growth is decelerated.
And demand is still climbing, it will use up all the US growth projected by the optimistic
EIA.
A 500 kbpd decline from OPEC is not included here, they still calculate with an increase from
opec.
Last question: Where is Russia standing at the moment?
"... Saudi Arabia, in 2018 produced approximately 3.76 billion barrels of crude only. Their BOE produced was approximately 4.75 billion barrels. That would account for the revenue is they sold every barrel of it. But they consumed a lot themselves. So other than that I have no explanation. Do they count their own consumption as revenue? ..."
In the bond prospectus SA revealed their financials. Puzzling to me was the claim of
revenue of $356 billion.
Why puzzling?
Because Brent averaged ~$75/bbl in 2018. Divide $356 by $75 and you come up with 4.75
Gbbl, which when we divide by 365 days in a year, we get 13 million barrels per day
production.
???
I can't get their numbers to work. Even with a 10% premium on their grades of crude
(generous), that leaves 11.7 mbd of production . I can't get anything to line up here.
They also produce NGL and natural gas, in 2016 it was about 1.94 Mb/d or 708 MMb of NGL, I
have no idea what the average selling price is for NGL on World markets, it would depend on
the mix of NGL of course.
Saudi Arabia, in 2018 produced approximately 3.76 billion barrels of crude only. Their BOE
produced was approximately 4.75 billion barrels. That would account for the revenue is they
sold every barrel of it. But they consumed a lot themselves. So other than that I have no
explanation. Do they count their own consumption as revenue?
EIA's projections can be taken with a grain of salt. What is happening in the US shale is
becoming more apparent. Exxon and Chevron plan to gear up to supply the new additions that
they will supply to their new refinery additions that will accept LTO. However, I do not see
them in a massive growth campaign that will increase exports.
That leaves the independents who are very much under the gun to fix financials per
investors, investments firms, and the press.
I read EOG's fourth quarter discussion with the public, which was cut short due to
repetitive questions on whether EOG will increase dividends.
Prices will probably rise, but I don't expect much growth, this year, from the majority of
the producers, which are the independents.
At least, for this year. As the years go by, more will be gobbled up by the majors, thus
providing more limits in growth.
(2018) Oil production from wells started in 2018 is at: 3,541,921 bo/day, this is 54.4% of the total 6,512,307 bo/day.
(2017) Oil production from wells started in 2017 peaked in December 2017 at 2,889,460 bo/day, they are now producing,
December 2018: 1,178,108 bo/day. Giving a drop from the peak of -59.2% in the last 12 months.
(2016) Production from wells started in 2016 peaked in December 2016 at 1,561,476 bo/day, they are now producing,
December 2018: 416,032 bo/day. Giving a drop from the peak of -73.4% in the last 24 months. After one year they were at, December
2017: 662,907 bo/day. Giving a drop from the peak of -57.5% over 12 months
An annual decline rate of 57.5 percent is insane. Yet 3,541,921 bo/day from 2018 wells is even more insane. Shale oil is a phenomenon
no one would have believed just a few years ago.
But now it is obvious that this juggernaut called shale oil is slowing down. And its crash will likely be more shocking than
its rise.
The decline is likely to be less steep than the increase
Have you heard about a Seneca cliff? It is called that way because Seneca in his letter
number 91 to Lucillius (Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium), written towards the end of the year
AD 64, a year before he died, refers to the fire that destroyed Lugdunum (Lyon) the summer of
that year in the following terms:
It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works, if all
things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of
sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid.
It appears he knew almost two thousand years ago what you don't.
I expect that a long slow declining tail of production will have some abrupt
jolts downward along the way, and end up lower quicker as a result.
The jolts downward will come as producing countries become failed states and the chaos
disrupts operations.
For examples of how this comes to be, just look at the past 5 yrs of Venez and Libya as
examples. Sure they may pick back up at some point, but overall effect is diminished global
production, well below a theoretically well managed industry.
Secondly, (and likely a smaller effect) some deposits will likely be kept in the ground
because of choices some cultures make. For example, I could see the USA deciding to keep its
large remaining coal deposits largely in the ground after 2030. Canada could decide to put a
big constraint on oil sand production, keeping just enough for domestic use, if they so
desired.
Why you think such scenario is so improbable?
Venezuela is living a Seneca cliff in its oil production right now. Did anybody predicted it
before it took place?
We have no idea of what will happen after Peak Oil. Some people assume nothing, while
others think it will be the end of our civilization. Somewhere in between probably. But I
fail to see how the economy can take it well if for most applications we can't substitute
oil. The globalization is run on oil and its derivatives.
Your assumptions can only be valid at this side of the peak. If you think otherwise you
fool yourself.
Saudi Arabia has gone nuclear, threatening the
petrodollar
.
Or has it?
The report from Zerohedge via Reuters
that Saudi Arabia is angry with the U.S. for considering
a bill exposing OPEC to U.S. antitrust law is a trial balloon.
The chances of the U.S. bill known as NOPEC coming into force are slim and Saudi Arabia would
be unlikely to follow through, but the fact Riyadh is considering such a drastic step is a sign
of the kingdom's annoyance about potential U.S. legal challenges to OPEC.
If these things are so unlikely then why make the threat public? There are a number of
reasons.
First, one must remember that the Saudis are hemorrhaging money.
Their
primary budget deficit in 2018 was around 7% of GDP. Since the 2014 crash in oil prices it has
gone from almost zero sovereign debt to $180 billion in debt to finance its spending, or around
22% of GDP.
2019's budget will be even bigger as it tries to deficit spend its way to growth. It's needs
for a higher oil price are built into their primary budget not their production costs, which are
some of the lowest in the world.
Second, the Saudis finally opened up t
he
books on Saudi-Aramco this week.
And it revealed the giant is far more profitable
than thought. It has is eye on acquiring stakes in some of the biggest oil and gas projects out
there these past couple of years. It's floating its first public bond to buy a stake in SABIC to
get into the mid and downstream petroleum markets.
Third, the Saudis budget deficit is tied directly to its having pegged the Riyal to
the U.S. dollar which leaves them at the mercy of the dollar price of oil.
It doesn't
have the flexibility of Russia who free-floated the ruble back in late 2014 to pay local
expenses in devalued local currency when oil prices drop.
This is why the Saudis are struggling financially and why Aramco is looking to use its
financial might to finally begin making friends and influencing people around the world.
Saudis should flip Trump the bird and start selling their
oil in yuan or euro, and buy weapons from Russia. America's
stranglehold over global economics is coming to an end, all
because of Donald Trump.
"Rome" is burning, and that's just what it deserves. Decades of
endless wars and it's "clipping" of the currency, will end with
collapse. Many of its citizens can't raise $400. for an emergency
but they can have their Netflix and Prime subscriptions to pay
for. Hey, War Inc. is reaching its end.
The Saudis are trapped. They have All US military equipment and
have to have US hands to operate their air force and who knows
what else. Plus they have too many skeletons that the US can hurt
them with.
"Peace for Israel" would include outside businesses or
investors sticking to BDS actions. Other than the United States
and Europe, natural law would suggest no of law should instruct
any counterparty as to what Israel entity one should or should not
engage in commerce.
In another time it was called
free market
capitalism.
Israeli lobbies shouldn't be able to squelch the First
Amendment by requiring public servants to sign agreements not to
condemn Israel-related foreign policy or domestic decisions.
The empire of paper currency and oil supported by bankers and
their wars is coming to an end.
Fracking is a desperate attempt
at keeping internal oil production going, it's akin to burning the
roof shingles of your house to keep warm. The costs to get the oil
outweigh the usefulness of the endeavor, the only ones benefiting
are the bankers loaning the money to the frackers.
Rome did the same it self destructed, and rotted internally,
meanwhile the cost of empire drained resources and the vassals
began to act in their own self-interests. The Khazarian bankers
remained the host drained, and they began to leech the new
fledgling empires.
Where do you see bankers in that history? Rome devalued its own
gold coins by mixing tin in with it. The soldiers felt cheated.
Meanwhile, Rome allowed mass migration to Rome and southern
Italy prompting real Romans to move to Gaul (northern Italy was
"Cisalpine Gaul"). Rome wasn't even the capitol when it was
sacked--Ravenna was. Get your history straight. Real Romans
were not willing to fight for city that wasn't their own
anymore.
So too, what will bring down the US is mass
migration from the third world--just what the Comintern wanted
90 years ago.
The US petrodollar reserve currency status has been a disaster for
middle class Americans much to their ignorance. It has allowed
the financial-political cabal elite to enrich themselves at the
expense of deficit and debt expansion while impoverishing the
middle class and bringing in replacement labor serfs. Time to rip
this band-aid off and the American middle class to reclaim their
country, that will probably ultimately lead to revolution.
Suure, blame Saudi Arabia for the "betrayal". But of course
overlook the fact that the US Congress passed a law that put 9/11
squarely on SA's shoulder when
Israhell
is the one that did 9/11
.
Operation Northwoods redux; the Mossad may have had a big role,
but it could not have been pulled off without complete
acquiescence from the DIA. It is all part of the long game.
{See Donald Rumsfield handling empty gurney on Pentagon
grounds}
I would place about as
much credibility in the Aramco books as I would in Bernie Madoff's
books.
Aramco pumps oil, that's about all we really know for sure.
Given the intertwining with the saudi state, it's not a
conventional oil company in any manner, it's much more a PDVSA
then a StatOil.
Buys oil how? You fuckers have been printing paper and
buying resources with it. You guys simply lack the ability
to extrapolate, because if you did, the current lifestyle of
the USSA, without dollar world reserve status and the
petrodollar perk, is utterly ******* horrendous.
Never
will the axiom
"I never knew how good I had it, until it
was gone"
be more apt, when the USSA faces her date with
reality. $22 trillion in debt, world reserve currency,
petrodollar, Wall Street a cesspit of financial fraud, no
adverse market reaction to continuous money printing and has
the audacity to complain trade deficits and OPEC? lol
Death to the USSA cannot come soon enough. A parasite
nation of resource theives and the world knows it.
"... Better propant , longer laterals , some improvement of fluid , improved rigs and pads enable to drill several laterals simultaneously have made the improvement they call shale revolution. ..."
There is no doubt the tight rock structures which are much more difficult to extract oil from
than sandstone reservoir can be stimulated in different ways with good result. But that costs
a lot of money.
As I read fracking uses a very high hydraulic pressure open up the tight rock layers and
until a few years ago the oil flow dropped at a very early stage because the overlaying
weight and beacuse the oil flow carries with with itself particles that block the fraction.
Later it followed a propant research that was done before but again this gave improvement
and could hold the fracs open for longer.
Than there was research on chemical injected that should reduce friction between oil flow
and rock. There is also lots of other factores like gazes, metal that in certain pressures, temperatures
might react and create pollutant as happened lately when oil cargo was sent back from
Asia.
Better propant , longer laterals , some improvement of fluid , improved rigs and pads
enable to drill several laterals simultaneously have made the improvement they call shale
revolution.
Still very few are able to earn money to pay dividend, loan, interest and finance expansion with
WTI 60 USD.
Now number of rigs increasing again, but why when there are so many DUCS? Probably because investors tells
the business shall be cash neutral. Could it be the DUCS are so closely spaced that using along with the existing wells might
be not
profitable because of interference with nearby wells.
If markets were truly free and there was real capitalism then airlines would be looking at
the new and excellent Russian MC-21 which does what Boeing was trying to do with the 737 Max.
The MC-21 will safely handle passengers in the 140 to 160 passengers and is a mid range plane
that can go as far as 4,000 miles.
Instead – Boeing lobbies the corrupt U.S. AIPAC Congress to keep a Boeing
monopoly of death traps like the 737 Max allowing some Airbus sales. They also blocked a nice
Bombardier mid range jet from Canada.
I've flown in the Bombardier in South America– it is a fine aircraft.
Donald Trump is ramping up his attack on oil prices as US crude hit a 5-month high today. While up to now the US president
has been focused on denouncing high energy costs via Twitter, it appears he now is looking to do more than merely bash OPEC online.
As CNBC reported, the US wants to ensure "dominance" in this sector through a blockbuster executive order designed to boost pipeline
infrastructure. In reality, Trump walks a dangerous tightrope when it comes to crude.
Of course the Saudis are laughing at Trump. The world is laughing at Trump. He is an ignorant baffoon.
Of course the Saudis are laughing at Trump. The world is laughing at Trump. He is an ignorant baffoon.
May be ignorant bully, not only (or so much) baffoon ? He practices what is called “gangster capitalism” on international arena
for some time. Totally ignores international law. Does not even use a fig leaf as previous administrations. Trump is “Full Spectrum
Dominance” in action
In view of the Saudi role of the guarantor of the “dollar as the reserve currency” system his behavior might well be a reckless
move, which totally contradicts Trump’s behavior in Khashoggi case. Kind of direct pressure is Soprano style: “Do what I want,
or…”
If Saudi stop selling oil for dollars that will be a very bad news for the USA. Hopefully they can’t do this being a Washington
vassal, but to insult a vassal is not the best diplomacy, anyway.
Why Trump can’t understand that oil is limited and higher prices might well be the best strategy as they helps to find alternatives,
develop infrastructure (for example for EV passenger cars) and prepare to inevitable shortages, or even the Seneca Cliff in oil
supply.
Why he wants to propel/sustain the US stock market at any cost?
Low oil prices can help to kick the neoliberal can down the road, but they can’t save the USA from the “secular stagnation”
and might not be able to save the USA from the recession too because consumption is low: credit card debt reached 0.87 trillion
in the fourth quarter of 2018 On other words the bottom 80% of the USA population might well be debt slaves of the US banks.
On March 25, 2019 yields curve inverted the first time since mid 2007: The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury note dipped below
the yield on the 3-month paper.
In other words secular stagnation is the result of the crisis of neoliberalism both as the ideology and as the social system
dominant in the world. Neoliberalism entered “zombie” stage in 2008 and it continues to exist (and even counterattack, as in Argentina
and Brazil) only due to the fact that there is no acceptable alternative and the return to the New Deal capitalism (which many
wish) is difficult or impossible because management now is allied with the capital owners, not with workers (as was temporary
the case after the Great Depression; that alliance ended in 70th).
Or he is a “naturally stupid” bully, who does not care to learn diplomatic etiquette and some elements of diplomacy, while
on the job.
In both cases he is a real embarrassment for the nation, is not he?
While I do not support Russiagate witch hunt, his behavior really raises questions about fitness for the office.
Also Bush II style (as in Iraq WDM fiasco ) bunch of crazy warmongers, neocons that control Trump administration foreign
policy (Haley in the past, Pompeo, Bolton now ) is not what his voters expected based on his election promises.
In a sense, he proved to be Republican Obama, another master of “bait and switch” maneuver.
Looks like we are living during what Chinese call “interesting times”, aren’t we ?
"... Hubbert wrote in 1948: "How soon the decline may set in is not possible to say, Nevertheless the higher the peak to which the production curve rises, the sooner and sharper will be the decline." ..."
"... In fact, Ghawar is not as resilient as we were led to believe. We just found out that its output has fallen substantially since Aramco previously came clean on its reserves and production. If Ghawar is losing momentum fast, peak oil – remember that theory? – might be closer than we had thought. And Ghawar is just one of dozens of enormous conventional-oil reservoirs scattered around the planet that are in various stages of decline. ..."
"... Those include the North Sea, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and Reguly reminds us that Mexico's Cantarell reservoir used to supply 2.1 million barrels a day and is now down to 135,000. ..."
It seems that the biggest Saudi field is losing its punch.
Years ago we used to talk a lot about peak oil, the prediction made by M. King Hubbert that
the easy oil was going to run out, that it was going to get harder and harder to find the
stuff, and it was going to get more and more expensive to get out of the ground.
Hubbert
wrote in 1948: "How soon the decline may set in is not possible to say, Nevertheless the
higher the peak to which the production curve rises, the sooner and sharper will be the
decline."
According to the predictions made back in 2005, right about now the Saudis are running
out and we are smack in the middle of confusion, heading for chaos. Of course we are not, we
are flooded with fossil fuels, thanks to the fracking boom.
But according to Eric Reguly, writing in the Globe and Mail, there is trouble ahead,
because that prediction about Saudi oil may not be that far off. He writes that the giant
Ghawar field used to produce ten percent of the world's oil, five million barrels a
day.
The US Permian shale basin now supplies 4.1 million barrels a day, but fracked wells
run out pretty quickly, and the fracking companies are all losing money. Better sell that
pickup truck; it may well cost a lot more to fill it. As Reguly concludes, the Ghawar field
is indeed in trouble,"and if it does collapse, peak oil will come a bit sooner."
In fact, Ghawar is not as resilient as we were led to believe. We just found out that its
output has fallen substantially since Aramco previously came clean on its reserves and
production. If Ghawar is losing momentum fast, peak oil – remember that theory? –
might be closer than we had thought. And Ghawar is just one of dozens of enormous
conventional-oil reservoirs scattered around the planet that are in various stages of
decline.
Those include the North Sea, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and Reguly reminds us that Mexico's
Cantarell reservoir used to supply 2.1 million barrels a day and is now down to
135,000.
If you listen to the interview he has lined up the 7 month lag time with Rig Count and
Lagged Production. If this ends up sticking then the production flattening should show up in
July. Just wanted to hear what you guys have to say about it.
Thanks! Karen
Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest conventional oil field, can produce a lot less
than almost anyone believed It was a state secret and the source of a kingdom's riches. It was
so important that US military planners once debated how to seize it by force. For oil traders,
it was a source of endless speculation.
Now the market finally knows: Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest conventional oil
field, can produce a lot less than almost anyone believed.
When Saudi Aramco on Monday published its first ever profit figures since its
nationalization nearly 40 years ago, it also lifted the veil of secrecy around its mega oil
fields. The company's bond prospectus revealed that Ghawar is able to pump a maximum of 3.8
million barrels a day - well below the more than 5 million that had become conventional wisdom
in the market.
"As Saudi's largest field, a surprisingly low production capacity figure from Ghawar is the
stand-out of the report," said Virendra Chauhan, head of upstream at consultant Energy Aspects
Ltd. in Singapore.
Three year ago
- almost to the day - Saudi Arabia rattled its first sabre
towards the United States, with an
implicit threat to dump US Treasuries
over Congress' decision to allow the Saudis to be
held responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a stunning
report at the time by the NYTimes
, Saudi Arabia told the Obama administration and members of
Congress
that it will sell off hundreds of billions of
dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom
if Congress passes a bill that would
allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks.
Then,
six months ago
, the Saudis once again threatened to weaponize their wealth as
the biggest importer of arms from America in the world.
And now
,
Reuters
reports, citing three unidentified people familiar with Saudi energy policy,
Saudi
Arabia is threatening to drop the dollar as its main currency in selling its oil if the U.S. passes a
bill that exposes OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits
.
While the death of the petrodollar has long been predicted (as the petroyuan gathers momentum),
this is the most direct threat yet to the USDollar's exorbitant privilege...
"The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option,"
one of
the sources familiar with the matter said.
"The Saudis say: let the Americans pass NOPEC and it would be the U.S. economy that
would fall apart,"
another source said.
Riyadh reportedly communicated the threat to senior U.S. energy officials
, one
person briefed on Saudi oil policy told Reuters
As Reuters details,
NOPEC, or the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, was first
introduced in 2000 and aims to remove sovereign immunity from U.S. antitrust law, paving the way for
OPEC states to be sued for curbing output in a bid to raise oil prices.
While the bill has never made it into law despite numerous attempts, the legislation has gained
momentum since U.S. President Donald Trump came to office. Trump said he backed NOPEC in a book
published in 2011 before he was elected, though he not has not voiced support for NOPEC as
president.
Trump has instead stressed the importance of U.S-Saudi relations, including sales of U.S.
military equipment, even after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year.
A move by Saudi Arabia to ditch the dollar would resonate well with big non-OPEC oil
producers such as Russia as well as major consumers China and the European Union, which have been
calling for moves to diversify global trade away from the dollar to dilute U.S. influence over the
world economy.
Russia, which is subject to U.S. sanctions, has tried to sell oil in euros and China's yuan but
the proportion of its sales in those currencies is not significant.
Venezuela and Iran, which are also under U.S. sanctions, sell most of their oil in other
currencies but they have done little to challenge the dollar's hegemony in the oil market.
However, if a long-standing U.S. ally such as Saudi Arabia joined the club of non-dollar
oil sellers it would be a far more significant move likely to gain traction within the industry.
And why China suddenly admitted to increased gold reserves...
And why there has been a spike in yuan buying by reserve managers last year, as the IMF pointed out
in a recent report.
So the next time you hear an analyst on CNBC categorically dismiss the notion that the loss of the
dollar's reserve currency status isn't something that markets should take seriously (even as
several credible
voices
have warned that it should be), you'd do well to remember this chart.
Seems US oil production from shale now are declining, seems the growth based on lended money
now will stop.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/US-Oil-Production-Dips-For-First-Time-In-Nearly-Six-Months.html From the Rig Count we know this decrease will be strengthening the comming months until
the oil price increase to a level profit will be possible that can pay dividend and growth.
This might take time as soon Trump will tweet again as oil is to expensive and OPEC will be
forced to take action.
I'm sure that so long as the world wide economy remains on its feet that there will be huge
increases in demand for oil for transportation.
But nobody seems to give any thought here to things that will reduce demand. Cars will be
driving themselves soon. Think about trains. Before too much longer, railroaders will be able
to move stuff on trains almost as nimbly as truckers do today, at least on city to city basis
when the cities are at least a couple of hundred miles apart. Long distance trucking may be a
thing of the past within, like camera film and typewriters, within a couple of decades. These
possibilities are worthy of thought if you are in the oil biz for the long haul.
Every country that imports oil is going to have a powerful incentive to reduce demand for
it to the extent it can as depletion sooner or later pushes one exporting country after
another into the importer category. Countries in the Middle East with oil and gas to export
are going to find it so profitable to build wind and solar farms that they will be building
them like mushrooms popping up after a spring rain, because they can sell some or maybe even
most of the oil and gas they are burning now to generate electricity, thereby earning a big
profit on their solar and wind farm investment.
My thinking is that these changes will actually PROLONG our dependence on oil, taken all
around, by helping hold the price down so we can afford to run existing legacy equipment, and
have affordable petrol based chemicals, etc. I don't think anybody currently in the biz needs
to worry about selling out anytime soon, lol. But considerations such as these may have a
huge impact on exploration and development starting within a decade or so.
Times change. Doom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
Very important that OPEC increase the flow of Oil. World Markets are fragile, price of Oil
getting too high. Thank you!
The real target of this tweet is unmistakably Saudi Arabia, the one OPEC member with enough
idle capacity to make a difference to the producer group's output. It's also the one over which
the U.S. has the most leverage.
Straightforward economic considerations would see Saudi Arabia dismiss the request out of
hand, but political calculations make its choice more difficult.
OPEC production fell by around 1.5 million barrels a day between December and February, and
probably dropped further in March. Saudi Arabia made by far the biggest voluntary reduction .
It contributed almost two thirds of the group's total output cut as measured against individual
baselines in February, and made deeper cuts than it had promised it would implement each month
this year.
They lost control of Saudi Arabia, after trying to take down MBS and then betraying him by unexpectedly allowing waivers on
Iranian oil in November.
The U.S. cannot take down Iran without Venezuelan oil. What is worse, right now they don't have access to enough heavy oil
to meet their own needs.
Controlling the world oil trade is central to Trump's strategy for the U.S. to continue its empire. Without Venezuelan oil,
the U.S. is a bit player in the energy markets, and will remain so.
Having Russia block the U.S. in Venezuela adds insult to injury. After Crimea and Syria, now Venezuela, Russia exposes the
U.S. as a loud mouthed-bully without the capacity to back up its threats, a 'toothless tiger', an 'emperor without clothes'.
If the U.S. cannot dislodge Russia from Venezuela, its days as 'global hegemon' are finished. For this reason the U.S. will
continue escalating the situation with ever-riskier actions, until it succeeds or breaks.
In the same manor, if Russia backs off, its resistance to the U.S. is finished. And the U.S. will eventually move to destroy
Russia, like it has been actively trying to do for the past 30 years. Russia cannot and will not back off.
Venezuela thus becomes the stage where the final act in the clash of empires plays out. Will the world become a multi-polar
world, in which the U.S. becomes a relatively isolated and insignificant pole? Or will the world become more fully dominated by
a brutal, erratic hegemon?
One of the rare early realistic assessments of Trump foreign policy. most were wrong. Circe was right in major points. The
appointment of CIA director was the litmus test and Trump failed it by appointing neocon Pompeo.
Trump foreign policy is a typical neocon foreign policy. People just tried to overlook it in vain hopes that Trump will change the US
foreign policy
Notable quotes:
"... 95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time. ..."
"... And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for treason. ..."
"... Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,". ..."
"... Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet. The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon -unfriendly President was elected. ..."
"... Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and buy arms. ..."
"... And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly. ..."
"... What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense. ..."
"... he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh? ..."
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated
obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is
a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This
is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if Snowden
is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him
to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job. He already
stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get the death penalty for
treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the
Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern
of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naďve regarding Trump.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found
the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke
of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet. The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly
President was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The
'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to
fund security agencies and buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder
until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad
as they were before the "peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military
(note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel
or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions?
An enormous cultural failure that has produced a brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction
or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.
Looks like most participants in the discussion viry form highly incompetent to delusional...
Notable quotes:
"... The oil companies sell the oil at cost to their offshore companies whose headquarters are a P.O Box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands or other low tax/no tax domicile , who in turn sells it to enduser. The US does not collect any Corporate tax. But the Trump friends get richer and the working class will be paying up for it. ..."
"... TRUMP 2020 has already raised $180 Million in donations. Take a look at the list of contributors. Surprise. . . . . Surprise. . . . . Surprise. ..."
"... Trump new slogan, " Make My Friends Richer Again .. .. .. .. .. and Again and Again." ..."
"... So you are saying that the little bait and switch with the Saudis to crash oil prices for the mid terms was selling out the public? LOL! Why don't you stick to oil instead of posting political crap? There was no Bait and Switch. To think that Saudi's/OPEC ever sacrificed for the benefit of the United Stated or world economy is dilutional. They tried to take out US oil enterprise in 1970's , 1985 -1986, 1998-1999 and recently 2015. ..."
Trump Whitehouse just released a report from Council of
Economic Advisors that said high oil prices are good for US economy. A little "wink and a nod" to oil.
Trump recently stated, " I'm comfortable with $65 oil." That's not
a free market pricing.
High oil prices for oil companies and their partners does not outright the
benefit to the consumer and economy . $50 to $55 oil would set the U.S. and world economy booming. Trump
wrote about OPEC INFLATED PRICES in his 2011 book. He campaigned to control OPEC IN 2016.
He sold out the working
class public to please buddies like Harold Hamm of Continental Energy, Oil Companies and the Wall street boys
that sat down with OPEC at Ceraweek for a nice dinner. It has been reported that about two dozen firms
attended.
One Houston Shale producer said the US Shale companies and Banks that finance
them threatened to ruin them.
Some (5) oil companies rightfully declined the invitation such as Conoco.
The CEO stated they are Market driven and will live with the volatility.
Sad. The oil found under the United States is a valuable "Natural Resource"
but it is also a valuable "National Resource" and should benefit all.
The oil companies sell the oil at cost to their offshore companies
whose headquarters are a P.O Box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands or other low tax/no tax domicile , who in turn sells
it to enduser. The US does not collect any Corporate tax. But the Trump friends get richer and the working
class will be paying up for it.
Just like Trump reneged on his campaign promise regard the HUGE Wallstreet
tax loophole "carried interest". He now does so oil as a favor to his buddies.
TRUMP 2020 has already raised $180 Million in donations. Take a look
at the list of contributors. Surprise. . . . . Surprise. . . . . Surprise.
When the traders see this oil will be up today. Need to wait for new
pipelines. . . . Q4.
Oil stabilized in the $50's would set both the US and World economies on
fire.
Trump new slogan, " Make My Friends Richer Again .. ..
.. .. .. and Again and Again."
So you are saying that the little bait
and switch with the Saudis to crash oil prices for the mid terms was selling out the public? LOL!
Why don't you stick to oil instead of posting political crap? There was no Bait and Switch. To think that Saudi's/OPEC ever sacrificed for the benefit of the
United Stated or world economy is dilutional. They tried to take out US oil enterprise in 1970's , 1985 -1986,
1998-1999 and recently 2015.
They do take care if the President wants low oil price or not . Going back to at least the
1980's after the US presidents term ended they were invited to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to give a speech for $1
Million. Bubba liked the idea so much he started a whole new industry out of it. The Saudi's during
Obama Administration decide "why wait" and the King gave Michelle Obama two necklesses valued over $1.5
million.
As was stated on Bloomberg the major sell off in December was more a demand problem than a supply
problem..
As soon as Trump announced in May '18 that sanctions would go into
effect in November Saudi exports went straight up. Not because they were doing Trump a favor it was because
demand from their clients. They did very well May to Oct. If you are a major importer of OPEC oil
and you hear that sanction are going to effect in Nov what do you do ? ? ? You top off your tanks with
crude. . . . . . . you turn up the volume at your refineries to stock pile finished product of gas, diesel,
etc. (which all of Asia did) When sanctions had to be delayed and did not materialize the demand/price
dropped for a while.
Trump was under extreme pressure due to European and Asian economic downturns.
He didn't want to cause a recession . So he delayed the sanctions.
MONEY TALKS
During the 2016 election the big money from Oil and Wallstreet went to.Hillary.
She knew where her bread was buttered. Why do you think her State Department approved the Keystone XL.
The State Department had a study done on the Keystone XL . The consulting contract was awarded to a firm that
was run by two former Clinton Campaign workers. After her approval the Canadian Chamber of Commerce gave the
Clinton Foundation a large donation. Several large oil companies with interest in the Cd Tar Sand gave the Clinton
Foundation large donations. A setup.
Before she announced in 2016 Clintons personal Lawyer and Clinton Foundation
Lawyer was put on the Board of Blackrock the World's largest Hedgefund whose CEO Fink was an outspoken critic
of legislation to end carried interest.
During 2012 campaign Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Insisted the carried interest
tax loophole had to be eliminated and attacked Romney for benefiting from carried interest. The next election
cycle guess who received the largest portion of the donations from Hedge Funds . . . . that's right
the good Senator Chucky Schumer. He never mentions Carried Interest again.
Democrat or Republican .. .. .. they're all
the same. Show me the Money.
Doesn't anyone believe in free markets anymore. I think Supply and
Demand economics prevails. JH and WS you might want to lighten up on your Shale equities holdings before
the three new pipelines start pumping by the end of year. Before then oil should continue to rise. lol
Yours is an interesting interpretation and conclusion, probably
from the Bloomberg article. Consider the following 4 excerpts from that same report.
"...increased production has undoubtedly served as a boon to the
American position internationally as well as a buffer for American consumers'
sensitivity to oil prices"
"As the United States continues to expand its position as an exporter in
global oil markets, it better insulates itself from the adverse welfare and GDP
consequences of high oil prices and price spikes"
"A second effect of the changing U.S. net petroleum position is that it
may increase protection from the business cycle that is exacerbated by high
oil prices"
"Kilian and Vigfusson (2017) observe that in the period since 1974,
U.S. economic recessions have been universally preceded by increases in the
price of oil"
These 4 quotes are consistent with more US oil on the market and lower prices.
The last quote especially indicates it's doubtful the Trump administration desires high oil prices and would
be contradictory to Mike Pompeo urging oil companies to continue pumping just 2 weeks ago. Not that it would
be unprecedented for government to say contradictory things but I think it's quite clear the US government wants
'low' oil prices.
Here is the quote Bloomberg extracts, leaving out the first sentence.
"The shrinking level of U.S. net imports of petroleum provides indirect
benefits through macroeconomic channels by reducing sensitivity to oil price
shocks. If the United States becomes an annual net exporter of petroleum,
higher oil prices would, on average, help the U.S. economy. In this case, the net
gains for producers, and to their private partners that own mineral deposits,
would outweigh the higher costs for consumers. Such a change would have a
number of important policy implications"
Granted the second to last sentence does seem to favor higher prices but
seems to be contradicted by the first and the above 4 quotes. And it then seems to stress, in the last sentence,
that it is not advocating for higher prices but that it is a consequence that must be considered when choosing
policies. It would not be unheard of for advisors to have conflicting views and is typical of bureaucratic infighting.
You can always count on Bloomberg, or most of the msm
for that matter, to write a clickbaity headline with no substance in the story and a questionable interpretation
(along with a twitter insert). I think the writer simply went to the conclusion of the report and pulled those
sentences out without reading anything else and put "Trump wrong" in the headline. She has a deadline to beat
after all.
Well if you have such a big shale oil industry and China = your
biggest geopolitical rival is also a biggest oil importer imho oil in the 70's is better than in
50's. Because today China imports something like 8 to10 times more oil than USA.
Trump Whitehouse just released a report from Council of Economic Advisors
that said high oil prices are good for US economy.
Not true . Trump wrote about OPEC INFLATED PRICES in his 2011
book. He campaigned to control OPEC IN 2016. He sold out the working class public to please buddies like
Harold Hamm of Continental Energy and the Wallstreet boys that sat down with OPEC at Ceraweek.
Sad. The oil found under the United States is a valuable "Natural
Resource" but it is also a valuable "National Resource" and should benefit all. The oil companies
sell the oil at cost to their offshore companies whose headquarters are a P.O Box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands
or other low tax/no tax domicile , who in turn sells it to enduser. The US does not collect any
Corporate tax. But the Trump friends get richer and the working class will be paying up for it.
Just like Trump reneged on his campaign promise regard the HUGE Wallstreet
tax loophole "carried interest".
TRUMP 2020 has already raised
$180 Million in donations. Take a look at the list of contributors. Surprise. . .
. . Surprise.
When the traders see this oil will be up today.
Need to wait for new pipelines. . . . Q4.
Oil stabilized in the $50's would set the US and World economies on
fire.
Trump new slogan, " Make My Friends Richer Again and Again and
Again."
Whether the US wants higher or lower prices depends on the immediate circumstances.
When Trump was first elected, lower prices may have been better. Now that unemployment has dropped, wages
are rising, and Trump's voters are more confident, slightly-elevated prices may be more advantageous.
Why? Because higher prices accelerate US oil production. This simultaneously improves our economy
and lowers our national defense expenses. Once we're a net exporter, we'll want even higher prices.
Then there's increased investment. When oil prices are higher, less
efficient vehicles get replaced faster, R&D for efficiency technologies takes off, and new companies are founded
to meet emerging needs. Remember: the US economy's greatest competitive advantage is innovation.
We
excel
at at. More so than any other country, we benefit from
stressors and rapid change. High oil prices are that stressor, and we've reached a point where we should
embrace it.
There's also the ever-improving fleet efficiency. As we squeeze more
from each barrel, the price of oil matters less to us. At some point, the price of fuel will be less important
to our economy than the profits we reap in world markets. If we haven't reached that point already, we
certainly will in the near future when electric vehicles will be offered in most market segments.
Finally, there's the COL differential between Trump Country and the People's
Republic of America. The Internet tells me gas is <$3.25/gallon in CA, and of course, everything is expensive
there. I can see how the good comrades of CA would be struggling. Then again, that's why I don't
live in CA. This morning, I drove past a local gas station at $2.40/gallon. When even luxury cars get
30+mpg and there are plenty of jobs near affordable housing, $2.40/gallon is irrelevant. Make it $3/gallon;
let's get this technology & profits show on the road!
Seriously though: the US economy is reaching a point
where consumers can survive higher oil prices, and we'll enjoy other benefits from those higher prices.
I would expect to see the US government progressively less concerned about this issue.
Whether the US wants higher or lower prices depends on the immediate
circumstances.
I make this short.
First when you say "Whether US wants higher or low prices . . . "
Whom are you referring to when you say " . . US . . " ? Trump
Administration ? US consumers ? US oil companies ? Politicians? What all of them should want is Free Market economics.
Supply and Demand Market.
Stabil $50 bbl
oil would create the world's largest economic boom ever. For ALL countries. Including emerging markets.
Why fill the 22,000 Saudi Prices pickets with cash. . . get a job.
First when you say "Wether US wants higher or low prices . . .
"
Whom are you referring to when you say " . . US . . " ?
Trump Administration ? US consumers ? US oil companies ? Politicians?
What all of them should want is Free Market economics.
Supply and Demand Market.
How ignorant to think the world runs on free market. Most of the world
is closed dictatorships/oligarchies whom we have STUPIDLY allowed into our free market and then this statement
is not true either, as the rest of "market driven economies", the EU have ~ no oil, so in effect would be a
monopoly and DID act this way as the USA was the #1 DOMINANT oil producer in the world for its first 50 years.
Oil has NEVER worked on free market principles.
For this reason it is one reason why Thorium salt water
thermal reactors can NOT get funding outside of China. If anyone can get them to work, Coal, oil, NG,
wind, solar, geothermal will disappear overnight. Why? EVERYONE has Thorium in their country.
It is a waste product from nearly every single mining operation around the world. We were very close to
getting them to work in the 70's but Nixon happened who hated any industry outside of S. California and cut
anyones funding outside of this region to zero.
How ignorant to think the world runs on free market. Most of
the world is closed dictatorships/oligarchies whom we have STUPIDLY allowed into our free market and then
this statement is not true either, as the rest of "market driven economies", the EU have ~ no oil, so
in effect would be a monopoly and DID act this way as the USA was the #1 DOMINANT oil producer in the
world for its first 50 years. Oil has NEVER worked on free market principles.
For this reason it is one reason why Thorium salt water thermal
reactors can NOT get funding outside of China. If anyone can get them to work, Coal, oil, NG, wind,
solar, geothermal will disappear overnight. Why? EVERYONE has Thorium in their country.
It is a waste product from nearly every single mining operation around the world. We were very close
to getting them to work in the 70's but Nixon happened who hated any industry outside of S. California
and cut anyones funding outside of this region to zero.
I agree the World doesn't run on a free market. SAUDI's sold US Refiners
$3.00 oil for $120.00 in 2006.
BUT THE U.S. RUNS ON A FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
PRICE FIXING IS AGAINST THE U.S. ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED TO
THE FULLEST.
As to your other
point . . . . . I just bought a THORIUM SALT WATER THERMAL REACTOR AT HOME DEPOT LAST WEEK.
My other one just
went on me. I had to take cold showers for three days until I could replace it.
Hello JC ,,,, as far as I know one of
the leaders in the field of Thorium Reactor Technology is Moltex Energy. www.moltexenergy.com. it looks very
promising and the Canadian Government is reviewing this technology at this time.Conceptually it looks pretty
darn good.
Hello JC ,,,, as far as I know one of the leaders in the field of Thorium
Reactor Technology is Moltex Energy. www.moltexenergy.com. it looks very promising and the Canadian Government
is reviewing this technology at this time.Conceptually it looks pretty darn good.
Hello JC ,,,, as far as I know one of the leaders in the field of Thorium
Reactor Technology is Moltex Energy. www.moltexenergy.com. it looks very promising and the Canadian Government
is reviewing this technology at this time.Conceptually it looks pretty darn good.
A lot of things look good conceptually. They've been working on fusion reactors
forever. I'm all for new technology . . . . but I wouldn't hold your breath.
I used to be pissed off when GE wouldn't bring to market that light bulb
they invented that never burned out. . . . . Then there was the car Goodyear tire that lasted for 500,000
miles but never saw the light of day . . . Then . . .
I agree the World doesn't run on a free market. SAUDI's sold US Refiners
$3.00 oil for $120.00 in 2006.
BUT THE U.S. RUNS ON A FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
PRICE FIXING IS AGAINST THE U.S. ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED
TO THE FULLEST.
As to your
other point . . . . . I just bought a THORIUM SALT WATER THERMAL REACTOR AT HOME DEPOT LAST WEEK.
My other
one just went on me. I had to take cold showers for three days until I could replace it.
If the USA cared about price fixing, I agree we should,
then we should be massively increasing tariffs on everyone.... actually I have argued for this, but for freedom
reasons. WTO is the dumbest thing ever as it ACTIVELY works against freedom as it gives power to greedy
power hungry oligarchs around the world.
EIA projections are profoundly flawed, being the only question if they are aware of it or if
they actually believe their own shit.
Increased production is driven by relatively high or increasing oil prices that signal
increased demand, OR by the need of producers to maintain income at the expense of other
producers when prices fall as it happened between mid-2014 to late 2015.
The second case is difficult to take place when oil prices are relatively low, as now, and
when there are agreements between producers to limit production to sustain prices, as now.
Therefore EIA is projecting an oil price increase amid general economic weakness, a trade
war, Chinese ongoing slowdown, and so on. The economy is not signaling any urgency about oil
supply after the Iran sanctions have taken place without much effect. Prices are not going to
sustain an increase in oil production unless something unforeseen takes place, and such event
cannot be included in EIA forecast.
According to Art Berman presentation about the 2018 price collapse the markets are
signalling $60/b oil for 2019-2020 with $10 price excursions. If he is correct we will not
see an increase in oil production, and might even see a slight decrease as Venezuela
continues its fast descent to near zero oil production. Everybody knows that a country that
came to depend almost exclusively on oil will implode when its oil production collapses, the
only question being how the implosion will look and what will be the final death toll.
"... In the ongoing desire on their part to be transparent they have, until Wed., projected their expectations for increases to short-term rates over the next two years to be 4 increases this year and 4 next year. ..."
"... As of Wednesday, that's all gone. The new dot chart says zero increases this year and at most 1 next year. The 10-year treasury immediately cratered its yield to 2.5something percent. ..."
Re shale financing . . . Folks should go and read financial articles from Wednesday afternoon
of this week.
The Fed basically took a sledgehammer to their dot charts. In the ongoing desire on their
part to be transparent they have, until Wed., projected their expectations for increases to
short-term rates over the next two years to be 4 increases this year and 4 next year.
As of Wednesday, that's all gone. The new dot chart says zero increases this year and at
most 1 next year. The 10-year treasury immediately cratered its yield to 2.5something
percent. Still falling. Overseas we see Germany tracking, and Japan, and more and more
maturities on their yield curves return to negative. Not just real negative. Outright nominal
negative.
This is something that Financial media does not talk about. Negative nominal interest
rates from major country government bonds. How could they talk about it? It is utterly
obvious that this specific reality demonstrates that the entirety of all analyses has no
meaning. Their only defense is silence. Shale would prefer that it stay that way.
The Fed also announced an end to balance sheet normalization, which is euphemism for
trying to get rid of all of those bonds and MBS that were purchased as part of QE. They are
ending their purchases late this year. They dare not continue the move towards normal. I
believe that leaves their balance sheet still holding in excess of 3 trillion. That's not
normalization, sports fans. And it has been TEN YEARS.They havent been able to get to
"normal" in ten years, and as of Wed, they will stop trying.
The Treasury notes are the underlying basis for what shale companies have to pay to borrow
money. Thoughts by folks here that the monetary gravy train will shut off shale drilling need
rethinking. Bernanke changed everything. Forever.
These Fed actions are indistinguishable from whimsy. Imagining that Powell is Peak Oil
cognizant and is focused on shale is a tad extreme, but only a tad.
I recall a Bernanke quote during the crisis that made clear he knew what Peak would mean
-- at any price.
"When US Equities are well on their way south US treasury yields will also join the negative
club. But oil will also be $20"
I don't believe Oil will fall much anymore. Oil prices were kept in check by the rising
dollar. Now that the Fed is no longer hiking, and probably will be cutting rates soon, its
likely Oil prices will start rising again. I think we probably will see some short dips in
energy and Stocks, but once the Fed cuts or does more QE, prices will climb back.
I've also noticed that prices for everything are going up. We are back in stagflation with
falling labor demand, but rising costs: materials, Food, imports, etc. My wild ass guess is
that WTI will be higher in Dec 2019 than it is today.
Its possible that the Fed is now trapped: Rising inflation, but failing labor demand.
Prices will likely increase as unemployment increases. My guess is Fed will let Inflation go
unchecked in order to avoid another major recession. If this assessment turns out to be
correct, Holding cash in USD is going to losing strategy.
FWIW: I don't believe the number of job offerings reflect the real labor market. I think
companies are keeping a lot of filled jobs posted due to extreme employee turn over rates.
For instance retail job turnover rates are as high as 81% per year. Often worker quit after a
few months or weeks. Thus it just makes sense for employers to keep the same jobs permanently
listed, even if they have the position currently filled.
$20 oil will CRUSH any exploration and development and NOBODY will spend a dollar on
CAPEX.
No Questions Asked.
A short-term high for consumers but a worse cataclysm than 2015
I am in Central TX, (Bryan/College Station) and remember well the 1980's crash and of course
2015-18.
The offshore oil exploration company I work for here was saved by a TGS contract during that
sh+t show.
We are now so swamped with jobs it is stupid.
Not enough boats or people worldwide- (NEW , unused fleets were cut up for scrap) and
honestly a dozen people I personally know ( some family members) either retired or went to
other technical fields.
They have all refused offers to come back .
Please remember, we are already 3 years behind on Explorati0n and Development and we are just
starting to see the ramifications of that 3 year worldwide "vacation".
Oh, and IMO 2020 is rolling in. Not a problem for us as we have to use .5ppm diesel anyway
.
Plus all the other Producer Countries with their own personal problems .
Yessir, gonna be a wild show.
I was /am no fan of Jimmy Carter but the world should have listened to him back in 1977.
That old grasshopper/ant fable comes to mind
A lot of lost years since then, would have been nice to develop alternates before it got
scary.
But that is what Humans do
Silly creatures .
I started to pay attention to oil during the Carter years. We could have had a very
manageable transition to alternative options to oil if we had used those decades to plan for
it.
Instead, we're going to have significantly more disruption when we can't keep our
petroleum consumption at current levels.
Bush II campaigned on "no nation building" mantra. He lied. Crump campaigned no foreign wars manta. He lied.
Notable quotes:
"... The 16th anniversary of the Iraq war last week was marked by a shortage of people defending the costliest foreign policy blunder of this young century, even in circles where support for that misadventure was once sacrosanct. ..."
"... Yet even as the folly and injustice of Iraq congeals into conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, famously resistant to rethinking bipartisan military interventions no matter how ill-advised, it is an open question whether anything has changed. Dick Cheney's protestations notwithstanding , the presidential wars largely continue unimpeded by the "America First" commander-in-chief. ..."
"... John Bolton seems to have more say about when American troops will leave Syria or Afghanistan than the president of the United States. Trump's second veto will almost certainly be of a bipartisan resolution rebuking -- and terminating -- U.S. support for the war in Yemen. We appear to be escalating in Somalia. Tensions are rising with Iran and Venezuela, with the administration trending toward a functionally neoconservative position on both despite major newspapers publishing pleas to retire that label . ..."
The 16th anniversary of the Iraq war last week was marked by a shortage of people defending the costliest foreign policy blunder
of this young century, even in circles where support for that misadventure was once sacrosanct.
Former George W. Bush mouthpiece Ari Fleischer supplied a
promptly ratioed
tweetstorm that quibbled with the "Bush
lied, people died" mantra concerning his old boss's handling of the intelligence on Iraq's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.
Never Trumper David French
gamely argued
that Saddam Hussein was a greater source of instability than the chaos brought about by the invasion, followed by Barack Obama's
withdrawal. In so doing, French reminded us that, however off-putting some conservatives find Donald Trump, the president's
criticism
of the war matters more to
many of those who devote their time to denouncing his every utterance.
Yet even as the folly and injustice of Iraq congeals into conventional wisdom inside the Beltway, famously resistant to rethinking
bipartisan military interventions no matter how ill-advised, it is an open question whether anything has changed. Dick Cheney's
protestations notwithstanding , the presidential wars largely continue unimpeded by the "America First" commander-in-chief.
John Bolton seems to have more say about when American troops will leave Syria or Afghanistan than the president of the United
States. Trump's second veto will almost certainly be of a bipartisan resolution rebuking -- and terminating -- U.S. support for the
war in Yemen. We appear to be escalating in Somalia. Tensions are rising with Iran and Venezuela, with the administration trending
toward a functionally neoconservative position on both despite major newspapers publishing pleas to
retire that label .
"The Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow," Fleischer tweeted on March
19. "There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no
WMDs were found, the left claimed 'Bush lied. People died.' This accusation itself is a lie.
It's time to put it to rest."
Fleischer goes on to declare that "The fact is that President Bush (and I as press
secretary) faithfully and accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community
concluded," before noting that "The CIA, along with the intelligence services of Egypt, France,
Israel and others concluded that Saddam had WMD. We all turned out to be wrong. That is very
different from lying."
As a Chief Weapons Inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq from
1991 through 1998, I was intimately familiar with the intelligence used by the U.S.
Intelligence Community to underpin the case for war (which I debunked in June 2002 in an
article published in Arms Control Today ). Armed with the
unique insights that came from this experience, I can state clearly and without any reservation
that Ari Fleischer, once again, has misrepresented the facts when it comes to the Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in March 2003.
Advertisement
The fact is, the Iraq War was never about WMD. Rather, it was waged for one purpose and one
purpose only -- regime change. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the sole focus of this effort,
and the so-called "intelligence" used to justify this act was merely an excuse for action. Ari
Fleischer knows this, and to contend otherwise -- as he does via twitter -- is simply a
continuation of the lies he told from the very beginning about the U.S. case for war with
Iraq.
UNSCOM had, by the fall of 2002, been relegated to the pages of history, replaced by a new
inspection organization, the United
Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) . It is through the
work of UNMOVIC that Ari Fleischer's defense of George W. Bush collapses. In November 2002 the
Bush administration pushed for the UN Security Council to pass Resolution
1441 , which found Iraq to be in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations.
Inspectors from UNMOVIC were dispatched to Iraq shortly thereafter in a last-ditch effort to
account for the totality of Iraq's WMD.
The work of the inspectors was undermined from the start by the Bush administration, led by
Ari Fleischer. "It is very well true that the inspectors who are working as diligently as they
can in an environment made very difficult for them by Iraqi actions, may not be giving notice,"
Fleischer
explained in a press conference, "but that does not mean Iraq is not receiving notice as a
result of their electronic means and other means to know what the inspectors are doing. Which
puts the inspectors in a very hard position."
But Fleischer had no evidence that Iraq was getting advance notice, and the experience of UNMOVIC
inspectors on the ground suggested otherwise. When asked by a reporter about the
possibility of giving the UN weapons inspectors more time to complete their task, Fleischer
fired back, asking "More time for what? More time to be run-around by a regime that has not
complied, that has concealed its weapons, and that has grown throughout the years --
particularly the four years when no one was in the country -- extraordinarily good at hiding
what they have and deceiving those who are there to do their level best."
Left unsaid was the fact that the inspectors had repeatedly asked the U.S. for access to the
very intelligence being used to underpin the American claims that Iraq was holding on to
prohibited WMD and were denied. "If the UK and the U.S. are convinced and they say they have
evidence," Hans
Blix, the head of UNMOVIC, had noted on December 20, 2002, "then one would expect they
would be able to tell us where is this stuff." When asked if they were getting cooperation from
U.S. and Western intelligence agencies, Blix replied, "Not yet. We get some, but we don't get
all we need."
In 2010,
Blix commented on the provisions of Security Council resolution 1441, which had declared
Iraq to be in "material breach" of its obligation to disarm, and which was cited
by Ari Fleischer to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in March 2003. "The
declaration, I felt, might give Iraq a chance for a new start," Blix noted, " except that it
was very hard for them to declare any weapons when they didn't have any. "
This is the conclusion that anyone taking umbrage with Ari Fleischer over his attempt to
whitewash the role he played -- as an extension of President George W. Bush -- in facilitating
the Iraq War should rely on. Deflecting blame onto the U.S. intelligence community ignores the
fact that the decision to go to war was the exclusive purview of the Executive Branch that
Fleischer served. Iraq's alleged retention of proscribed WMD were merely an excuse to achieve
the higher goal of regime change. The inspection process initiated in November 2002 to
investigate Iraq's WMD programs was, from the U.S. perspective, a façade created to
justify a decision to go to war that was made long before the inspectors ever set foot on the
ground.
"Intelligence," therefore, was an artifice manufactured by the Bush administration as a
smoke screen. A memorandum prepared by
the head of the British MI-6 intelligence service , Richard Dearlove, following a July 23,
2002 meeting in Washington, DC, underscores this truth: "There was a perceptible shift in
attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through
military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD . But the intelligence
and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Bush knew that the engagement with the United Nations, including the crafting of resolution
1441 and the dispatch of inspectors to Iraq, was simply an elaborate charade, cruel theatrics
meant to dangle the prospects of peace, all the while preparing for war -- something Ari
Fleischer knew all along, as this exchange
with the press aptly demonstrates:
Question: "Does regime change mean that you want to change the leader of Iraq, or you want
to change the nature of the regime?"
Fleischer: "The objective is for Saddam Hussein's Iraq to disarm, to stop threatening its
neighbors, to stop repressing minorities within its own country. And that's why Congress passed
the policy of regime change."
Press: "Well, which of those definitions is correct?"
Fleischer: "Well, let's do it -- let me cut to the bottom line on it. What I would propose
is that in the event Saddam Hussein gives the order, and under his leadership and direction
disarms Iraq, gives up its weapons of mass destruction, has no more chemical weapons, no more
biological weapons, stops using hostility as a way to deal with its neighbors, stops repression
of minorities with his own country, give me a call. After you cover Saddam Hussein doing these
things, let's talk about it. Until then, the president is focused on making sure that these
developments take place as a result either of the UN resolutions being enforced, or by whoever
in Iraq taking these actions to make it happen. But this is probably the mother of all
hypotheticals. Give me a phone call when it happens."
Press: "So Saddam could stay in power if those objectives were carried out?"
Fleischer: "Again, call me up when Saddam Hussein gives the directions for all those factors
to take place."
Press: "So, that's a yes?"
Fleischer: "I think this is a question of how many devils can dance on the head of a
pin."
Press: "It's not. Can he stay in power and have regime change?"
Fleischer: "You're asking the mother of hypotheticals. And I think it's a rather "
Press: "Does it refer to a leader or a government regime change?"
Fleischer: "It refers to actions that have to be taken to keep the peace."
Press: "So it's a question of policy, not personnel?"
Fleischer: "That's a good way to put it."
Press: "So he could stay in power if those things happen?"
Fleischer: "If you want to fool yourselves into believing that that's what Saddam Hussein
would do in policy, that's an interesting way to approach it."
The fact of the matter is that Saddam did, in fact, do everything listed by Ari Fleischer to
effect a change in the policies of Iraq in order to preserve his regime. But President Bush --
whom Fleischer represented -- never had any intention of recognizing such change, even when it
occurred. President Bush, Ari Fleischer and every representative of the U.S. administration
involved in formulating and implementing U.S. policy on Iraq was being dishonest in the extreme
when dangling the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the Iraq problem.
In short, they all lied, and Ari Fleischer was the mouthpiece for disseminating these lies,
a task he continues to perform to this day.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author ofDeal of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road
to War . 14 Responses to Ari Fleischer Lied, and People Died
Thank you for another reminder of what really happened. My only quibble is that this uses
GWB, the figurehead, as the power and decision-maker. Like Bolton & Co today, the ones
calling the plays are not the public face that can get elected by the proles. It was the
Cheney/Wolfy/Rummy cabal, smokescreened by Rove, who sent Iraq back to the stone age at the
behest of Israel.
One down and more to go Iran is the next big target of the same mentality.
It is interesting to note the following requirement: "stops repression of minorities with
his own country". It indicates that Bush administration had a plan B for invading Iraq, on
the template of Kosovo
The writer states: "In short, they all lied, "
Therefore, based on the evidence that the Iraq war was a lie, where are the prosecutions?
Millions of people are dead, soldiers are dead or maimed, Iraq is reduced to rubble in parts
of its land and nothing happens to the perpetrators of lies. What does this say about our
so-called "justice system"? http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/12/will-war-criminals-be-brought-to.html
"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
It is the same today with the intelligence being fixed to justify the US exit from the INF
treaty.
Why does the administration not tell us what the range of the disputed missile is?
Why would Russia deploy a land-based missile in breach of the treaty when it could deploy
it at sea and not violate any treaty?
Not surprisingly, this information has not been supplied.
Behind the decision to leave the INF treaty is John Bolton. He also fought to remove Jose
Bustani as the head of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) which
governs the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Bustani was trying to bring Iraq into that treaty. That is why he had to go. If he had
succeeded it would have removed the excuse for war.
It's astonishing that creeps like Fleischer have the temerity to show their faces in public.
His lies caused terrible damage to America and millions of innocent civilians in the Middle
East. He should shut the **** up and thank his lucky stars he wasn't sent to prison for his
part in this disgusting episode.
The War of Lies Against Iraq
By Eric S. Margolis
March 23, 2019
Sixteen years ago, the US and Britain committed a crime of historic proportion, the
invasion and destruction of Iraq. It was as egregious an aggression as Nazi Germany's 1939
invasion of Poland.
Large numbers of Iraqi civilians died from 2003-2007. Iraq's water and sewage systems were
bombed, causing widespread cholera. The UN estimated 500,000 Iraqi children alone died as a
result. Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, said it was 'a price worth paying.'
[read more at link below]
And now we get to do all over again, with the right target this time, Iran. Don't forget that
after 9/11 the first call was to go after Iran and not our trusty allies in the ME who were
the real perps. Iraq was just the consolation prize for these insane ideologues, who should
all be in jailed for war crimes.
If you define weapons of mass destruction as nuclear war capabilities, then Iraq had none. If
you define weapons of mass destruction as chemical, then Iraq historically had these weapons
which it used against Iran, the Kurds, and shot some in Iraq War I at Israel. What happened
to the chemical weapons? They were sold/moved to Syria, where they still are today, and still
being used by the Assad regime. When the US troops got to Iraq in Gulf War II, the chemical
weapons were gone from Iraq, but not from Syria, which is why Iran, has a vested interest in
being involved in Syria, not to mention Israel. Does this help to make more sense of what
seems to be a perpetual war?
Trump just wanted these chemical weapons destroyed and never created again, and the US will
evacuate the Middle East once this is accomplished.
The article and the comments say it all: the lies, nothing else, were used to destroy Iraq!
No intell "mistake" can be offered-it is and was a neo con deception of the country and
the world.
Accountability, however, will not happen. Very ominous for the situation pertaining to
Iran and Venezuela. If the thugs in suits, pompeo, bolton, abrams, feel no consequence will
happen, why worry-it is off to intervention/regime change they go.
American sheeple have the institutional memory of a gnat and the mass media coverup and
malfeseance will continue.
"Liberals were called traitors, we were right
The Bush admin's push for war stank from the beginning"
On the issue of Iraq, there's no hiding behind liberal, democrats, conservative,
republicans, libertarians, etc.
Most of the country was heck bent on war as a matter of revenge, regardless of policy. The
fear mongering for policies adjecent to the actual events and actors of 9/11 was not only
coming out of DC, but main street. New Yorkers were no less intent on war making than the WH,
Congress or various think tanks, businesses or educators from elite or non-elite schools.
And what has occurred since moots any real escape in labels. The group who should have
been the least likely and the most prudent, the most thoughtful – the conservatives had
bent conservatism so out of distortion that even they had no defense against unreason.
I have tended to give the president and those in the WH and Congress the benefit of the
doubt that they sincerely considered a response in the region as a defense. I did not go to
select schools, and the schools I did attend did not require me to Ovid or an overview of the
classics in Greek or Latin. I had not attended a war college class or anything of the kind.
But when the case was presented for war – it simply didn't have the evidence or a
rationale that made sense. In fact, some of those contentions contradicted the what was known
as well as each other. It was deeply disturbing and disappointing. But when I read the
president's response to Dir. Tenet,
"If that's all you got, we can't go to war"
or words to that effect, they reflected my thoughts entirely. And for a long time I
considered that all of this mayhem was part of a diplomatic package. I was already outside
the main on the issue of Afghanistan, which I thought was overkill and strategically unsound
for the what should have been the goal – dealing with the actors of 9/11.
I do agree with Inspector Ritter, it was also quite clear that until the inspectors had
finished their mission, minus any evidence that Pres Hussein was in violation – there
was no case. Nor was there a case for invasion based on any humanitarian crisis or
genocide.
But what I have not been able to do is cross that line that they the president knowing and
deliberately conspired to manufacture (lie) evidence against an innocent party. And I have
been able to cross that line to despite having contemplated this article for two days and I
will no doubt read it again, to include the references. Those of that objected the first go
'round, if not pacifists, have problem read several pools of of information and arguments
regarding the case or lack thereof for war and the misleading the country by the leadership.
And it's frustrating that those who actually got the matter spot on are still battling the
those that got the matter and subsequent similar advances incorrect to this day. It's down
right painful considering the measures that were engaged to not merely silence opposition,
but to destroy people's lives.
What has been broken may not be repairable, one hopes it is, believes it is, but reading
this article is just too deep wound to see it. And what is salt in the wound has been three
years of accusations about Russian collusion for the purposes of undermining the executive
who claimed we should reconsider how we address the adventures. And the near total buy in of
that press by half of the country minus any catastrophic event, makes the wars seem as window
dressing to a much deeper and darker ethic that plagues us.
And then there is the question of what to do about all of this official misrepresentation.
Not only must we filter out whether they knowingly lied, but what to do about it. The
daunting task of arresting so many in so many positions of leadership and research. I
consider it serious business to make a false report, much less doing so on a document of
declaration for official business -- that is purjury. We impeached a president because he
mislead about what was a private intimate indiscretion --
What s described above is devastatingly more egregious by several Everests in
magnitude.
And it implicates our partners in what could only be a crime: Great Britain, Israel,
Australia, Poland and others who aided and abetted in the matter.
Caveat pre-defense: L'est I be called an anti-semite, Israel has a right to exist and self
defense.
They were wrong. And that the factual data contradicted their claims may not be enough to
claim they did not genuinely believe their own "lies" if "lies" they were. Or maybe I am just
unwilling to hold people on my team to account to the standard required. Perhaps, accepting
the idea that they knowingly perjured themselves is just too painful to accept.
Unwilling to call a spade a spade – maybe just too merciful or at the end of the day
-- cowardice.
"The latest Brent rally has brought prices to our peak forecast of $67.5/bbl, three months
early," Goldman Sachs wrote in a note. The investment bank said that "resilient demand
growth" and supply outages could push prices up to $70 per barrel in the near future. It's a
perfect storm: "supply loses are exceeding our expectations, demand growth is beating low
consensus expectations with technicals supportive and net long positioning still depressed,"
the bank said.
The outages in Venezuela could swamp the rebound in supply from Libya, Goldman noted. But
the real surprise has been demand. At the end of 2018 and the start of this year, oil prices
hit a bottom and concerns about global economic stability dominated the narrative. But, for
now at least, demand has been solid. In January, demand grew by 1.55 million barrels per day
(mb/d) year-on-year. "Gasoline in particular is surprising to the upside, helped by low
prices, confirming our view that the weakness in cracks at the turn of the year was supply
driven," Goldman noted. "This comforts us in our above consensus 1.45 mb/d [year-on-year]
demand growth forecast."
If so, economics will suffer and chances for Trump for re-election are much lower, of exist at all due to all his betrayals
In the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," the wolf actually arrives at the end. Never forget that. Peak oil will arrive. We don't
know when, and we are not prepared for it.
Shale play without more borrowed money might be the next Venezuela. .
I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down
and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can
shale oil save us from peak oil?
OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 57% of world oil production.
"I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia
is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all
up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?"
IEA´s Oil 2019 5y forecast has global conventional oil on a plateau, i.e. declines and growth match each other perfectly
and net growth will come from LTO, NGL, biofuels and a small amount of other unconventional and "process gains".
Iran is ofc a jocker, since it can quickly add supply. Will be interesting to see how Trump will proceed.
I am quite original in my opinion about Peak Oil. I think it took place in late 2015. I will explain. If we define Peak Oil as
the maximum in production over a certain period of time we will not know it has taken place for a long time, until we lose the
hope of going above. That is not practical, as it might take years.
I prefer to define Peak Oil as the point in time when vigorous growth in oil production ended and we entered an undulating
plateau when periods of slow growth and slow decline will alternate, affected by oil price and variable demand by economy until
we reach terminal decline in production permanently abandoning the plateau towards lower oil production.
The 12-year rate of growth in C+C production took a big hit in late 2015 and has not recovered. The increase in 2 Mb since
is just an anemic 2.5% over 3 years or 0.8% per year, and it keeps going down. This is plateau behavior since there was no economic
crisis to blame. It will become negative when the economy sours.
Peak Oil has already arrived. We are not recognizing it because production still increases a little bit, but we are in Peak
Oil mode. Oil production will decrease a lot more easily that it will increase over the next decade. The economy is going to be
a real bitch.
Interesting thesis, keep in mind that the price of oil was relatively low from 2015 to 2018 because for much of the period
there was an excess of oil stocks built up over the 2013 to 2015 period when output growth outpaced demand growth due to very
high oil prices. Supply has been adequate to keep oil prices relatively low through March 2019 and US sanctions on Iran, political
instability in Libya and Venezuela, and action by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations to restrict supply have resulted in slower
growth in oil output.
Eventually World Petroleum stocks will fall to a level that will drive oil prices higher, there is very poor visibility for
World Petroleum Stocks, so there may be a 6 to 12 month lag between petroleum stocks falling to critically low levels and market
realization of that fact, by Sept to Dec 2019 this may be apparent and oil prices may spike (perhaps to $90/b by May 2020).
At that point we may start to see some higher investment levels with higher output coming 12 to 60 months later (some projects
such as deep water and Arctic projects take a lot of time to become operational, there may be some OPEC projects that might be
developed as well, there are also Canadian Oil sands projects that might be developed in a high oil price environment.
I define the peak as the highest 12 month centered average World C+C output, but it can be define many different ways.
Our capability to store oil is very limited considering the volume being moved at any time from production to consumption.
I understand that it is the marginal price of the last barrel of oil that sets the price for oil, but given the relatively inexpensive
oil between 2015 and now, and the fact that we have not been in an economical crisis, what is according to you the cause that
world oil production has grown so anemically these past three years?
Do you think that if oil had been at 20$/b as it used to be for decades the growth in consumption/production would have been
significantly higher?
I'll give you a hint, with real negative interest rates and comparatively inexpensive oil most OECD economies are unable to
grow robustly.
To me Peak Oil is an economical question, not a geological one. The geology just sets the cost of production (not the price)
too high, making the operation uneconomical. It is the economy that becomes unable to pump more oil. That's why the beginning
of Peak Oil can be placed at late 2015.
The economic system has three legs, cheap energy, demographic growth, and debt growth. All three are failing simultaneously
so we are facing the perfect storm. Social unrest is the most likely consequence almost everywhere.
If prices are low that means there is plenty of oil supply relative to demand. It also means that some oil cannot be produced
profitably, so oil companies invest less and oil output grows more slowly.
So you seem to have the story backwards. Low oil prices means low growth in supply.
So if oil prices were $20/b, oil supply would grow more slowly, we have had an oversupply of oil that ls what led to low oil
prices. When oil prices increase, supply growth will ne higher. Evause profits will be higher and there will be more investment.
It is you who has it backwards, as you only see the issue from an oil price point of view, and oil price responds to supply
and demand, and higher prices are an estimulus to higher production.
But there is a more important point of view, because oil is one of the main inputs of the economy. If the price of oil is sufficiently
low it stimulates the economy. New businesses are created, more people go farther on vacation, and so on, increasing oil demand
and oil production. If the price is sufficiently high it depresses the economy. A higher percentage of wealth is transferred from
consumer countries to producing countries and consumer countries require more debt. During the 2010-2014 period high oil prices
were sustained by the phenomenal push of the Chinese economy, while European and Japanese economies suffered enormously and their
oil consumption depressed and hasn't fully recovered since.
In the long term it is the economy that pumps the oil, and that is what you cannot understand.
The economy decides when and how Peak Oil takes place. If you knew that you wouldn't bother with all those models.
And in my opinion the economy already decided in late 2015 when the drive to increase oil production to compensate for low
oil prices couldn't be sustained.
Both supply and demand matter. I understand economics quite well thank you. You are correct that the economy is very important,
it will determine oil prices to some degree especially on the demand side of the market. If one looks at the price of oil and
economic growth or GDP, there is very little correlation.
The fact is the World economy grew quite nicely from 2011 to 2014 when oil prices averaged over $100/b.
There may be some point that high oil prices are a problem, apparently $100/b in 2014 US$ is below that price. Perhaps at $150/b
your argument would be correct. Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there
is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
I agree the economy will be a major factor in when peak oil occurs, but as most economists understand quite well, it is both
supply and demand that will determine market prices for oil.
My models are based on the predictions of the geophysicists at the USGS (estimating TRR for tight oil) and the economists at
the EIA (who attempt to predict future oil prices). Both predictions are used as inputs to the model along with past completion
rates and well productivity and assumptions about potential future completion rates and future well productivity, bounded by the
predictions of both the USGS and the EIA along with economic assumptions about well cost, royalties and taxes, transport costs,
discount rate, and lease operating expenses.
Note that my results for economically recoverable resources are in line with the USGS TRR mean estimates and are somewhat lower
when the economic assumptions are applied (ERR/TRR is roughly 0.85), the EIA AEO has economically recoverable tight oil resources
at about 115% of the USGS mean TRR estimate. The main EIA estimate I use is their AEO reference oil price case (which may be too
low with oil prices gradually rising to $110/b (2017$) by 2050.
Assumptions for Permian Basin are royalties and taxes 33% of wellhead revenue, transport cost $5/b, LOE=$2.3/b plus $15000/month,
annual discount rate is 10%/year and well cost is $10 million, annual interest rate is 7.4%/year, annual inflation rate assumed
to be 2.5%/year, income tax and revenue from natural gas and NGL are ignored all dollar costs in constant 2017 US$.
You do incredible work Dennis and I believe you are correct. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic which accounts for huge price
swings when inventories get uncomfortably high or low. If supply doesn't keep up with our needs, price will rise to levels that
will eventually create more supply and create switching into other energy sources which will reduce demand.
Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being
produced relative to the demand for oil.
You don't seem to be aware of historical oil prices. For inflation adjusted oil prices since 1946 oil (WTI) spent:
27 years below $30
13 years at ~ $70
18 years at ~ $40
10 years at ~ $90
5 years at ~ $50 https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
And the fastest growth in oil production took place precisely at the periods when oil was cheapest.
You simply cannot be more wrong about that.
And your models are based on a very big assumption, that the geology of the reserves is determinant for Peak Oil. It is not.
There is plenty of oil in the world, but the extraction of most of it is unaffordable. The economy will decide (has decided) when
Oil Peak takes place and what happens afterwards. Predictions/projections aren't worth a cent as usual. You could save yourself
the trouble.
I use both geophysics and economics, it is not one or the other it is both of these that will determine peak oil.
Of course oil prices have increased, the cheapest oil gets produced first and oil gradually gets more expensive as the marginal
barrel produced to meet demand at the margin is more costly to produce.
Real Oil Prices do not correlate well with real economic growth and on a microeconomic level the price of oil will affect profits
and willingness of oil companies to invest which in turn will affect future output. Demand will be a function of both economic
output and efficiency improvements in the use of oil.
Also keep in mind that during the 1945-1975 period economic growth rates were very high as population growth rates were very
high and the World economy was expanding rapidly as population grew and the World rebuilt in the aftermath of World War 2. Oil
was indeed plentiful and cheap over this period and output grew rapidly to meet expanding World demand for oil. The cheapness
of the oil led to relatively inefficient use of the resource, as constraints in output became evident and more expensive offshore,
Arctic oil were extracted oil prices increased and there was high volatility due to Wars in the Middle east and other political
developments. Oil output (C+C) since 1982 has grown fairly steadily at about an 800 kb/d annual average each year, oil prices
move up and down in response to anticipated oil stock movements and are volatile because these estimates are often incorrect (the
World petroleum stock numbers are far from transparent.)
On average since the Iran/Iraq crash in output (1982-2017) World output has grown by about 1.2% per year and 800 kb/d per year
on average, prices have risen or fallen when there was inadequate or excess stocks of petroleum, this pattern (prices adjusting
to stock levels) is likely to continue.
There has been little change when we compare 1982 to 1999 to 1999-2017 (divide overall period of interest in half) for either
percentage increase of absolute increase in output.
I would agree that severe shortages of oil supply relative to demand (likely apparent by 2030) is likely to lead to an economic
crisis as oil prices rise to levels that the World economy cannot adjust to (my guess is that this level will be $165/b in 2018$).
Potentially high oil prices might lead to faster adoption of alternative modes of transport that might avert a crisis, but that
is too optimistic a scenario even for me.
China will be in outright deflation soon enough. Economic stimulus is starting to fail in China. They can't fill the so called
bathtub up fast enough to keep pace with the water draining out the bottom. So to speak.
Interest rates in China will soon be exactly where they are in Europe and Japan. Maybe lower.
In order to get oil to $90-$100 the value of the dollar is going to have to sink a little bit. In order to get oil to $140-$160
the dollar has to make a new all time low. Anybody predicting prices shooting up to $200 needs the dollar index to sink to 60
or below.
The reality is oil is going to $20. Because the rest of the world outside the US is failing. Dennis makes some nice graphs
and charts and under his assumptions his charts and graphs are correct. But his assumptions aren't correct.
We got $20 oil and an economic depression coming.
Peak Oil is going to be deflationary as hell. Higher prices aren't in the cards even when a shortage actually shows up. We
will get less supply at a lower price. Demand destruction is actually going to happen when economies and debt bubbles implode
so we actually can't be totally sure we are ever going to see an actual shortage.
We could very well be producing 20-30% less oil than we do now and still not have a shortage.
Oh and EV's are going to have to compete with $20 oil not $150 oil.
When do you expect the oil price to reach $20/b? We will have to see when this occurs.
It may come true when EVs and AVs have decimated demand for oil in 2050, but not before. EIA's oil price reference scenario
from AEO 2019 below. That is a far more realistic prediction (though likely too low especially when peak oil arrives in 2025),
oil prices from $100 to $160/b in 2018 US$ are more likely from 2023 to 2035 (for three year centered average Brent oil price).
My assumptions are based on USGS mean resource estimates and EIA oil price estimates, as well as BIS estimates for the World
monetary and financial system.
Your assumption that oil prices are determined by exchange rates only is not borne out by historical evidence. Exchange
rates are a minor, not a major determinant of oil prices.
Technically speaking. The most relevant trendline on price chart currently comes off the lows of 2016/02/08. It intersects
with 2017/06/19. You draw the trendline on out to where price is currently. Currently price is trying to backtest that trendline.
On a weekly price chart i'd say it touches the underside of that trendline sometime in April in the low 60's somewhere between
$62-$66 kinda depends on when it arrives there time wise. The later it takes to arrive there the higher price will be. I've been
trading well over 20 years can't tell you how many times i've seen price backtest a trendline after it's been broken. It's a very
common occurrence. And i wouldn't short oil until after it does.
But back to your question. $20 oil what kind of timetable. My best guess is 2021-2022. Might happen 2020 or 2023. And FED can
always step in and weaken the dollar. Fundamentally the only way oil doesn't sink to $20 is the FED finds a way to weaken the
dollar.
But understand the FED is the only major CB that currently doesn't have the need to open up monetary policy. It's really the
rest of the worlds CB ultra loose monetary policy which is going to drive oil to $20.
"... "If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela. So not a smooth short % decline rate." ..."
"... Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has soared (expected to top $250T in 2019). ..."
"... Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since it will be a push over compared to Iran. ..."
"If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be pretty fucked economically
thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela.
So not a smooth short % decline rate."
Energy is the economy, The economy cannot function without energy. Thus its logical that a decline in energy supply will reduce
the economy. The only way for this not to apply is if there are efficiency gains that offset the decline. But at this point the
majority of cost effective efficiency gains are already in place. At this point gains become increasing expensive with much smaller
gains (law of diminishing returns). Major infrastructure changes like modernizing rail lines take many decades to implement and
also require lots of capital. Real capital needed will be difficult to obtain do to population demographics (ie boomers dependent
on massive unfunded entitlement & pensions).
Realistically the global economy is already in a tight spot. It started back in 2000 when Oil prices started climbing from
about $10/bbl in 1998 to about $30/bbl in 2000. Then the World Major Central banks dropped interest which ended triggering the
Housing Boom\Bust and carried Oil prices to $147/bbl. Since then Interest rates have remained extremely low while World Debt has
soared (expected to top $250T in 2019).
My guess is that global economy will wipe saw in the future as demographics, resource depletion (including Oil) and Debt all
merge into another crisis. Gov't will act with more cheap and easy credit (since there is no alterative TINA) as well as QE\Asset
buying to avoid a global depression. This creating a wipesaw effect that has already been happening since 2000 with Boom Bust
cycles. This current cycle has lasted longer because the Major central banks kept interest rates low, When The Fed started QT
and raising rate it ended up triggering a major stock market correction In Dec 2018. I believe at this point the Fed will no longer
seek any further credit tightening that will trip the economy back into recession. However its likely they the global economy
will fall into another recession as consumers & business even without further credit tighting by CB (Central Banks) Because they've
been loading up on cheap debt, which will eventually run into issues servicing their debt. For instance there are about 7M auto
loans in delinquency in March of 2019. Stock valuations are largely driven by stock buybacks, which is funded by debt. I presume
companies are close to debt limit which is likely going to prevent them from purchase more stock back.
Probably the biggest concern for me is the risking risks for another World war: The US has been targeting all of the major
Oil exporters. The two remaining independent targets are Venezuela & Iran. I suspect Venzuela will be the next US take over since
it will be a push over compared to Iran. I think once all of remaining independent Oil Exports are seized that is when the
major powers start fighting each other. However is possible that some of the proxy nations (Pakastan\India),(Israel\Iran), etc
trigger direct war between the US, China, and Russia at any time.
Notice that the US is now withdrawing from all its major arms treaties, and the US\China\Russia are now locked into a Arms
race. Nuclear powers are now rebuilding their nuclear capacity (more Nukes) and modernizing their deployment systems (Hypersonic,
Very large MIRV ICBMS, Undersea drones, Subs, Bombers, etc.
My guess is that nations like the US & China will duke it out before collapsing into the next Venezuela. If my assessment is
correct, The current state of Venezuela will look like the garden of Eden compared to the aftermath of a full scale nuclear war.
Currently the Doomsday clock (2019) is tied with 1953 at 2 minutes:
1953 was the height of the cold war. I presume soon the Doomsday clock will be reduced to less than 2 Minutes later this
year, due to recent events in the past few weeks.
"the world's nuclear nations proceeded with programs of "nuclear modernization" that are all but indistinguishable from
a worldwide arms race, and the military doctrines of Russia and the United States have increasingly eroded the long-held taboo
against the use of nuclear weapons."
" The current international security situation -- what we call the "new abnormal" -- has extended over two years now.
It's a state as worrisome as the most dangerous times of the Cold War, a state that features an unpredictable and shifting
landscape of simmering disputes that multiply the chances for major military conflict to erupt."
Countries that have reported their January production (shown on the chart)
OPEC14 -822
Alberta -268
Mexico -87
Russian Federation -78
Brazil -60
Norway -48
Total -1,429 kb/day
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D12BlLBW0AEDR6G.png
So far for February: Russia, OPEC14, Norway
Total: -330 kb/day
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will once again become a nemesis for U.S.
shale if the U.S. Congress passes a bill dubbed NOPEC, or No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels Act, Bloomberg
reported this week , citing sources present at a meeting between a senior OPEC official and
U.S. bankers.
The oil minister of the UAE, Suhail al-Mazrouei, reportedly told lenders at the meeting that
if the bill was made into law that made OPEC members liable to U.S. anti-cartel legislation,
the group, which is to all intents and purposes indeed a cartel, would break up and every
member would boost production to its maximum.
This would be a repeat of what happened in 2013 and 2014, and ultimately led to another oil
price crash like the one that saw Brent crude and WTI sink below US$30 a barrel. As a result, a
lot of U.S. shale-focused, debt-dependent producers would go under.
Bankers who provide the debt financing that shale producers need are the natural target for
opponents of the NOPEC bill. Banks got burned during the 2014 crisis and are still recovering
and regaining their trust in the industry. Purse strings are being loosened as WTI climbs
closer to US$60 a barrel, but lenders are certainly aware that this is to a large extent the
result of OPEC action: the cartel is cutting production again and the effect on prices is
becoming increasingly visible.
Indeed, if OPEC starts pumping again at maximum capacity, even without Iran and Venezuela,
and with continued outages in Libya, it would pressure prices significantly, especially if
Russia joins in. After all, its state oil companies have been itching to start pumping
more.
The NOPEC legislation has little chance of becoming a law. It is not the first attempt by
U.S. legislators to make OPEC liable for its cartel behavior, and none of the others made it to
a law. However, Al-Mazrouei's not too subtle threat highlights the weakest point of U.S. shale:
the industry's dependence on borrowed money.
The issue was analyzed in depth by energy expert Philip Verleger in an Oilprice
story earlier this month and what the problem boils down to is too much debt. Shale, as
Total's chief executive put it in a 2018 interview with Bloomberg, is very capital-intensive.
The returns can be appealing if you're drilling and fracking in a sweet spot in the shale
patch. They can also be improved by making everything more efficient but ultimately you'd need
quite a lot of cash to continue drilling and fracking, despite all the praise about the decline
in production costs across shale plays.
The fact that a lot of this cash could come only from banks has been highlighted before: the
shale oil and gas industry faced a crisis of investor confidence after the 2014 crash because
the only way it knew how to do business was to pump ever-increasing amounts of oil and gas.
Shareholder returns were not top of the agenda. This had to change after the crash and most of
the smaller players -- those that survived -- have yet to fully recover. Free cash remains a
luxury.
The industry is aware of this vulnerability. The American Petroleum Institute has vocally
opposed NOPEC, almost as vocally as OPEC itself, and BP's Bob Dudley said this week at CERAWeek
in Houston that NOPEC "could have severe unintended consequences if it unleashed litigation
around the world."
"Severe unintended consequences" is not a phrase bankers like to hear. Chances are they will
join in the opposition to the legislation to keep shale's wheels turning. The industry,
meanwhile, might want to consider ways to reduce its reliance on borrowed money, perhaps by
capping production at some point before it becomes forced to do it.
This is actually a follow-up to questions regarding energy return on investment in shale
plays. The simple answer is probably best answered with a rhetorical question. Why would the
number of drilling rigs in the Williston Basin go from 160 last winter to more than 200 this
summer?
Answer: -> Profit
Profits and EROEI are actually closely related. The resources that are preferentially
developed have the best EROEI. Energy is a currency, and in the case of oil wells, the return
on investment is fast. The total payback time on most Bakken wells is under two years, and
really good wells are less than a year. Money does not directly translate to energy, but in the
case of hydrocarbons, it is fairly close.
If you are a strong contributor to the green movement, you should ask the same question
about wind towers and solar panels, which are currently inefficient and expensive to produce.
(I like alternative, but they just are not competitive. See information provided below or read
my other post "what it means
to be green" )
The energy ratios for fracked oil wells are probably a little better than an average oil
well which are about 19:1, but it is important to note that ratio could be all over the place.
In terms of energy, I'm not sure if fracked wells are really better than traditional oil wells,
but the return on investment is certainly faster. In truth, there is not much decline curve
data on fracked wells so nobody really knows just how much oil the wells can produce. Most
estimates show a similar decline curve to traditional oil wells, but lack of data makes it
difficult to history match so estimates will likely change. I anticipate fracked wells to have
better decline curves than most traditional wells, but I could easily be wrong. It is important
to note that new tertiary recovery techniques are being developed specifically for fracked
wells.
Real-world problems associated with new drilling technologies relate to water usage, surface
water contamination, and infrastructure degradation. All of these problems are being worked on,
and state governments are working hard to deal with the problems associated with drilling. I
say state governments because that is who should be able to control their situation. Geology is
too variable across the country. Sweeping regulations are not the answer to new drilling
technologies.
I sort of missed the gas portion of this post, but the same rules apply. The price of
natural gas should speak for itself.
Some Data for the numbers people :
It is important to realize that these ratios change dramatically year to year based on
technological changes. For instance, I know that the ratio for the tar sands is off, but that
is not what this post is about, and I do not feel like trying to find data that may not exist
yet.
Natural gas: 10:1
Coal: 50:1
Oil (Ghawar supergiant field): 100:1
Oil (global average): 19:1
Tar sands: 5.2:1 to 5.8:1
Oil shale: 1.5:1 to 4:1
Wind: 18:1
Hydro: 11:1 to 267:1
Waves: 15:1
Tides: ~ 6:1
Geothermal power: 2:1 to 13:1
Solar photovoltaic power: 3.75:1 to 10:1
Solar thermal: 1.6:1
Misconceptions regarding energy returned on energy invested of shale plays:
1. The oil is thick and does not flow without additional heat or fluids. "For example, an
energy source like oil shale that is a solid material at room temperature and has low energy
density per unit of weight, and volume is highly unlikely to be good as a transport fuel unless
it can first somehow profitably be turned into a liquid fuel with higher-energy density (i.e.,
one that contains more energy per unit of weight or volume)."
This is simply false in most cases. The misconception is largely derived from people
confusing the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, and the Green River Shale in Colorado and Utah with
current shale oil plays.
For the most part, Bakken, Three Forks, and Niobrara have an API of 36 to 44 degrees. Since
that number doesn't mean anything to most people Bakken oil looks a little like dark green
swamp water. It flows and smells a little like a mix of solvents(alcohols). It can evaporate
some and looks nothing like motor oil or tar.
2 Oil shales are mined not drilled.
The answer is the same as above, and refers to the Tar Sands and Green River Shale.
One little rant for good measure: If I read one more comment that says we should wait to
develop our resources until we know how I might reach the computer screen and punch them in the
face. There are two options if we wait. 1. Total economic collapse with nothing to show for it
(This may be unavoidable at this point) 2. Oil companies will do their development overseas,
and our economy will collapse for sure. Energy is more valuable than any currency because you
can actually do something with it. Nothing beside energy can drive growth of any kind.
Merill Lynch expects oil to rally into the summer.
That's what Hootan Yazhari, head of global frontier markets equity research at Bank of
America Merrill Lynch, revealed in a television interview with Bloomberg earlier this week.
"We think a number of factors will see the oil market tighten in the coming months and, as a
result, as we head into the summer we should expect oil prices to have a seven-handle, maybe
even higher depending on a number of other factors," Yazhari told Bloomberg in the
interview.
Looking at oil price predictions for the year, the Merill Lynch representative highlighted
in the interview that the company was sticking to its forecast of $70 per barrel.
"As things stand we're looking for $70. Just to put that into context, that's a $72 average
from today onwards," Yazhari told Bloomberg.
"We have adjusted down our forecast to reflect the softer start to the year, but our
underlying bullish narrative is unchanged, with positive but slower global economic growth and
supply management from OPEC," FSMR analysts stated in a report sent to Rigzone on March 4.
(Bloomberg) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. is delaying a C$2.6 billion ($1.9 billion) oil-sands
project in Canada by at least a year as the nation's energy industry grapples with a shortage
of pipeline space and government-mandated production cuts.
Exxon's Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil Ltd., had originally planned to bring the
75,000-barrel-a-day Aspen project online in 2022, but is now slowing the pace of development at
the site in northern Alberta. Any decision to resume normal activity will depend on future
government actions and general market conditions, Imperial said Friday.
The delay is another blow to Canada's oil-sands industry, which suffered from record low
prices last year after a wave of new production overwhelmed the region's pipeline capacity.
That spurred the government of Alberta, where most oil-sands projects are located, to mandate
production cuts to drain a glut of crude in storage and revive prices.
The move also reflects Exxon's increased focus on projects off Guyana's coast and in the
Permian Basin in Texas. The company last week increased its target for Permian production to 1
million barrels a day by 2024 and expanded its estimate for the size of its Guyana discovery to
5.5 billion barrels.
New Risks
Imperial, which owns refineries that were benefiting from the cheaper feedstock, has been
one of the loudest critics of the curtailment policy and cited the plan again in its
explanation for the Aspen delay.
"We cannot invest billions of dollars on behalf of our shareholders given the uncertainty in
the current business environment," Imperial Chief Executive Officer Rich Kruger said in a
statement. "That said, our goal is to ensure the work we do this year will enable us to
effectively and efficiently resume planned activity levels when the time is right."
Imperial hinted at a possible slowdown at Aspen last month, saying it was re-evaluating the
project after the forced production cuts introduced new risks. The company also has said
previously that the curtailment policy, by boosting Canadian heavy oil prices too high, has
made shipping crude by rail uneconomical, forcing Imperial to dial back its rail shipments to
almost nothing last month.
Imperial sanctioned the Aspen project in November. The operation would use an extraction
method called a steam-assisted gravity drainage, in which steam is pumped underground to heat
up sludgy oil-sands bitumen, allowing it to flow through another pipe to the surface.
Imperial was slated to spend about C$700 million on the project this year, and the extra
free cash flow stemming from the delay may be used to buy back more shares, which would be a
positive for the stock, Dennis Fong, an analyst at Cannaccord Genuity, said in a note.
Imperial rose 0.5 percent to C$36.95 at 10:20 a.m. in Toronto. Exxon fell 0.3 percent to
$80.21 in New York.
To contact the reporter on this story: Kevin Orland in Calgary at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Simon Casey at [email protected] Joe
Carroll
1. When something is increasing 0.8% a year based on data with, say, 2% or higher margin of error this is not a growth.
This is a number racket.
2. We need to use proper coefficients to correctly estimate energy output of different types of oil We do not know real
EROEI of shale oil, but some sources claim that it is in the 1.5-4.5 range. Let's assume that it is 3. In comparison, Saudi oil
has 80-100 range. In this sense shale oil is not a part of the solution; it is a part of the problem (stream of just bonds produced
in parallel is the testament of that). In other words, all shale oil is "subprime oil," and an increase of shale oil production
is correctly called the oil retirement party. The same is true for the tar sands oil.
So the proper formula for total world production in "normalized by ERORI units" might be approximated by the equation:
where coefficients (I do not claim that they are accurate; they are provided just for demonstration) reflect EROEI of particular
types of oil.
If we assume that 58% of the US oil production is shale oil and condensate then the amount of "normalized" oil extracted in
the USA can be approximated by the formula
total * 0.83
In other words 17% of the volume is a fiction. Simplifying it was spent on extraction of shale oil and condensate (for concentrate
lower energy content might justify lower coefficient; but for simplicity we assume that it is equal to shale oil).
Among other things that means that 1970 peak of production probably was never exceeded.
3. EROEI of most types of oil continues to decline (from 35 in 1999 to 18 in 2006 according to
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/eroeihalletal.png).
Which means that in reality physical volume became a very deceptive metric as you need to sink more and more money/energy into
producing every single barrel and that fact is not reflected in the volume. In other words, the barrel of shale oil is already
50% empty when it was lifted to the ground (aka "subprime oil"). In this sense, shale wells with their three years of the high
producing period are simply money dumping grounds for money in comparison with Saudi oil wells.
4. The higher price does not solve the problem of the decline of EROEI. It just allows the allocation of a larger portion
of national wealth to the oil extraction putting the rest of the economy into permanent stagnation.
5. If we assume average EROEI equal 3 (or even 5) for shale oil then rising shale oil production along with almost constant
world oil production is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. Again, putting a single curve for all types of oil is the number racket,
or voodoo dances around the fire.
NOTES:
1. IMHO Ron made a correct observation about Saudi behavior: the declines of production can well be masked under pretention
of meeting the quota to save face. That might be true about OPEC and Russia as a whole too. Exceptions like Iraq only confirm
the rule.
Thanks as always for the valuable posts. I am curious about your opinion on something.
Once oil production peaks and plateaus, then inevitably declines, do you think world GDP will
start declining afterwards? I'd assume it would lag behind it by a short period of time
possibly (obviously depending on country etc but overall).
If that was to happen and no energy source can cover the decline rate, wouldn't the world be
pretty fucked economically thereafter? Hence one can assume or take a wild ass guess that the
decline after peak would resemble something like Venezuela. So not a smooth short % decline
rate.
I hope what i am asking makes sense.
Mike, in all honesty, I have no idea. The problem is there are so many other things going on
at the same time. The world is getting warmer, water tables are falling everywhere, rivers
are drying up, fisheries are disappearing, and I could go on for an hour explaining how
everything is falling apart. And now we hear that the insect population is declining very
fast. Why?
So as fossil energy starts to decline and renewables will not help very much, what will
happen. Will that exacerbate all our other problems. Yes, it most likely will. Look at
Venezuela. Is that what almost every nation will look like in 50 years? Well, probably not
every nation but a lot of them for sure.
So, the world is going to hell in a handbasket. But I am 80 years old. I will be safely
dead when the shit hits the fan. Lucky me.
Dennis Wrote:
"I think the 4 Mb/d of increased tight oil output from Dec 2019 to Dec 2025 may be enough to
keep World C+C output increasing through 2025, this assumes oil prices follow the AEO 2018
reference case "
I am sure there is sufficient Oil in the ground to delay Peak production to about 2040, if
the consumer demand can afford $300 bbl. Shale drilling is a lot like the housing bubble that
began in 2003 and when bust in 2008. It made no sense to lend people with no job, no income
and no assets, money to buy a home, but Lenders did it anyway and they did it for 5 years
straight. While Shale Drillers aren't Ninja home buyers they continue to fund operations
using debt.
Shale growth is a function of credit available to shale drillers. As long as they can
find a sucker^H^H^H^H lender to finance their growth, it will continue.
My wild-ass guess is that credit growth for shale drillers ends in 2021, because a lot
of old shale debt comes due between 2020 and 2022.
My guess is that the shale drillers will have trouble rolling over the existing debt
will also finding lenders to provide them more credit. In the past I presumed that interest
rates would rise to the point it cut them off from adding new debt. but the ECB & the Fed
continue to keep rates low. Perhaps the Shale drillers will get direct gov't funding to
continue, pseudo nationalization as Watcher has proposed over many years on POB.
I don't see much traction in significantly higher oil prices. with 78% of US consumers
living paycheck to paycheck, already, I don't believe they can absorb any substantial
increase in energy costs.
Its also very likely demographics will start impacting energy consumption in the west
as Boomers start retiring. A lot of boomers have postponed retirement, but I suspect that
this will start to change in the early 2020s as age related issues make it more difficult for
them to keep on working. Usually retired workers, consume considerably less energy as they no
longer commute to work, and usually downsize their lifestyles.
(Global) peak oil comes in phases. The 1st phase 2005-2008 caused the 2008 oil price shock
and the financial crisis. Money printing was used to keep the system afloat and finance the
US shale oil boom. The resulting high debt levels are now limiting economic activities. A lot
of the problems we see in the world come from this chain of events.
I warned the Australian Prime Minister John Howard in 2004/05 but he did not want to
listen.
As Art Berman said, shale oil is oil's retirement party.
When we are down to fracturing rocks and drilling tens of thousands of horizontal wells
that produce tiny streams of oil that decline by 70% in just three years we should
instinctively know that we are reaching the bottom of the proverbial barrel, literally.
Amazing how most people think just the opposite .
.Saudi Arabia
Quota 10,311
.Feb. Production 10,087
.Difference -224
Saudi Arabia produced 224,000 barrels per day less than their quota. Did not anyone
notice this and wonder why? The rest of OPEC was 179,000 barrels per day over their quota.
Iraq was the largest violator being 121,000 bpd over their quota.
Also, Saudi Arabia was the absolute driving force behind these quota cuts implemented in
January.
Noticed, and you could argue that they are showing the way and taking the larger part of the
burden since they want to be so nice to the rest of the opec members ;-).
Or perhaps the level they have been producing at is unsustainable and they are really glad
to officially have an excuse to cut back on production.
A newly declassified US intelligence memo has been unearthed this week and featured in a bombshell
Wall
Street Journal
report. It proves that the year prior to the Bush administration's 2003
invasion of Iraq the White House was expressly warned in great detail of all that could and would
go wrong in the regime change war's aftermath, including
the Sunni-Shia sectarian chaos and
proxy war with Iran
that would define Iraq and the whole region for years following. And
crucially, it reveals that seven months
before
the US invasion of Iraq, American
intelligence officials understood that
Osama bin Laden was likely "alive and well and
hiding in northwest Pakistan"
--
important given that a key Bush
admin claim to sell the war was that Saddam Hussein and bin Laden were
"in league"
against the
United States.
The
July 2002 memo
was authored by William Burns, then serving as assistant secretary of state for near eastern
affairs, and though clearly dismissed by the Bush neocons making the case for war, proved prescient
on many levels.
"Following are some very quick and informal thoughts on how events before,
during and after an effort to overthrow the regime in Baghdad could unravel if we're not careful,
intersecting to create
a 'perfect storm'
for American interests,"
Burns wrote
in the memo, classified 'Secret' and sent to Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The classified memo's existence was first brought to the public's attention through
Knight Ridder's reporting
in July 2003, which sought to reveal at the time there were pockets
of dissenting voices in the State Department and intelligence community pushing back against the
absurd White House claim that the whole operation would be a
"cakewalk"
and US troops would be greeted as "liberators". And there's Vice President Dick Cheney's infamous
declaration that the military effort
would take
"weeks rather than months."
Now, sixteen years after the start of the war the "perfect storm" intel briefing has been made
public in fully redacted form and it affirms, as the
WSJ reports
, "Diplomats accurately forecast many setbacks:
sectarian violence, attacks
on U.S. troops, Iranian intervention and long road to structural change
." Out of this came
the rise of ISIS and the continued unleashing of regime change and sectarian chaos on neighboring
Syria.
The ten page memo outlines a litany of
catastrophic doom and gloom scenarios
resulting from the invasion which would destabilize not only Iraq, but
unleash sectarian
hell on the entire region
.
Here are but a handful of the memo's many warnings which later proved right on target, as
summarized by the military reporting website
Task
& Purpose
:
Iran increasing aid to anti-American groups in both Iraq and Afghanistan because it
feared being "next on US hit list."
Security in Iraq collapsing following regime change because Iraqi troops and police would
be too afraid to patrol while Iraqis aligned with the United States would prove to be inept.
U.S. troops coming under increasing attacks as they patrol both Shiite and Sunni cities.
"If they intervene to stop disputes, they are perceived to have sided with one party or
another in a tribal dispute, thus incurring the wrath of the opposing party."
Afghanistan's security situation simultaneously deteriorating, creating the need for more
U.S. troops there.
"Carpetbaggers, bill collectors, expats and exiles," arriving in Iraq. "It will be a wild
mix."
"I don't mean to be pessimistic, because I really do believe that if we do it right this could
be a tremendous boon to the future of the region, and to U.S. national security interests," the
memo stated. "But we should have no illusion that it will be quick or easy."
And further contradicting Cheney's "weeks rather than months" claim, the memo accurately
predicted that U.S. troops would have to stay for,
"Five years – maybe four if we're lucky,
ten if we're not."
Some further interesting highlights from the July 2002 'Secret' report are below.
* * *
Osama bin Laden hiding in Pakistan
(the Bush admin claimed Saddam
and bin Laden were in cahoots)
"Osama bin Laden turns out to be alive and well and hiding in NW Pakistan. We press Paks,
internal stresses grow in Pakistan."
Iran and Syria targeted next
"Following US warnings that it would take the war on terrorism to all groups with global
capabilities, Iran and Syria hold summit meeting, decide US has targeted them."
Iran and Syria "strengthen positions in face of perceived US threat against them following
action in Iraq."
Sectarian score settling and Shia uprising
"This means night becomes the time for revenge, all over Iraq. A horrible wave of bloodletting
and private vengeance begins... US forces are helpless to stop the countrywide phenomenon. Police,
intelligence, senior military, and Baath Party officials effectively go into hiding..."
"Shia religious and political leaders, unhappy with composition of provisional government and
determined to secure greater share of power in post-Saddam Iraq... This leads to more violent
confrontations, and deaths, and the riots become a political tool to demonstrate power and increase
leverage against Sunnis and Kurds..."
Long US quagmire to put down sectarian powder keg
"Faced with inchoate and escalating disorder in the provinces, the US faces an agonizing
decision: step up to a more direct security role, or devolve power to local leaders."
"The Shia in the south, quietly aided by Iran, stage major revolt, taking over local government
offices and killing interim officials."
Weapons from Saddam's army will disappear (to be later used against US occupation)
"Law and Order, collecting weapons. We won't get them, most will go to ground."
"All for one, one for all, free for all - deals, short-term scrambles. It will be every clan for
itself."
Venezuela production is not only being hit by the blackout – which seems to have
damaged their overall grid capacity – but by new sanctions. Their diluent supplier has
just stated they will stop business.
Perhaps useful to note that Maduro was just as incompetent 6 months ago as presumably he is
now. He was just as incompetent 9 months ago as presumably he is now. And indeed, he was just
as incompetent three months ago as he is now. In fact we could take it back years.
Thus, it surely is just a coincidence that their blackout occurred at a point in time when
a foreign coup attempt was underway, rather than 9 or 6 or 3 months ago. Sabotage could not
be involved because we're told that incompetence and corruption is responsible, of the sort
that just happened to manifest itself at this point in time.
The 20 folks who are alleged to have died in hospitals from lack of power just
coincidentally died at this particular point in time. Because it is merely coincidence, the
saboteurs probably cannot be tried for murder.
Power has apparently been restored. Oil will resume its flow at whatever magnitude.
Of course there are no coincidences, just the things that the CIA, the Illuminati, the
freemasons, the jewish bankers and the Martians wanted to happen.
"Thus, it surely is just a coincidence that their blackout occurred at a point in time when a
foreign coup attempt was underway, rather than 9 or 6 or 3 months ago. Sabotage could not be
involved because we're told that incompetence and corruption is responsible, of the sort that
just happened to manifest itself at this point in time."
I am sure the US is trying to speed up the process. After all, those Aid buses were not
torched by Mo or his supporters but by Western agents. Its difficult to know who is really to
blame for the blackout, but the US has an agenda to take control over VZ. I would not rule
out the US causing it.
"... Everything I understand about German behavior in regards to 3rd parties is totally in lockstep with the US - never mind that Germany has been occupied by the US since WW2 - so why not a scheme to build more Russian dependency on the West? ..."
"... The people who destroyed the USSR are still in power; their whole existence depends on whoring out Russia to the West because that is all they have ever done. They can't not stop because to stop would be an act of self-annihilation. Russian elites, at least a large faction of them, desperately want back into the clubhouse, if they cant get in they will find something else to do until the moment the clubhouse door is opened to them again, and then they will fall all over themselves to get in. ..."
Only a few weeks ago, German politicians and media were up in arms protesting to the Trump
administration for interfering in Berlin's internal affairs. There were even outraged
complaints that Washington was seeking "regime change" against Chancellor Angela Merkel's
government.
Those protests were sparked when Richard Grenell, the US ambassador to Germany,
warned German companies involved in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline with Russia that they
could be hit with American economic sanctions if they go ahead with the Baltic seabed
project.
Earlier, Grenell provoked fury among Berlin's political establishment when he openly gave
his backing to opposition party Alternative for Germany. That led to consternation and
denunciations of Washington's perceived backing for regime change in Berlin. They were public
calls for Grenell to be expelled over his apparent breach of diplomatic protocols.
Now, however, Germany is shamelessly kowtowing to an even more outrageous American
regime-change plot against Venezuela.
... ... ...
Perhaps this policy of appeasement is also motivated by Berlin's concern to spare the
Nord Stream 2 project from American sanctions.
When NS2 is completed later this year, it
is reckoned to double the capacity of natural gas consumption by Germany from Russia. That will be
crucial for Germany's economic growth.
Another factor is possible blackmail of Berlin by Washington.
Recall the
earth-shattering revelations made by American whistleblower Edward Snowden a few years back when he
disclosed that US intelligence agencies were tapping the personal phone communications of
Chancellor Merkel and other senior Berlin politicians.
Recall, too, how the German state
remarkably
acquiesced
over what should
have been seen as a devastating infringement by Washington.
The weird lack of action by Berlin over that huge violation of its sovereignty by the Americans
makes one wonder if the US spies uncovered a treasure trove of blackmail material on German
politicians.
Berlin's pathetic kowtowing to Washington's interference in Venezuela begs an ulterior
explanation. No self-respecting government could be so hypocritical and duplicitous.
Whatever Berlin may calculate to gain from its unscrupulous bending over for Washington,
one thing seems clear, as Russian envoy Nebenzia warned: "One day you are next" for American
hegemonic shafting.
Well, Merkel is doing a good job of protecting Germany's interests by opposing the U.S.
regarding North Stream 2.
The German stand on Venezuela is disappointing, but they might be
figuring no skin off their back, since Venezuela is not in Europe, so might as well appease cheeto head.
I am personally suspicious of Nord Stream 2 and think Russia is making a HUGE mistake.
Everything I understand about German behavior in regards to 3rd parties is totally in
lockstep with the US - never mind that Germany has been occupied by the US since WW2 - so why
not a scheme to build more Russian dependency on the West? The Russians are fools to have
built this pipeline - they should be moving away from Europe, not foolishly trying to sew
themselves onto it as an appendage. This will come back to bite them on the ***, mark my
words.
And this, in a nutshell, is why Russia is always taking one step forward and two back. The
people who destroyed the USSR are still in power; their whole existence depends on whoring
out Russia to the West because that is all they have ever done. They can't not stop because
to stop would be an act of self-annihilation. Russian elites, at least a large faction of
them, desperately want back into the clubhouse, if they cant get in they will find something
else to do until the moment the clubhouse door is opened to them again, and then they will
fall all over themselves to get in.
The American takeover of the Brazilian presalt oil continues; this time, the usurpers who
toppled legitimate president Dilma Rousseff are going to sell commercial secrets of Brazilian
oil giant Petrobras to the DoJ, in exchange for R$ 2.5 billion (circa US$ 0.63 million) to
found a NGO that will effectively work as a parallel Police State in the country:
• The OPEC+ cuts have likely already tipped the oil market into a supply deficit,
according to Barclays.
• OECD inventories fell dramatically over the past two years, and came back to
the five-year average in 2018, where they have mostly remained.
• The OPEC+ cuts quickly headed off a renewed surplus, and will likely drain
inventories over the course of this year. Inventories are set to fall below the
five-year average.
• Still, Barclays says the market return to balance or even a small surplus in
the second half of 2019.
• Some of the more catastrophic oil forecasts for 2019 centered on a sharp
slowdown in Chinese demand.
• China's car sales actually contracted year-on-year over the last few months,
and car sales could continue to fall this year.
• But China's demand, while slowing relative to years past, is still expected to
grow by 0.5 mb/d in 2019, according to Barclays, the same rate of expansion as
2018.
• Next year, however, China's demand growth could slow a bit more, dipping below
0.4 mb/d, continuing a gradual deceleration in demand growth.
There is an interesting article in the Journal Of Petroleum Technology which summarizes an
SPE article by Schlumberger.
"Yet another SPE paper has concluded that old wells outperform new ones, but this study
offers a lot more detail about development in the Permian.
The paper, authored by Schlumberger (SPE 194310), offers comparisons of five major plays
in the Midland and Delaware basins, including details down to the pounds of proppant pumped
per foot, that show that completions are becoming increasingly similar.
"In general, normalized production from child wells is lower than parent wells," said Wei
Zheng, production stimulation engineer for Schlumberger. Older wells outperform newer ones
even when adjusting for the fact that new horizontal wells extend further through the
reservoir and more proppant is pumped.
"We are getting the same result as 5 years ago when we were spending less," she said
during a presentation at the recent SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference."
Figure 2 which adjusts production for lateral length and proppant is particularly
interesting.
It describes especially most comapanies going to a more wide well spacing – so total
recovery of the basin will fall, but drilled wells will be more profitable.
US shale companies' decision to drill thousands of new wells closely together - and close to
already existing wells - is
turning out to be a bust
; worse, this approach is
hurting the performance
of wells
already in existence, posing an even greater threat to the already struggling industry. In order to
keep the United States as an energy supplying powerhouse, shale companies have pitched bunching
wells in close proximity, hoping they would produce as much as older ones, allowing companies to
extract more oil overall while maintaining good results from each well.
These types of predictions helped fuel investor interest in shale companies, who raised nearly $57
billion from equity and debt financing in 2016 – up from $34 billion five years earlier, when oil
was over $110 per barrel.
In 2016, oil prices dipped below $30 a barrel at one point.
And now -
surprise
– the actual results from these wells are finally coming in and they
are quite disappointing.
Newer wells that have been set up near older wells were found to pump less oil and gas,
and
engineers warn that these new wells could produce as much as 50% less in some circumstances.
This is not what investors - who contributed to the billions in capital used by these companies
back in 2016 - want to hear.
Making matters worse, newer wells often interfere with the output of older wells because creating
too many holes in dense rock formations can damage nearby wells and make it harder for oil to seep
out. The "child" wells could also cause permanent damage to older "parent" wells. This is known in
the industry as the "parent-child" well problem. Billionaire Harold Hamm, who founded shale
driller Continental Resources, said last year: "
Shale producers across the country are finding
you can get a lot of interference, one well to the other. Laying out a whole lot of wells can get
you in trouble."
Some of the biggest names in shale, including Devon Energy, EOG Resources and Concho
Resources, have already disclosed that they are suffering from this problem. As a result, they and
many others could be forced to take massive write-downs if they have to downsize their already
optimistic estimates from drill sites.
Companies continue to try and find the perfect balance between using single wells that are
operating at peak productivity and multiple wells that can provide better returns.
Laredo Petroleum is a great example. Two years ago, it was valued at more than $3 billion and
was a strong advocate for packing wells into the Permian Basin. Its CEO Randy Foutch said a year
ago that the company could drill 32 wells per drilling unit, with each producing an average of 1.3
million barrels of oil and gas. In November, the company announced that wells it had fracked in
2018 were producing 11% less than projected, in part due to "parent-child" issues.
Laredo spokesman Ron Hagood told the WSJ: "We tightened spacing during 2017 and 2018 to increase
location inventory and resource recovery in our highest-return formations, and we achieved this
goal."
The company's market value has fallen about 75% to $800 million since the end of 2016.
Goal achieved?
Incidentally, we first
reported
that shale companies may be facing "catastrophic failure ahead" back in October of 2018. Days
before that report, we
said that
shale companies had a "glaring problem". We concluded that the glaring problem with 2018's poor
financial results was that 2018 was supposed to be the year that the shale industry finally turned
a corner.
Earlier in 2018, the International Energy Agency had painted a rosy portrait of U.S. shale,
arguing
in
a report that "higher prices and operational improvements are putting the US shale sector on track
to achieve positive free cash flow in 2018 for the first time ever."
Now, it all appearst to have been a "pipe" - or rather "milkshake" - dream.
In its January Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the EIA
said last week that continuously rising U.S. shale production
would make the United States a
net exporter
of crude oil and petroleum products in the fourth
quarter of 2020.
This whole shale oil boom started back when Baby Bush was
president, and Hugo Chavez announced to the world (at the UN)
that W "smelled of sulfur". To add insult to injury, Hugo sent
aid, in the form of fuel oil and a hospital ship, to help the
victims of Hurricane Katrina, while W was busy eating cake and
clearing brush with Jeff Gannon.
From that moment on, W had it
in for Hugo. Venezuela was doing very well at the time. Besides
sanctions, Bush figured that the best way to attack Hugo and
Venezuela was to crash the price of crude. So suddenly there were
financial incentives and lax regulations in the US regarding
Fracking, and the Shale Oil Boom in America was born! Bush didn't
care that it was costing Americans - both financially and by
ruining the quality of the ground water - the lifeblood of
agriculture. This oil borne of vengence went to market at way
below cost of production, but it succeeded in driving the price of
crude to the point of financial pain for Venezuela.
After all that, Hugo survived several assassination attempts,
only to die suddenly and mysteriously from - depending on the
source - either a heart attack or stroke.
Shale oil had a negative EROEI from the start, it just took
this long for that to be realized.
I'll bet they are understating the loan problem. I think this
industry has real problems along with the banks that financed
them. Someone, somewhere has some data on this issue but I've only
seen it alluded too. With the cost of oil down and these wells
starting to underproduce, I'll bet there is some real risk to
solvency for some banks we are not hearing about.
These articles against shale are so biased. I work in the Delaware
Basin and have intimate knowledge of the financials. The shale BS
spewed on zerohedge only looks at the negative side of things. The
article above is correct about the problem of well spacing, but I
could write 5 positive articles about upward revisions of expected
well productivity those same companies have had as they refined
their frac techniques and got better at drilling laterals.
Zerohedge only reports the negative revisions, not the numerous
positive revisions. These companies are now going on a decade of
growth and their financials are actually improving.
The shale
business is fundamentally sound if you have the right acreage and
don't overpay to get acreage. The naysayers are correct in
that production decline in unconventionals requires ever
increasing investment so as long as the company is trying to grow
they will have negative cash flow and expanding debt loads to
fight the decline curves of unconventionals. (The rig count you
need to just to counteract natural decline keeps growing as you
grow.) But it also doesn't mean jack **** for the profitability of
each well. Unless you are a poorly run shale company like Encana,
BHP, or BP, you would instantly be massively cash flow positive
and easily pay off all your debt if you stopped drilling. In
Delaware Basin, companies like EOG are hitting 40% ROCE (Return on
Capital Employed) and the basin average is probably 20%. Those are
good numbers.
I explain it in my post. Don't confuse profits with cash
flow and debt. The individual projects are profitable and so
are the companies, but to keep growing and fight the decline
they capital budget has to grow in unconventionals. The
shareholders in the company push for more growth, to deliver
that growth they have to first make up the natural decline
plus add to the baseline. As your baseline grows the first
part of the equation, fighting the natural decline, grows
along with you. To show cash flow positive results and
reduce debt, all the companies have to do is keep rig and
frac crew counts constant, and about a year later they will
all show positive cash flow and reductions in debt. However,
by in large most companies are choosing to increase rig and
frac crew counts year over year and thus the cash flow
remains negative and debt grows because the companies
themselves are growing. What the naysayers are doing is just
looking at the liabilities on the balance sheet, while
ignoring the asset growth.
The naysayers are not wrong
about the balance sheets, they are just not talking about
the full picture. Eventually these predictions will be right
as viable acreage runs out and companies start throwing good
money at bad projects just to show production growth, but
that isn't happening yet except for at the weakest players.
And that truth is the same even for conventional fields.
Unconventionals just shorten the lifecycle, but it doesn't
change the fact that the oil business has always been one
where you produce yourselves out of business, and to remain
viability you constantly have to be exploring for new
opportunies. 150 years and still going and people still
write articles without understanding.
Show me a single shale play with an EROEI above 5:1 and
we'll talk.
EDIT: full disclosure: I'm invested in shale, and have
made good money from it. But long-term I still think it's
a loser. Net energy gain is too low to be viable.
These articles have been predicting the demise of US shale
since 2010. As in any industry especially one as
technologically driven as US shale you have good and bad
results across the space, yet the space as a whole will
continue to grow and good operators will thrive.
Shale is end game stuff. At the end of the day the average
jobless consumer can't afford to run a vehicle on 100$+ per
barrel shale. And producers can't really stay in business at
current prices. The funding is mostly zero cost debt provided
to keep the dream alive for a few more years.
I've been in shale for quite awhile, and have made good money.
It's a good investment if you're careful, but it's also a low
EROEI product that the numbers have never really made sense on.
The companies producing it are leveraged to the gills, and if
interest rates were to pop and make it more expensive to roll over
their debt it'd explode like a ******* bomb. On my more tinfoilly
days I wonder if the whole purpose of the '08 financial crisis
(which was deliberately engineered; that much I am sure of) was to
give them excuse to drop the interest rates enough to make shale
viable. Get a hard look at the financials of any company producing
shale... you'll see some serious weirdness in their cash flow.
This was the case even when crude prices were parked around $100.
Hard cold fact: net energy gain on this stuff is positive, but
not by very goddamn much. Left strictly to market forces, it would
not be economically viable at all. Ultimately I think what we're
going to see is some kind of a nationalization of oil supplies as
a security measure; there's plenty of stuff out there that is net
energy positive but still not profitable to extract. But so long
as it takes marginally less energy to get it out than you produce,
it'll be propped up. Once net energy goes negative (and it will;
we always take the low-hanging fruit first) then it's game over.
Mankind build industrial society on 30+ to 1 oil. Shale is
scraping the bottom of the barrel.. tar sands the same. They
take fresh water and natural gas to cook the oil out of the
sand for christ sake.. that's late end game stuff right there.
The late Matthew Simmons called the advanced extraction
thechniques like water injection etc used on legacy oil
fields
"super-straws" sucking the last oil faster and
in no way expanding the total recoverable oil from the
field. We can expect much steeper decline curves because
of it when reservoir pressures are finally depleted.
Cold cold fact:
net energy gain on this stuff is
positive, but not by very goddamn much.
Left strictly to
market forces, it would not be economically viable at all.
Ultimately I think what we're going to see is some kind
of a nationalization of oil supplies as a security measure;
there's plenty of stuff out there that is net energy
positive but still not profitable to extract.
But so long
as it takes marginally less energy to get it out than you
produce, it'll be propped up
. Once net energy goes
negative (and it will; we always take the low-hanging fruit
first)
then it's game over.
Great balanced comment.
I see shale as essentially
thermodynamic
autocannibalism
from the point of view that at an EROEI
of 1.5-3 to 1, it can power it's extraction and refinement and
(sometimes) transport, but not anything else. It cannot provide
the energy needed to run a mid-19th century economy let alone a
parasitic 21st century one. There is no fat to run our
civilization and this is largely a desperate delay mechanism.
The West has used up most it's net positive EROEI to the pump
oil and gas and now it needs to plunder other economies if it
isn't to go down in flames. It will implode after 2030 anyway
as the global EROEI inflects, but these are in denial moves to
delay the inevitable .
Again - great to see a non binary comment here on ZH on this
polarising topic.
Edit
Also your comments about the
probable nationalisation
of the industry
I believe is spot on - not only will it
occur organically as these companies declare huge
bankruptcies
and the policy makers opt for nationalization
(i.e. bail in by Joe taxpayer) rather than bail out. Note also
how such a nationalization will cohere to the increasingly
communist mentality of the political landscape - Big Gov
redistribution & equity outcomes inclinations will all feed
into the state owning and controlling te means of production.
AOC is a ******, but she is simply an expression of broader
psychological and financial vectors. It's coming and
you
can't vote your way out of it.
And yes it WILL be declared a national security issue and NO
MATTER WHAT THE PRICE TO THE REST OF THE ECONOMY while there is
any
net EROEI (net of extraction, refinement and
distribution) it wil continue.
there's plenty of stuff out there that is net energy
positive but still not profitable to extract.
Only caveat I would add is that
it will only be extracted
when "not profitable" only while global fiat parasitism can be
used to skim wealth from outside of the US
. Once the US $
ceases to be able to do this then
profit = net energy again,
and the negative-sum game will no longer be able to be
subsidised nor concealed. The remaining billions of theoretical
barrels if oil at that stage will remain in the ground, of no
utility to maintaining negative entropy civilization.
Before it ceases you will essentially see only the MIC and
'Strategic' government use of US oil and gas ny the early 2030s
and little to no use by the domestic economy at large. Once the
last slither of net calorific benefit is gone, thing go
entropic.
However if they manage to steal Venezuela or Iran, this
would change.
This is neoliberal/neocolonial analysis of the situation. Reader beware. But it catches some
interesting interdependencies. For example the need for revenue intensifies with the growth of
the population. This creates problems for KSA. As of March 2019 oil price per barrel did not
return to $90 level yet.
The article was written in 2015 but still has value. So it is interesting to read what
neoliberal thought at this time is not that different from what they think now...
The idea that Saudi Arabia is an independent player is too simplistic... It never was. It
just hides the key role of the USA in engineering oil prices slump and the fact that Saudi Arabia
is a vassal of Washington is ignored.
"... The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative feedback loop between
oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western oil producers. Their GDP
and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their oil exports. As a result,
the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as possible to mitigate the
shortfall. ..."
"... Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of
long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal reported
, some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term contracts
to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are reducing the
proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies, Venezuela's among
them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use their crude. ..."
"... Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need
to invest in, or loan to, oil projects. ..."
"... Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq,
and the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult.
..."
"... Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and
prices, is diminished ..."
"... Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years"
with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in a
single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at $80
oil)? ..."
"... Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured
destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and
financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain resources
from vital domestic projects. ..."
The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative
feedback loop between oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western
oil producers. Their GDP and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their
oil exports. As a result, the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as
possible to mitigate the shortfall.
According to the IEA ,
daily output in June 2015 increased 3.1 million barrels over 2014, with 60 percent (1.8 million
barrels) coming from OPEC. At 31.7 million barrels per day, OPEC output reached a three-year
high.
This increase in output occurs with the context of a narrow global demand opportunity.
Growth in demand in 2015, which the IEA forecasts to average around 1.4 million
barrels per day, comes primarily from Asia and North America. In other major export markets,
demand is stagnant. That has oil exporting countries, including OPEC members, Russia and
others, focusing
their sales on Asia, particularly China. North American demand is growing now that oil
prices are low, but due to high levels of domestic production, the U.S. is no longer a growth
market for oil exporters.
Each producer, therefore, is incentivized to undercut other producers directly (price per
barrel) or indirectly (absorbing shipping cost or delivery risk) to win sales in Asia (or
displace incumbent suppliers in other major markets). National oil producers can and are
shifting the cost of the lowered prices to other sectors of the economy. The U.A.E., for
example, has ended fuel subsidies, thereby essentially, increasing its budget revenues, while
Saudi Arabia recently
floated a $4 billion domestic bond offering to help finance its budget.
Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of
long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal
reported
, some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term
contracts to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are
reducing the proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies,
Venezuela's among them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use
their crude.
Given this environment, it is not surprising that the revenue elasticity of production is
highly sensitive, and negative. Saudi Arabia increased production by 6.8 percent in the first
quarter of 2015 but saw export revenues shrink by 42 percent.
Any Saudi Victory Will Be Pyrrhic
Saudi confidence in their financial wherewithal is proving misplaced.
Their need for
revenue is intensifying rather than moderating. They are fighting a multi-front war with
Iran directly (in Yemen) and indirectly (in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq). ISIS, Al Qaeda, and
disaffected Shias present a significant domestic security threat. Countering external and
internal threats demands increased spending (including, perhaps, a very expensive future
nuclear weapons program), as does placating the fast growing male and female youth demographic,
which requires substantial spending on education, training, employment, and support. Hence, the
budget deficit equal to 20 percent of GDP, noted above. Increased production does not offer a solution.Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capacity
to increase production sufficiently to reduce the shortfall significantly in any meaningful
timeframe. They currently do not have the spare capacity-to make up for the $291 million in
export revenue lost in Q1 , 5.4 million more barrels a day would have been necessary at
$53.92 a barrel. Of course, such a drastic increase in output would have driven prices even
lower. It is doubtful they can increase capacity substantially even in the medium- to long
term. They won't be able to spend significantly more than other major national oil companies.
First, low prices reduce Aramco's cash flow and therefore its ability to fund investment.
Second, the Saudi government likely will increase its draw from this cash flow to fund higher
priority national security and domestic security needs. Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need to
invest in, or loan to, oil projects. What might be attractive at $75 per barrel oil isn't
at $50 oil, and even less attractive if the price of oil is thoroughly unpredictable. Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq, and
the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult. Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and
prices, is diminished . Their underestimate of the impact of their policy change on prices,
their indifference vis-à-vis the financial damage to other OPEC members, and their
willingness to take market share at the expense of other OPEC members undercut their
credibility within OPEC (particularly since it derived from Saudi willingness to protect the
interests of all members (and sometimes to endure disproportionately).
While Saudi financial reserves are substantial (
circa $672 billion in May ), drawing on them is little more than a stop-gap measure. If its
major competitors (Russia, Iraq, Iran, and North America) maintain or even increase output (and
they have the incentive to do so), prices could stay lower far longer than the Saudis
anticipated.
Saudi reserves have decreased some $65 billion since prices started to fall (in November),
so ~$100 billion to ~$130 billion at an annual rate. The longer prices stay low, the faster
their reserves fall, and, as reserves plummet, the greater the pressure to prioritize spending,
to the disadvantage of some Saudis.
Saudi Arabia Caused The Problem, Can It Engineer A Solution?
Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years"
with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in
a single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at
$80 oil)?
And if they can't-and surely, though they are loath to admit it, they can't - can they
engineer a durable increase in prices - i.e., a durable decrease in output? At first glance, it
seems impossible. Daily output from Saudi
Arabia (10.5 million), and its allies, UAE (2.87), Kuwait (2.8), and Qatar (.67), is
roughly equal to the daily output from countries with which it is in conflict, directly or
indirectly, Russia (11.2), Iran (2.88), and Iraq (3.75), and therefore have an incentive to
take advantage of any unilateral Saudi output concessions.
Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured
destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and
financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain
resources from vital domestic projects.
Moreover, given the sensitivity of prices to changes in volume, it is possible, if not
likely, that holding output steady or matching a Saudi
If we assume as 10 million per well total cost, then 200K barrel needs to be extracted to
break even. Assuming average life of the well of 5 years you need to produce on average 1000
barrel a day to break even. In the past that were possible (the average was 143), now it is
not
The Monterrey shale estimate was by the EIA not the USGS. The EIA had a private consultant
do the analysis and it was mostly based on investor presentations, very little geological
analysis.
It would be better if the USGS did an economic analysis as they do with coal for the
Powder River Basin. They could develop a supply curve based on current costs, but they
don't.
Do you have any idea of the capital cost of the wells (ballpark guess) for a horizontal
multifracked well in the Wolfcamp? Would $7 million be about right (a WAG by me)?
On ignoring economics, I show my oil price assumptions. Other financial assumptions for
the Bakken are $8 million for capital cost of the well (2016$). OPEX=$9/b, other costs=$5/b,
royalty and taxes=29% of gross revenue, $10/b transport cost, and a real discount rate of 7%
(10% nominal discount rate assuming 3% inflation).
I do a DCF based on my assumed real oil price curve. Brent oil price rises to $77/b
(2016$) by June 2017 and continue to rise at 17% per year until Oct 2020 when the oil price
reaches $130/b, it is assumed that average oil prices remain at that level until Dec 2060.
The last well is drilled in Dec 2035 and stops producing 25 years later in Dec 2060.
EUR of wells today is assumed to be 321 kb and EUR falls to 160 kb by 2035. The
last well drilled only makes $243,000 over the 7% real rate of return, so the 9 Gb scenario
is probably too optimistic, it is assumed that any gas sales are used to offset OPEX and
other costs, though no natural gas price assumptions have been made to simplify the
analysis.
This analysis is based on the analyses that Rune Likvern has done in the past, though his
analyses are far superior to my own.
I think when seismic, land, surface and down hole equipment is included, the number is much
higher. With $20-60K per acre being paid, land definitely has to be factored in. Depending on
spacing, $1-5 million per well?
I am doing the analysis for the Bakken. A lot of the leases are already held and I don't
know that those were the prices paid. Give me a number for total capital cost that makes sense,
are you suggesting $10.5 million per well, rather than $8 million? Not hard to do, but all the
different assumptions you would like to change would be good so I don't redo it 5 times.
Mostly I would like to clear up "the number".
I threw out more than one number, OPEX, other costs, transport costs, royalties and taxes,
real discount rate (adjusted for inflation), well cost.
I think you a re talking about well cost as "the number". I include down hole costs as part
of OPEX (think of it as OPEX plus maintenance maybe).
Dennis. The very high acreage numbers are for recent sales in the Permian Basin. In reading
company reports, it seems they state a cost to drill and case the hole, another to complete the
well, then add the two for well cost.
This does not include costs incurred prior to the well being drilled, which are not
insignificant. Nor does it include costs of down hole and surface equipment, which also are not
insignificant.
Land costs are all over the map, and I think Bakken land costs overall are the lowest,
because much of the leasing occurred prior to US shale production boom. I think a lot of
acreage early on cost in the hundreds per acre. Of course, there was quite a bit of trading
around since, so we have to look project by project, unfortunately. For purposes of a model, I
think $8 million is probably in the ballpark.
I would not include equipment for the well, initially, as OPEX (LOE is what I prefer to
stick with, being US based). The companies do not do that, those costs are included in
depreciation, depletion and amortization expense.
Once the well is in production, and failures occur, I include the cost of repairs, including
replacement equipment, in LOE. I am not sure that the companies do that, however.
I think the Permian is going to be much tougher to estimate, as there are different
producing formations at different depths, whereas the Bakken primarily has two, and the Eagle
Ford has 1 or 2.
An example:
QEP paid roughly $60,000 per acre for land in Martin Co., TX. If we assume one drilling unit
is 1280 acres (two sections), how many two mile laterals will be drilled in the unit?
1280 acres x $60,000 = $76,800,000.
Assume 440′ spacing, 12 wells per unit.
$76,800,000/12 = $6,400,000 per well.
However, there are claims of up to 8 producing zones in the Permian.
So, 12 x 8 = 96 wells.
$76,800,000 / 96 = $800,000 per well.
Even assuming 96 wells, the cost per well is still significant.
If we assume 96 wells x $7 million to drill, complete and equip, total cost to develop is
$.75 BILLION. That is a lot of money for one 1280 acre unit, need to recover a lot of oil and
gas to get that to payout.
I am neither an oil man nor an accountant, so regardless of what we call it I am assuming
natural gas sales (maybe about $3/barrel on average) are used to offset the ongoing costs to
operate the well (LOE, OPEX, financial costs, etc), we could add another million to the cost of
the well for surface and downhole equipment and land costs.
Does an average operating cost over the life of a well of about $17/b ($14/b plus natural
gas sales of $3/b of oil produced)seem reasonable? That would be about $5.4 million spent on
LOE etc. over the life of the well (assuming 320 kbo produced). Also does the 10% nominal rate
of return sound high enough, what number would you use as a cutoff?
You use a different method than a DCF and want the well to pay out in 60 months. This would
correspond to about a 14% nominal rate of return and an 11% real rate of return (assuming a 3%
annual inflation rate.)
"The Monterrey shale estimate was by the EIA not the USGS. The EIA had a private consultant do
the analysis and it was mostly based on investor presentations, very little geological
analysis."
Exactly. USGS' estimate as of October 2015 is very conservative:
"The Monterey Formation in the deepest parts of California's San Joaquin Basin contains an
estimated mean volumes of 21 million barrels of oil, 27 billion cubic feet of gas, and 1
million barrels of natural gas liquids, according to the first USGS assessment of continuous
(unconventional), technically recoverable resources in the Monterey Formation."
"The volume estimated in the new study is small, compared to previous USGS estimates of
conventionally trapped recoverable oil in the Monterey Formation in the San Joaquin Basin.
Those earlier estimates were for oil that could come either from producing more Monterey oil
from existing fields, or from discovering new conventional resources in the Monterey
Formation."
Previous USGS estimates were for conventional oil:
"In 2003, USGS conducted an assessment of conventional oil and gas in the San Joaquin Basin,
estimating a mean of 121 million barrels of oil recoverable from the Monterey. In addition, in
2012, USGS assessed the potential volume of oil that could be added to reserves in the San
Joaquin Basin from increasing recovery in existing fields. The results of that study suggested
that a mean of about 3 billion barrels of oil might eventually be added to reserves from
Monterey reservoirs in conventional traps, mostly from a type of rock in the Monterey called
diatomite, which has recently been producing over 20 million barrels of oil per year."
I am corrected, RE; USGS and Monterrey. I still don't believe there is 20G BO in the Wolfcamp.
Most increases in PB DUC's are not wells awaiting frac's but lower Wolfcamp wells that are TA
and awaiting re-drills; that should tell you something. With acreage, infrastructure and water
costs in W. Texas, wells cost $8.5-9.0M each. The shale industry won't admit that, but that's
what I think. What happens to EUR's and oil prices after April of 2017 is a guess and a waste
of time, sorry.
What most interests me are suggestions that there is so much available oil in Wolfcamp and what
that will do to oil prices and national policy.
Seems like any announcement of more oil will likely keep prices low. And if they stay low,
there's little reason to open up more areas for oil drilling.
"Their assessment method for Bakken was pretty simple – pick a well EUR, pick a well
spacing, pick total acreage, pick a factor for dry holes – multiply a by c by d and
divide by b."
USGS estimates for average well EUR in Wolfcamp shale look reasonable: 167,ooo barrels in the
core areas and much lower in other parts of the formation.
I do not know if the estimated potential production area is too big, or assumed well spacing
is too tight.
The key question is what part of these estimated technically recoverable resources are
economically viable at $50; $60; $70; $80; $90, $100, etc.
Significant part of resources may never be developed, even if they are technically
recoverable.
Keep in mind these USGS estimates are for undiscovered TRR, one needs to add proved reserves
times 1.5 to get 2 P reserves and that should be added to UTRR to get TRR. There are roughly 3
Gb of 2P reserves that have been added to Permian reserves since 2011, if we assume most of
these are from the Wolfcamp shale (not known) then the TRR would be about 23 Gb. Note that
total proved plus probable reserves at the end of 2014 in the Permian was 10.5 Gb (7 Gb proved
plus 3.5 GB probable with the assumption that probable=proved/2). I have assumed about 30% of
total Permian 2P reserves is in the Wolfcamp shale. That is a WAG.
Note the median estimate is a UTRR of 19 Gb with F95=11.4 Gb and F5=31.4 Gb. So a
conservative guess would be a TRR of 13.4 Gb= proved reserves plus F95 estimate. If prices go
to $85/b and remain at that level the F95 estimate may become ERR, at $100/b maybe the median
is potentially ERR. It will depend how long prices can remain at $100/b before an economic
crash, prices are Brent Crude price in 2016$ with various crude spreads assumed to be about
where they are now.
Dennis,
where your number for proven reserves in the Permian comes from?
In November 2015, the EIA estimated proven reserves of tight oil in Wolfcamp and Bone Spring
formations as of end 2014 at just 722 million barrels.
I just looked at Permian Basin crude reserves (Districts 7C, 8 and 8A) and assumed the
change in reserves from 2011 to 2014 was from the Wolfcamp. I didn't know about that page for
reserves. It is surprising it is that low.
In any case the difference is small relative to the UTRR, it will be interesting to see what
the reserves are for year end 2015.
Based on this I would revise my estimate to 20 Gb for URR with a conservative estimate of 12
Gb until we have the data for year end 2015 to be released later this month.
My guess is that the USGS probably already has the 2015 year end reserve data.
The EIA proved reserves estimate for 2015 will be issued this month. I think we will see a
significant increase in the number for the Permian basin LTO.
Also note that USGS TRR estimate is only for Wolfcamp.
I can only guess what could be their estimate for the whole Permian tight oil reserves.
But the share of Wolfcamp in the Permian LTO output is only 24% (according to the
EIA/DrillingInfo report).
That makes sense. I also imagine the USGS focused on the formation with the bulk of the
remaining resources. It is conceivable that the 30 Gb estimate is closer to the remaining oil
in place and that more like 90% of the TRR is in the Wolfcamp, considering that the F5 estimate
is about 30 Gb. That older study from 2005 may be an under estimate of TRR for the Permian,
likewise the USGS might have overestimated the UTRR.
If oil prices go back to $100/b in 2018 as the IEA seems to be concerned about, it could
ramp up at the speed of the Eagle Ford (say 2 to 3 years). It will be oil price dependent and
perhaps they won't over do it like in 2011-2014, but who knows, some people don't learn from
past mistakes. If you or Mike were running things it would be done right, but the LTO guys, I
don't know.
"This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered,
technically recoverable resources.
Undiscovered resources are those that are estimated to exist based on geologic knowledge and
theory, while technically recoverable resources are those that can be produced using currently
available technology and industry practices. Whether or not it is profitable to produce these
resources has not been evaluated."
If it requires slave labor at gunpoint to get the oil out, then that's what will happen
because you MUST have oil, and a day will soon come when that sort of thing is reqd.
Nice apocalyptic vision of the future you've got there!
Whatever happened to the ideals of democracy, capitalism, business, profits, free markets
etc ? Don't worry, no need to answer, that was purely a rhetorical question. I'm quite aware of
the realities of the world!
However, not to pour too much sand on your vision, But I have to wonder? Since your
potential slaves in 21st century America are already armed to the teeth, they might decide not
to just go with the flow. (pun intended)
Anyways slaves don't buy cars or too many consumer goods so that might, in and of itself,
put a bit of a damper on the raison d'etre, excuse my french, of the oil companies and the very
existence of these future slave owners.
because you MUST have oil
Really now?! You know, as time goes by, I'm less and less convinced of that!
This follows on from reserve post above (two a couple of comments). In terms of changes over
the last three years – there really weren't anything much dramatic. We'll see what 2016
brings, especially for ExxonMobil, but it looks like they already knocked a big chunk off of
their Bitumen numbers already in 2015.
Note I went through a lot of 20-F and 10-K reports watching the rain fall this morning and
copied out the numbers, I'm not guaranteeing I got everything 100%, but I think the general
trends are shown.
Note the figures are totals for all nine companies I looked at.
IEA WEO is out: http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html
presentation slides, fact sheet and summary are available online (report can be purchased). IEA
seems to be _very_ concerned about underinvestment in upstream oil production. Several pages of
the report is devoted to this, the title of that section is "mind the gap". More or less all of
the content has been discussed on this website, including the issue with high levels of debt
and that this can affect suppliers' capacity to rebound, and how much demand can be reduced as
a result of a stringent carbon cap.
From the fact sheet (available free of charge):
"Another year of low upstream oil investment in 2017 would risk a shortfall in oil production
in a few years' time. The conventional crude oil resources (e.g. excluding tight oil and oil
sands) approved for development in 2015 sank to the lowest level since the 1950s, with no sign
of a rebound in 2016. If there is no pick-up in 2017, then it becomes increasingly unlikely
that demand (as projected in our main scenario) and supply can be matched in the early 2020s
without the start of a new boom/bust cycle for the industry"
Presentation 1:09 – Dr. Birol gives his view: "depletion never sleeps"
I wonder who that paragraph is aimed at. As I indicated above the companies that would be
investing in long term conventional projects don't have a very large inventory of undeveloped
reserves (17 Gb as of end of 2015, some of this has gone already this year and more is in
development and will come on stream in 2017 and 2018 (and a small amount in later years for
approved projects). I'd guess there might only be less than 10 Gb (and this the most expensive
to develop) that is currently under appraisal among the major western IOCs and larger
independents; allowing for their partnerships with NOCs in a lot of the available projects that
could represent 20 to 30 Gb total. That really isn't very much new supply available, and a
large proportion is in complex deep water projects that wouldn't be ramped up fully until 6 to
7 years after FID (i.e. already too late for 2020). Really the main players need to find new
fields with easy developments, but they obviously aren't, probably never will, and actually
aren't looking very hard at the moment.
My interpretation is that this is IEAs way of saying that it does not look good. Those who can
read between the lines get the message. Also, a few years from they will be able to say "see we
told you so".
It's impossible for IEA to make statements like: "the end of low cost oil will negatively
affect economic growth", "geology is about to beat human ingenuity" etc.
WEO have become more and more bizarre over the years. On the one hand they contain
quantitative projections which tell the story politicians wants to hear. On the other hand, the
text describes all sorts of reason of why the assumptions are unlikely to hold. Normally, if
you don't believe in your own assumptions you would change them.
Here is the production graph. Not that much has happened. There was a big drop for 2011. 2009
on the other hand saw an increase. Up to the left, which is very hard to see, 2015 continues to
follow 2014 which follows 2013 which follows 2012. Will we see 2013 reach 2007 the next few
months?
Its on purpose both because I wanted to zoom in and because the data for first 18 months or so
for the method I used above is not very usable. Bellow is the production profile which is
better for seeing differences the first 18 months. Above graph is roughly 6 months ahead of the
production profile graph.
And I guess we can all see no technological breakthru. 2014's green line looks superior to
first 3 mos 2015.
2016 looks like it declines to the same level about 2.5 mos later, but is clearly a steeper
decline at that point and is likely going to intersect 2014's line probably within the
year.
There is zero evidence on that compilation of any technological breakthrough surging output
per well in the past 2-3 yrs.
In fact, they damn near all overlay within 2 yrs. No way in hell there is any spectacular
EUR improvement.
And . . . in the context of the moment, nope, no evidence of techno breakthrough. But also
no evidence of sweetspots first.
I suppose you could contort conclusions and say . . . Yes, the sweetspots were first - with
inferior technology, and then as they became less sweet the technological breakthroughs brought
output up to look the same.
clarifying, the techno breakthrus are bogus. They would show in that data if they were real.
And it would be far too much coincidence for techno breakthrus to just happen to increase
flow the exact amount lost from exhausting sweet spots.
This suggests the sweetspot theory is also bogus, unless there are 9 years of them, meaning
it's ALL been sweetspots so far. 9 yrs of sweetspots might as well be called just normal rather
than sweet.
It is pretty much all bogus, yes, Watcher. With any rudimentary understanding of volumetric
calculations of OOIP in a dense shale like the Bakken, there is only X BO along the horizontal
lateral that might be "obtained" from stimulation. More sand along a longer lateral does not
necessarily translate into greater frac growth (an increase in the radius around the horizontal
lateral). Novices in frac technology believe in halo effects, or that more sand equates to
higher UR of OOIP per acre foot of exposed reservoir. That is not the case; longer laterals
simply expose more acre feet of shale that can be recovered. Recovery factors in shale per acre
foot will never exceed 5-6%, IMO, short of any breakthroughs in EOR technology. That will take
much higher oil prices.
Its very simple, actually bigger fracs (that cost lots more money!!) over longer laterals
result in higher IP's and higher ensuing 90 day production results. That generates more cash
flow (imperative at the moment) and allows for higher EUR's that translate into bigger booked
reserve assets. More assets means the shale oil industry can borrow more money against those
assets. Its a game, and a very obvious one at that. Nobody is breaking new ground or making big
strides in greater UR. That's internet dribble. Freddy is right; everyone in the shale biz is
pounding their sweet spots, high grading as they call it, and higher GOR's are a sure sign of
depletion. Moving off those sweet spots into flank areas will be even less economical (if that
is possible) and will result in significantly less UR per well. That is what is ridiculous
about modeling the future based on X wells per month and trying to determine how much
unconventional shale oil can be produced in the US thru 2035. The term, "past performance is
not indicative of future results?" We invented that phrase 120 years ago in the oil
business.
That, sir, is pretty much the point. I see what looks like about 20% IP increase for the extra
stages post 2008/9/10. How could there not be going from 15 stages to 30+?
I see NO magic post peak. They all descend exactly the same way and by 18-20 months every
drill year is lined up. That's actually astounding - given 15 vs 30 stages. There should be
more volume draining on day 1 and year 2, but the flow is the same at month 20+ for all drill
years. This should kill the profitability on those later wells because 30 stages must cost
more.
But profit is not required when you MUST have oil.
Freddy, is there something going on in the data? How can 30 stage long laterals flow the
same at production month 24 as the earlier dated wells at their production month 24
–whose lengths of well were MUCH shorter?
I can only speculate why the curves look like they do. It could be that the newer wells would
have produced more than the older wells, but closer well spacing is causing the UR to go down.
Here is the updated yearly decline rate graph. 2010 has seen increased decline rates as I
suspected. The curves are currently gathering in the 15%-20% range.
2007 only has 161 wells. So it makes the production curve a bit noisy as you can see above.
Current yearly decline rate for 2007 is 7,2% and the average from month 98 to 117 would
translate to a 10,3% yearly decline rate. The 2007 curve look quite different from the other
curves, so thats why I did not include it.
Thanks. The 2008 wells were probably refracked so that curve is messed up. If we ignore
2008, 2007 looks fairly similar to the other curves (if we consider the smoothed slope.) I
guess one way to do it would be to look at the natural log of monthly output vs month for each
year and see where the curve starts to become straight indicating exponential decline. The
decline rates of many of the curves look similar through about month 80 (2007, 2009, 2010,
2011) after 2011 (2012, 2013, 2014) decline rates look steeper, maybe poor well quality or
super fracking (more frack stages and more proppant) has changed the shape of the decline
curve. The shape is definitely different, I am speculating about the possible cause.
2007 had much lower initial production and the long late plateau gives it a low decline rate
also. But yes, initial decline rates look similar to the other curves. If you look at the
individual 2007 wells then you can see that some of them have similar increases to production
as the 2008 wells had during 2014. I have not investigated this in detail, but it could be that
those increases are fewer and distributed over a longer time span than 2008 and it is what has
caused the plateau. If that is the case, then 2007 may not be different from the others at and
we will see increased decline rates in the future.
Regarding natural log plots. Yes it could be good if you want to find a constant exponential
decline. But we are not there yet as you can see in above graph.
One good reason why decline rates are increasing is because of the GOR increase. When they
pump up the oil so fast that GOR is increasing, then it's expected that there are some
production increases first but higher decline rates later. Perhaps completion techniques have
something to do with it also. Well spacing is getting closer and closer also and is definitely
close enough in some areas to cause reductions in UR. But I would expect lower inital
production rather than higher decline rates from that. But maybe I´m wrong.
Ok Enno's data from NDIC shows 73 well completions in North Dakota in Sept 2016, 33 were
confidential wells, if we assume 98% of those were Bakken/TF wells that would be 72 ND
Bakken/TF wells completed in Sept 2016.
I have 75 in my data, so about the same. They have increased the number of new wells quite alot
the last two months. It looks like the addtional ones mainly comes from the DUC backlog as it
increased withouth the rig count going up. But I see that the rig count has gone up now too.
Ron you say " Bakken production continues to decline though I expect it to level off soon."
A few words of wisdom as to the main reasons why it would level off? Price rise?
Even though you asked Ron. He might think that the decline in the number of new wells per
month may have stabilized at around 71 new wells per month. If that rate of new completions per
month stays the same there will still be decline but the rate of decline will be slower.
Scenario below shows what would happen with 71 new wells per month from Sept 2016 to June 2017
and then a 1 well per month increase from July 2017 to Dec 2018 (89 new wells per month in Dec
2018).
I am not so convinced that either Texas or the Bakken is finished declining at the current
level of completions. There was consistent completions of over 1000 wells in Texas until about
October of 2015. Then it dropped to less than half of that. The number of producing wells in
Texas peaked in June of this year. Since then, through October, it has decreased by roughly
1000 wells a month. The Texas RRC reports are indicating that they are still plugging more than
they are completing.
I remember reading one projection recently for what wells will be doing over time in the Eagle
Ford. They ran those projections for a well for over 22 years. Not sure which planet we are
talking about, but in Texas an Eagle Ford does well to survive 6 years. They keep referring to
an Eagle Ford producing half of what they will in the first two years. In most areas, I would
say that it is half in the first year.
The EIA, IEA, Opec, and most pundits have the US shale drilling turning on a dime when the oil
price reaches a certain level. If it was at a hundred now, it would still take about two years
to significantly increase production, if it ever happens. I am not a big believer that US shale
is the new spigot for supply.
The wells being shut in are not nearly as important as the number of wells completed because
the output volume is so different. So the average well in the Eagle Ford in its second month of
production produces about 370 b/d, but the average well at 68 months was producing 10 b/d. So
about 37 average wells need to be shut in to offset one average new well completion.
Point is that total well counts are not so important, it is well completions that drive
output higher.
Output is falling because fewer wells are being completed. When oil prices rise and profits
increase, completions per month will increase and slow the decline rate and eventually raise
output if completions are high enough. For the Bakken at an output level of 863 kb/d in Dec
2017 about 79 new wells per month is enough to cause a slight increase in output. My model
slightly underestimates Bakken output, for Sept 2016 my model has output at 890 kb/d, about 30
kb/d lower than actual output (3% too low), my well profile may be slightly too low, but I
expect eventually new well EUR will start to decrease and my model will start to match actual
output better by mid 2017 as sweet spots run out of room for new wells.
Guess I will remember that for the future. The number of producing wells is not important.
Kinda like I got pooh poohed when I said the production would drop to over 1 million barrels
back in early 2015.
Do you agree that the shut in wells tend to be low output wells? So if I shut down 37 of
those but complete one well the net change in output is zero.
Likewise if I complete 1000 wells in a year, I could shut down 20,000 stripper wells and the
net change in output would be zero, but there would be 19,000 fewer producing wells, if we
assume the average output of the 1000 new wells completed was 200 b/d for the year and the
stripper wells produced 10 b/d on average.
How much do you expect output to fall in the US by Dec 2017?
Hindsight is 20/20 and lots of people can make lucky guesses. Output did indeed fall by
about 1 million barrels per day from April 2015 to July 2016, can you point me to your comment
where you predicted this?
Tell us what it will be in August 2017.
I expected the fall in supply would lead to higher prices, I did not expect World output to
be as resilient as it has been and I also did not realize how oversupplied the market was in
April 2015. In Jan 2015 I expected output would decrease and it increased by 250 kb/d from Jan
to April, so I was too pessimistic, from Jan 2015 (which is early 2015) to August 2016 US
output has decreased by 635 kb/d.
If you were suggesting World output would fall from Jan 2015 levels by 1 Mb/d, you would
also have been incorrect as World C+C output has increased from Feb 2015 to July 2016 by 400
kb/d. If we consider 12 month average output of World C+C, the decline has been 340 kb/d from
the 12 month average peak in August 2015 (centered 12 month average).
The dropping numbers are not as much from the wells that produce less than 10 barrels a day,
but from those producing greater than 10, but less than 100. The ones producing greater than
100 are remaining at a consistent level over 9000 to 9500. The prediction on one million was as
to the US shale only. It is your site, you can search it better than I can,
But then don't take my word for it. You can find the same information under the Texas RRC site
under oil and gas/research and statistics/well distribution tables. Current production for Sep
can be found at online research queries/statewide. It is still dropping, and will long term at
the current activity level. Production drop for oil, only, is a little over 40k per day
barrels, and condensate is lower for September. Proofs in the pudding.
My guess is that you would see a lot more plugging reports, if it were not so expensive to plug
a well. At net income levels where they are, I expect they would put that off as long as they
could.
I trust the NDIC numbers much more than the EIA numbers which are based on a model. Enno
Peters data has 66 completions in August 2016, he has not put up his post for the Sept data yet
so I am using the Director's estimate for now. I agree his estimate is usually off a bit, Enno
tends to be spot on for the Bakken data, for Texas he relies on RRC data which is not very
good.
Dennis. Someone pointed out Whiting's Twin Valley field wells being shut in for August.
It appears this was because another 13 wells in the field were recently completed.
It appears that when all 29 wells are returned to full production, this field will be very
prolific initially. Therefore, on this one field alone, we could see some impact for the entire
state.
Does anyone know if these wells are part of Whiting's JV? Telling if they had to do that on
these strong wells. Bakken just not close to economic.
I also note that average production days per well in for EOG in Parshall was 24. I haven't
looked at some of the other "older" large fields yet, but assume the numbers are similar.
I agree higher prices will be needed in the Bakken, probably $75/b or more. To be honest I
don't know why they continue to complete wells, but maybe it is a matter of ignoring the sunk
costs in wells drilled but not completed and running the numbers based on whether they can pay
back the completion costs. Everyone may be hoping the other guys fail and are just trying to
pay the bills as best they can, not sure if just stopping altogether is the best strategy.
There is the old adage that when your in a hole, more digging doesn't help much.
So my model just assumes continued completions at the August rate for about 12 months with
gradually rising prices as the market starts to balance, then a gradual increase in completions
as prices continue to rise from July 2017($78/b) to Dec 2018 (from 72 completions to about 90
completions per month 18 months later). At that point oil prices have risen to $97/b and LTO
companies are making money. Prices continue to rise to $130/b by Oct 2020 and then remain at
that level for 40 years (not likely, but the model is simplistic).
I could easily do a model with no wells completed, but I doubt that will be correct.
Suggestions?
Dennis. As we have discussed before, tough to model when there is no way to be accurate
regarding the oil price.
I continue to contend that there will be no quick price recovery without an OPEC cut.
Further, the US dollar is very important too, as are interest rates.
At some point OPEC may not be able to increase output much more and overall World supply
will increase less than demand. My guess is that this will occur by mid 2017 and oil prices
will rise. OPEC output from Libya an Nigeria has recovered, but this can only go so far, maybe
another 1 Mb/d at most. I don't expect any big increases from other OPEC nations in the near
term.
A big guess as to oil prices has to be made to do a model.
I believe my guess is conservative, but maybe oil prices will remain where they are now
beyond mid 2017.
I expected World supply to have fallen much more quickly than has been the case at oil
prices of $50/b.
"EIA does this by using a relatively new dataset-FracFocus.org's national fracking chemical
registry-to identify the completion phase, marked by the first fracking. If a well shows up on
the registry, it's considered completed "
There is an unlikely peak oil related editorial writer hiding in the most unlikely place: a
weekly English business paper called Capital Ethiopia. The latest editorial is again putting an
excellent perspective on world events. http://capitalethiopia.com/2016/11/15/system-failure/#.WC1ZCvl9600
For the record, I have no interest or connection to this publication other than that of a
paying reader.
Wouldn't it be nice if mainstream publications would sound a bit more like this.
Thanks all. I thought that the red queen concept meant that there had to be an increase in the
rate of completions. So that 71 year-on-year in north Dakota would only stabilise temporarily.
Perhaps the loss of sweet spots are being counteracted by the improvements in technology? I'm
assuming that even with difficulties of financing there will be a swift increase in completions
should the oil price take off, but not sure how sustainable this would be
Sometimes I think that once the price of oil is up enough that sellers can hedge the their
selling price for two or three years at a profitable level, it will hardly matter what the
banks have to say about financing new wells.
At five to ten million apiece, there will probably be plenty of money coming out of various
deep pockets to get the well drilling ball rolling again, if the profits look good.
Sometimes the folks who think the industry will not be able to raise money forget that it's
not a scratch job anymore. The land surveys, roads, a good bit of pipeline, housing, leases,
etc are already in place, meaning all it takes to get the oil started now is a drill and frack
rig.
I don't know what the price will have to be, but considering that a lot of lease and other
money is a sunk cost that can't be recovered, and will have to be written off, along with the
mountain of debts accumulated so far, the price might be lower than a lot of people
estimate.
Bankruptcy of old owners results in lowering the price at which an old business makes money
for its new owners.
The Red Queen effect is that more and more wells need to be completed to increase
output. As output decreases fewer wells are needed to maintain output. So at 1000 kb/d output
it might require 120 wells to be completed to maintain output (if new well EUR did not
eventually decrease), but at 850 kb/d it might require about 78 new wells per month to maintain
output.
I think your numbers reflect numbers reported from ND DMR but Bloomberg might be closer to
reality for wells that will actually ever be completed (just a guess by me though). How do
Bloomberg get their numbers (e.g. removing Tight Holes, or removing old wells, not counting
non-completed waivers etc.)?
Yes indeed. The difficulty with DUCs is always, which wells do you count. I don't filter old
wells for example, and already include those that were spud last month (even though maybe
casing has not been set). I don't do a lot of filtering, so the actual # wells that really can
be completed is likely quite a bit lower. I see my DUC numbers as the upper bound. I don't know
Bloombergs method exactly, so I can't comment on that.
Concerning Freddy's chart of production profile of wells drilled in various years.
They all line up by about month 18 of production. This should not be possible. The later
wells have many more stages of frack. They are longer, draining more volume of rock. But the
chart says what it says. At month about 18 the 2014 wells are flowing the same rate as 2008
wells. We know stage count has risen over those 6 yrs. 2014 wells should flow a higher rate.
The shape of the curve can be the same, but it should be offset higher.
Explanation?
How about above ground issues . . . older wells get pipelines and can flow more oil . . .
nah, that's absurd.
There needs to be a physical explanation for this.
These new wells have higher IPs, but also higher decline rates.
Closer spacing (see Freddy's comment above) and depletion of the sweet spots may also impact
production curves and EURs.
That doesn't make sense. They are longer. By a factor of 2ish. How can a 6000 foot lateral flow
exactly the same amount 2 yrs into production as a 3000 foot lateral flows 2 yrs into
production?
Look at the lines. At 18 months AND BEYOND, these longer laterals flow the same oil rate as
the shorter laterals did at the same month number of production. Higher IP and higher decline
rate will affect the shape, but There Is Twice The Length..
I don't think we have information on the length of the wells, since 2008 the length of the
lateral has not changed, just the number of frack stages and amount of proppant. This seems to
primarily affect the output in the first 12 to 18 months, and well spacing and room in the
sweet spots no doubt has some effect (offsetting the greater number of frack stages etc.).
The combination of longer lateral lengths and advancements in completion technology has
allowed operators to increase the number of frac stages during completions and space them
closer together. The result has been a higher completion cost per well but with increased
production and more emphasis on profitability.
In the past five years, DTC Energy Group completion supervisors in the Bakken have helped
oversee a dramatic increase from an average of 10 stages in 2008 to 32 stages in 2013. Even
40-stage fracs have been achieved.
One of the main reasons for this is the longer lateral lengths – operators now have
twice as much space to work with (10,000 versus 5,000 feet along the lateral). Frac stages are
also being spaced closer together, roughly 300 feet apart as compared to spacing up to 800 feet
in 2008, as experienced by DTC supervisors.
By placing more fracture stages closer together, over a longer lateral length, operators
have successfully been able to improve initial production (IP) rates, as well as increase EURs
over the life of the well.
blah blah, but they make clear the years have increased length. Freddy was talking about
well spacing, this text is about stage spacing, but that is achieved because of lateral
length.
Freddy can you revisit your graph code? It's just bizarre that different length wells have
the same flow rate 2 yrs out, and later.
Take a look at Enno´s graphs at https://shaleprofile.com/ . They look the same as my graphs and
we have collected and processed the data independently from each other.
If the wells have the same wellbore riser design irrespective of lateral length (i.e. same
depth, which is a given, same bore, same downhole pump) then that section might become the main
bottleneck later in life and not the reservoir rock. With a long fat tail that seems more
likely somehow compared to the faster falling Eagle Ford wells say (but that is just a guess
really). But there may be lots of other nuances, we just don't have enough data in enough
detail especially on the late life performance for all different well designs – it looks
like the early ones are just reaching shut off stage in numbers now. I doubt if the E&Ps
concentrated on later life when the wells were planned – they wanted early production,
and still do, to pay their creditors and company officers bonuses (not necessarily in that
order).
Hmmm. I know it is speculation, but can you flesh that out?
If some bottleneck physically exists that defines a flow rate for all wells from all years
then that does indeed explain the graphs, but what such thing could exist that has a new number
each year past year 2?
We certainly have discussed chokes for reservoir/EUR management, but the same setting to
define flow regardless of length?
The flow depends on the available pressure drop, which is made up of friction through the rock
and up the well bore (plus maybe some through the choke but not much), plus the head of the
well, plus a negative number if there is a pump. The frictional and pump numbers depend on the
flow and all the numbers depend on gas-oil ratio. Initially there is a big pressure drop in the
rock because of the high flow, then not so much. Once the flow drops the pressure at base of
the well bore just falls as a result of depletion over time, the effect of the completion
design is a lot less and lost in the noise, so all the wells behave similarly. That's just a
guess – I have never seen a shale well and never run a well with 10 bpd production,
conventional or anything else.
A question might be if the flow is the same why doesn't the longer well with the bigger
volume deplete more slowly, and I don't know the answer. It may be too small to notice and lost
in the noise, or to do with gas breakout dominating the pressure balance, or just the way the
the physics plays out as the fluids permeate through the rock, or we don't have long enough
history to see the differences yet.
RRC Texas for September came out recently. As others will probably elaborate more on the data,
I just want to show if year over year changes in production could be use as a predictive tool
for future production (see below chart).
It is obvious that year over year changes (green line) beautifully predicted oil production
(red line) at a time lag of about 15 month. Even when production was still growing, the steep
decline of growth rate indicated already the current steep decline.
The interesting thing is that the year over year change is a summary indicator. It does not
tell why production declines or rises. It can be the oil price, interest rates or just
depletion – even seasonal factors are eliminated. It just shows the strength of a
trend.
I am curious myself how this works out. The yoy% indicator predicts that Texas will have
lost another million bbl per day by end next year. That sounds quite like a big plunge. One
explanation could be the fact that we have now low oil prices and high interest rates. In all
other cycles it has been the other way around: low oil prices came hand in hand with low
interest rates. This could be now a major obstacle for companies to grow production.
This concept of following year over year changes works of course just for big trends, yet
for investment timing it seems exactly the right tool. Another huge wave is coming in electric
vehicles which are growing in China by 120% year over year. Here we have the same situation as
for shale 7 years ago: Although current EV sales are barely 1 million per year worldwide, the
growth rate reveals already an huge wave coming. So as an investor it is always necessary to
stay ahead of the trend and I think this can be done by observing the year over year%
change.
"... with shale fields as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020, there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he said. ..."
"... U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12 months. ..."
Goldman cut its crude forecasts this month, saying the global surplus of oil is bigger than it
previously thought and that failure to reduce production fast enough may require prices to fall
near $20 a barrel to clear the glut. Prices may touch that level when stockpiles are filled to
capacity, forcing producers in some areas to cut output, Currie said Wednesday.
"The last time we saw a period that was similar to today was 1986, 29 years ago," he said. "We
waited 15 years" for oil to start rising again.
Lower iron ore, copper and steel prices as well as weaker currencies in commodity-producing
countries have reduced costs for oil companies, according to Currie. The world is shifting from
an "investment phase" of a 30-year commodity cycle to an "exploitation phase," with shale fields
as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020,
there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he
said.
U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New
York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12
months.
Should oil fall to $20, it would be "one touch," he said. Inventories would top out in parts of
the world, some producers would shut production and the market would come into balance.
This is neoliberal/neocolonial analysis of the situation. Reader beware. But it catches some
interesting interdependencies. For example the need for revenue intensifies with the growth of
the population. This creates problems for KSA. As of March 2019 oil price per barrel did not
return to $90 level yet.
The article was written in 2015 but still has value. So it is interesting to read what
neoliberal thought at this time is not that different from what they think now...
The idea that Saudi Arabia is an independent player is too simplistic... It never was. It
just hides the key role of the USA in engineering oil prices slump and the fact that Saudi Arabia
is a vassal of Washington is ignored.
"... The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative feedback loop between
oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western oil producers. Their GDP
and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their oil exports. As a result,
the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as possible to mitigate the
shortfall. ..."
"... Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of
long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal reported
, some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term contracts
to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are reducing the
proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies, Venezuela's among
them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use their crude. ..."
"... Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need
to invest in, or loan to, oil projects. ..."
"... Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq,
and the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult.
..."
"... Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and
prices, is diminished ..."
"... Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years"
with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in a
single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at $80
oil)? ..."
"... Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured
destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and
financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain resources
from vital domestic projects. ..."
The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative
feedback loop between oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western
oil producers. Their GDP and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their
oil exports. As a result, the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as
possible to mitigate the shortfall.
According to the IEA ,
daily output in June 2015 increased 3.1 million barrels over 2014, with 60 percent (1.8 million
barrels) coming from OPEC. At 31.7 million barrels per day, OPEC output reached a three-year
high.
This increase in output occurs with the context of a narrow global demand opportunity.
Growth in demand in 2015, which the IEA forecasts to average around 1.4 million
barrels per day, comes primarily from Asia and North America. In other major export markets,
demand is stagnant. That has oil exporting countries, including OPEC members, Russia and
others, focusing
their sales on Asia, particularly China. North American demand is growing now that oil
prices are low, but due to high levels of domestic production, the U.S. is no longer a growth
market for oil exporters.
Each producer, therefore, is incentivized to undercut other producers directly (price per
barrel) or indirectly (absorbing shipping cost or delivery risk) to win sales in Asia (or
displace incumbent suppliers in other major markets). National oil producers can and are
shifting the cost of the lowered prices to other sectors of the economy. The U.A.E., for
example, has ended fuel subsidies, thereby essentially, increasing its budget revenues, while
Saudi Arabia recently
floated a $4 billion domestic bond offering to help finance its budget.
Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of
long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal
reported
, some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term
contracts to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are
reducing the proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies,
Venezuela's among them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use
their crude.
Given this environment, it is not surprising that the revenue elasticity of production is
highly sensitive, and negative. Saudi Arabia increased production by 6.8 percent in the first
quarter of 2015 but saw export revenues shrink by 42 percent.
Any Saudi Victory Will Be Pyrrhic
Saudi confidence in their financial wherewithal is proving misplaced.
Their need for
revenue is intensifying rather than moderating. They are fighting a multi-front war with
Iran directly (in Yemen) and indirectly (in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq). ISIS, Al Qaeda, and
disaffected Shias present a significant domestic security threat. Countering external and
internal threats demands increased spending (including, perhaps, a very expensive future
nuclear weapons program), as does placating the fast growing male and female youth demographic,
which requires substantial spending on education, training, employment, and support. Hence, the
budget deficit equal to 20 percent of GDP, noted above. Increased production does not offer a solution.Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capacity
to increase production sufficiently to reduce the shortfall significantly in any meaningful
timeframe. They currently do not have the spare capacity-to make up for the $291 million in
export revenue lost in Q1 , 5.4 million more barrels a day would have been necessary at
$53.92 a barrel. Of course, such a drastic increase in output would have driven prices even
lower. It is doubtful they can increase capacity substantially even in the medium- to long
term. They won't be able to spend significantly more than other major national oil companies.
First, low prices reduce Aramco's cash flow and therefore its ability to fund investment.
Second, the Saudi government likely will increase its draw from this cash flow to fund higher
priority national security and domestic security needs. Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need to
invest in, or loan to, oil projects. What might be attractive at $75 per barrel oil isn't
at $50 oil, and even less attractive if the price of oil is thoroughly unpredictable. Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq, and
the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult. Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and
prices, is diminished . Their underestimate of the impact of their policy change on prices,
their indifference vis-à-vis the financial damage to other OPEC members, and their
willingness to take market share at the expense of other OPEC members undercut their
credibility within OPEC (particularly since it derived from Saudi willingness to protect the
interests of all members (and sometimes to endure disproportionately).
While Saudi financial reserves are substantial (
circa $672 billion in May ), drawing on them is little more than a stop-gap measure. If its
major competitors (Russia, Iraq, Iran, and North America) maintain or even increase output (and
they have the incentive to do so), prices could stay lower far longer than the Saudis
anticipated.
Saudi reserves have decreased some $65 billion since prices started to fall (in November),
so ~$100 billion to ~$130 billion at an annual rate. The longer prices stay low, the faster
their reserves fall, and, as reserves plummet, the greater the pressure to prioritize spending,
to the disadvantage of some Saudis.
Saudi Arabia Caused The Problem, Can It Engineer A Solution?
Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years"
with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in
a single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at
$80 oil)?
And if they can't-and surely, though they are loath to admit it, they can't - can they
engineer a durable increase in prices - i.e., a durable decrease in output? At first glance, it
seems impossible. Daily output from Saudi
Arabia (10.5 million), and its allies, UAE (2.87), Kuwait (2.8), and Qatar (.67), is
roughly equal to the daily output from countries with which it is in conflict, directly or
indirectly, Russia (11.2), Iran (2.88), and Iraq (3.75), and therefore have an incentive to
take advantage of any unilateral Saudi output concessions.
Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured
destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and
financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain
resources from vital domestic projects.
Moreover, given the sensitivity of prices to changes in volume, it is possible, if not
likely, that holding output steady or matching a Saudi
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the Munich Security Conference,
and Angela Merkel's stunning defiance of Mike Pence, after the United States Vice President urged Germany to cease
its economic activities with Russia and China, starting with Nord Stream 2 and the deepening energy links to
Russia.
My 02 gets 48 at 55 mph, 44 at 75-80, in town, around 40, has 150K on it
Assuming 12K miles per year you get 12 years.
So 8 years is not unreasonable and probably is too low (sorry I can't find the academic
reference I used right now)
BTW replacement cost of the battery for Leaf is around $5.5K and even for Leaf you get
something like 6 years.
Transport makes up another 25% or so. That is why I'm interested in battery electric
vehicles. Eventually the vast majority of vehicles will have to be battery powered or just
something other than petroleum based fuels. My hope is that the good people in the oil patch
can keep things going long enough for the transition to get started in earnest.
I did an exercise once in which I calculated that, for a particular year, it would
required less than 20% of the electricity produced in that year to power an all electric,
light vehicle fleet in the US. If renewables were to grow fast enough to dominate the US
electricity markets by say 2030, dealing with the additional demand from EVs should not be an
intractable problem.
Transport makes up another 25% or so. That is why I'm interested in battery electric
vehicles. Eventually the vast majority of vehicles will have to be battery powered or just
something other than petroleum based fuels. My hope is that the good people in the oil
patch can keep things going long enough for the transition to get started in earnest.
We need to try to see a bigger picture. EV does not exists in vacuum. They need
infrastructure such as lithium battery producing plants, charging stations, and more powerful
electrical grid (in case they reach substantial proportion of private cars)
We also need to understand that that the energy needed to create a car lithium battery is
close to energy required to driving a medium size diesel for over 8 years (which might last
20 years or more with proper maintenance -- even Prius can last over 10 years and 200K
miles). If this is not an exaggeration, than this is as close to a death sentence for EV
vehicles as one can get from "saving energy" standpoint.
Precise economic calculations does not favor EV. Looks what is happening with the demand
for Tesla cars. It's not pretty. Despite all hoopla, they were forced to lower prices to
sustain the demand.
The largest part of electricity produced in the USA now is produced using natural gas, so
in this sense pushing electrical cars in the USA without pushing nuclear power plants is a
very stupid idea. But it is a good idea for France.
But nuclear power plants have their set of dangers and problems, as we know from
Fukushima.
In does not make much sense to waste 30% or more of natural gas this way, in comparison
with using nat gas for transportation directly. So this is not a progress, this is a
regress.
So things are more complex then they looks but IMHO currently economics does not favor
electrical cars too much, in comparison with alternative. Although large scale experiments
like Tesla are necessary and make sense as they prepare us for a very uncertain futures and
we need to keep all options on the table.
But again the fact that nothing is done in the USA to stimulate usage of cars on natural
gas is a sign of stupidity and regress, not a sign of progress.
Please remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That actually should
be tattooed on Elon Musk forehead ;-).
x Ignored
says: 02/26/2019
at 3:27 pm I think not all
followed the link
article is big.
Maybe someone will be interested
I will write here in several posts.
I hope someone will be interested.
I continue:
The fluctuations of this second parameter, associated with economic crises and recessions
observed in the period under review, make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the
notorious "energy efficiency" to the global increase in energy consumption. In a situation of
almost "zero growth" of the world economy, which occurred in the period 2008–2009, the
consumption of primary energy decreased by 0.8% per year. At the same time, for each percent of
economic growth, it is necessary to "pay off" by increasing the consumption of primary energy
by about 0.6%.
In an expected way, an improvement in energy efficiency was reflected in monetary
indicators: in 2017, each TOE of consumed energy generated $ 8,617 of global GDP, which
corresponds to 1.7% of annual growth over the period 2007–2017.
Of course, the world's primary energy is not evenly distributed across countries. Even the
top five leaders in the use of primary energy: China, the United States, the European Union,
India and Russia – have completely different consumption patterns, which are associated
with the historical, geographical, economic and political differences of these countries.
Thus, as of 2017, China has already been the largest global consumer of primary energy: its
energy consumption has reached 3.132 billion TOE, which is equal to 23% of the global
consumption of primary energy. The growth of Chinese energy consumption is also impressive: in
the period from 1990 to 2013, per capita energy consumption in China increased from 0.602 TOE
to 2.14 TOE -- that is, almost four times. Since then, energy consumption growth in China has
somewhat slowed down, and by 2017, per capita energy consumption there was only 2.26 TOE, which
is not only still significantly lower than per capita energy consumption in countries with
developed capitalist economies, but and corresponds to an increase in energy consumption of
about 1.5% per year (and an economic growth of 2% per year).
If we consider the inertia of this historical trend and additionally take into account the
fact that the new policy of the ruling CPC implies a transition to stimulating consumer demand
within the country, then we can assume that by 2050 per capita energy consumption in China
should reach 5-5.5 TOE. This figure takes into account, in addition, the observed impact of
energy efficiency (the same 0.8% per year), but suggests that GDP per capita in China will grow
to about the equivalent of $ 50,000 by 2050. At the same time, it should be understood that in
a part of the population, a conservative forecast is adopted, according to which the population
of China will reach a peak by 2030 and decrease to 1.36 billion by 2050. Taking into account
these factors, China's energy demand in 2050 will exceed 7,000 million TOE, i.e., it will grow
2.23 times and make up more than half of the current volume of primary energy production.
Information that, according to fertility data, the population of China in 2018 decreased by
1.27 million people, has not yet been officially confirmed, and it is clear that the above
figure can be significantly adjusted downward, but in any case, China will pull the world
energy "blanket" on themselves.
The United States is the second largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017,
the US energy consumption amounted to 2,235 million TOE, which corresponds to 17% of world
primary energy consumption. US per capita energy consumption peaked at 8.01 TOE in 2000, which
was a historic peak. For the period from 2007 to 2009, per capita energy consumption in the
United States decreased from 7.7 to 7.04 TOE, and in 2017 it reached the level of 6.87 TOE.
Nevertheless, the United States continues to be the most "voracious" consumer of primary energy
per capita, and their ability to further reduce the achieved level is very slim if they are not
linked to the global restructuring of their economic and social structure, which is highly
unlikely without a deep national crisis. An additional factor is the steady growth of the US
population, which has no tendency to slow down until 2050.
Reply
Still continuing (3):
The European Union is the third largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, the
energy consumption of the European Union amounted to 1,689 million TOE, which is equivalent
to 13% of world primary energy consumption. Historically, EU per capita energy consumption
was the highest before the onset of the 2008 crisis and amounted to 3.71 TOE in 2006. In the
future, the European Union immediately fell into a double crisis: the global economic year
2008–2009 and its own financial one, connected with the debts of the Mediterranean
countries, first of all – Greece. This led to the fact that energy consumption per
capita in the EU was reduced to a minimum of 3.2 TOE in 2014. By 2017, per capita energy
consumption in the EU was only partially recovered and reached 3.29 TOE. At the same time,
its value has a very pronounced country differentiation, and if for Germany in 2017 this
figure was 3.86 TOE, for France – 3.61 TOE, then for the UK – 2.72 TOE, for
Poland – 2.71 TOE, for Portugal – 2.23 TOE, and for Romania – 1.69 ToE. In
general, this level of per capita energy consumption quite adequately reflects the EU's
longstanding efforts towards supporting energy efficiency, but also vividly shows the limits
of what can be achieved within the framework of a concept combining a set of measures for
energy saving and green energy replacement. As we see, as a result of the implementation of
such programs, the European Union did not become "European China" at all, although it became
less like "European America" in the energy issue.
Thus, it can be assumed that in the long-term trend, the per capita energy consumption of
EU countries will decrease slightly, only by copying the general trend of slow increase in
energy efficiency.
India is the fourth largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, energy
consumption in India increased to 754 million TOE, which is 5.6% of the world. India, like
China, is characterized by very rapid economic growth, which was expressed in terms of per
capita energy consumption: more than twice since 1990, when it amounted to 0.225 TOE, to
0.562 TOE in 2017. If per capita energy consumption in India continues to follow the same
pace, by 2050 it should reach a mark of 1.21 TOE, while India's GDP per capita will reach
approximately 19 thousand dollars. It is expected that by 2050 the population of India will
grow to 1.72 billion people. That is, it can be expected that by 2050 India's energy demand
will exceed 2 billion THN – or it will grow 2.65 times, overtaking even China in terms
of relative growth, and in absolute figures ahead of the European Union.
And finally, the Russian Federation, which is the fifth of the world's largest energy
consumers. In 2017, primary energy consumption in Russia amounted to 698 million TOE, which
accounted for 5.2% of world primary energy consumption. In 1990, when Russia was still part
of the USSR, per capita energy consumption in Russia was 5.8 TOE. Over the past years, Russia
has already passed its historic low, when the economy of the new country was torn to shreds
by neoliberal "shock therapy", the short-sighted policy of rapid privatization and the total
introduction of the "wild" market – including in the energy sector. This was reflected
in the fact that the minimum energy consumption per capita in Russia was achieved by 1998 and
amounted to 4.03 TOE. Smaller values of per capita consumption, apparently, are
simply impossible in a cold and harsh Russian climate, since heat supply is a vital function
in it – therefore, a value of 4.03 TOE can be considered the level of "basic survival"
in Russia. An interesting fact: in Canada, where the climate is very similar to that of
Russia, per capita energy consumption is 9.5 TOE as of 2017. At the same time, no one in
Canada speaks of "cheap electricity" or "too high costs for heat supply," realizing that this
is the necessary conditions for the survival of the country's population.
Since 1998, per capita energy consumption in Russia has been steadily growing and reached
a level of 4.83 Toe in 2017, which corresponds to about 0.8% per year. Most likely, this
trend will continue in the future, since the living standards of the Russian population are
still lower than the living standards in the European Union or the United States, and the
Russian level of per capita consumption lags behind the level of the late USSR, even taking
into account the accumulated "bonuses" in energy efficiency.
World energy: forecast
As noted above, the parameters of GDP and total energy consumption – just as the
parameters of per capita GDP and per capita energy consumption – in the current economy
have a strong correlation.
Moreover, almost all the leading countries of the world fit into a very clearly traceable
ratio, which corresponds to 10 thousand dollars of per capita GDP for every one TOE per
capita consumption. Smaller values of this parameter are characteristic of a
number of underdeveloped and developing countries, which leads to a "average" value of $
8,617 per 1 TOE for global GDP.
There are deviations and "up" on the scale of specific energy – this is already
mentioned in the text of Russia, Canada and the United States.
For Canada, Russia and the Scandinavian countries, you can build a separate branch of the
graph, on which for the "northern" economies it turns out that for every 10 thousand dollars
of per capita GDP they need to spend about 2 TOE per capita consumption – twice as much
as for those living in tropical or subtropical climate of China or India.
The phenomenon of "overconsumption" of the United States, as is clear, has a different
nature – it is associated with the actual "imperial" energy tax for the whole world,
which allows the United States to still maintain excessive energy consumption, which is in no
way connected with the country's climate the political structure of the United States, which
is the world hegemon.
It is important to emphasize that, if we exclude from consideration the "imperial" United
States and "northern" Russia and Canada, then the correlation between oil consumption and the
GDP of a particular country acquires almost 100% of its character. For example, Japan, not
mentioned above, was the sixth largest energy consumer in the world in 2017 and surpassed
most EU countries in terms of both per capita GDP and per capita oil consumption! Although,
it would seem, the southern conditions of Japan, almost completely located in the subtropical
and tropical zones, suggest lower figures for per capita oil consumption.
In 2017, energy consumption in Japan amounted to 456 million TOE, which amounted to 3.4%
of world primary energy consumption. Historical peak energy consumption per capita in Japan
reached in 2005 and amounted to 4.15 TOE. Since then, energy consumption in Japan has tended
to decline, as the country's national economy fluctuated between a hidden recession and sheer
economic stagnation. The effect of the largest nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear
power plant in 2011 is indicative in this respect: despite the radical restructuring of the
energy sector in Japan caused by this catastrophe and the almost complete closure of nuclear
power plants in the country, the consumption of primary energy in the Land of the Rising Sun
has not undergone such a sharp falls: almost all the "fallen out" volumes of atomic energy
were promptly replaced by increased consumption of oil and natural gas. And the general trend
of growth or reduction of primary energy consumption still showed a correlation with only
three parameters: the country's population, the level of per capita GDP of the national
economy and the general trend of improving energy efficiency, which in the case of Japan
describes the same energy saving parameter of 0.8% per year .
By 2016, per capita energy consumption in Japan decreased to 3.55 TOE, which was even
lower than per capita consumption in 1990, with a fundamentally higher GDP and a practically
stable population (an increase of only 3 million people with 123 million in 1990). In 2017,
per capita energy consumption in Japan grew only slightly to 3.6 TOE, which is quite
consistent with the very modest growth of the national economy.
As already mentioned, the practical economic result of "green" energy, observed for the
period 2007–2017, can be optimistically described as "zero" or "poorly distinguishable
from statistical error". Of course, one can complain that the sun and wind today give only 2%
of the global primary energy production and you need to "just give them more time (and
money)", but the sad reality is this: supposedly "promising" new energy sources affect the
economy. Their implementation in the countries of the European Union did not affect the
picture of energy efficiency and did not alter the ratio between GDP and tons of oil
equivalent spent on its production, while the global crisis and the debt crisis of the EU
itself turned out to be much more significant factors.
Still continuing (4):
A simple forecast follows from these sad conclusions: even if over the next decade the volume
of "green" energy again grows 4 times, then its share will reach only 8%. However, even this
level is an almost unrealizable dream: according to most forecasts – for example, the
IEA in 2017 and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2018 – the actual
relative growth of renewable energy sources will be only about 2–20 years before 2030.
2.5 times. Unknown conclusion: even by 2030, the share of oil, natural gas and coal will be
at least 75% of the total primary energy level, which will be related to nuclear and
hydropower and the continuing relative waste from the use of wood energy and biomass. During
the years 2030-2040, the year can be almost fantastic, and all this will be due to the
difficulties that must be achieved in the field of oil, gas and coal in the balance sheet.
energy.
An extremely unpleasant situation with such a pessimistic forecast is expected with world
oil production. At the moment, its growth was concentrated in only nine oil-producing
countries. As an example, oil production in China is expected in 2015, after which it was not
even possible to achieve an increase in Chinese oil production.
Today, this "growing oil subsoil" includes the following countries (the estimated year of
oil production and data source are shown in brackets): Canada (peak in 2049, BP), USA (2042,
EIA), Iraq (2042, BP) , Kuwait (2040, BP), Iran (2039, BP), United Arab Emirates (2037, BP),
Russia (2033, IEA), Saudi Arabia (2030, BP), Brazil (2024, BP).
The exit from almost all the "growing" sources of oil production in the world is caused by
a drop in production from 2030 to 2040, which means the global energy crisis of humanity. and
there is "tasty", and there is energy, and all this economic strategy of modern
civilization.
Of course, partial replacement with liquid motor fuel, which is easily obtained from
petroleum, can be carried out using natural gas, as well as using chemical reforming in
various types of liquid hydrocarbons and molecular hydrogen.
However, this situation is hardly optimistic. In 2015, the world's peak production was
observed. Currently, natural gas production growth is concentrated in only ten countries (the
estimated year of natural gas production and data source are shown in parentheses): Canada
(2074, IEA), USA (2063, EIA), Iran (2046, BP), Qatar (2043 , BP), Saudi Arabia (2037, BP),
Algeria (2027, BP), China (2027, BP), Australia (2026, BP), Russia (2026, BP), Norway (2023,
IEA).
It is easy to see that already after 2030, the natural gas market will, like the oil
market, be practically monopolized by four or five countries, each of which will be able to
easily manipulate prices by simply adjusting its own production, since other players simply
will not have any -or free capacity. Unfortunately, in the case of Russian oil, and when
analyzing the prospects for Russian gas in such an oligopolistic market, it can be noted that
Russia will be in the "first echelon" of losers, at whose expense they will try to solve
world problems with the energy balance.
Of course, a partial replacement of natural gas and oil can be expected in the form of a
return to more "dirty" and expensive coal. By the way, it was precisely such a strategy that
China and India chose in the 1990s, who, without having wide access to the oil and natural
gas market, relied on their own deposits of hard coal. The incidental damage to ecology and
human health in this case was the price paid for the rapid industrialization paid by Indian
and Chinese society.
However, even on the "coal" path, humanity has its own problems. Today, the rapid growth
of coal production is possible only in four (!) Countries of the world. All other countries
have already passed their peak of hard coal mining, some of them more recently, such as the
USA (2008), China (2013) or South Africa (2014).
According to estimates by international energy agencies, today, growth in coal production
is possible only in the following countries (in brackets is the expected year of peak coal
mining and source of data): Russia (2112, BP), India (2052, BP), Australia (2032, IEA) ,
Indonesia (2031, BP).
I apologize for
posting an article here
– It was designed for a reader in Russia.
Ending:
Mirovaya energiya: stsenariy
I
World Energy Scenario
The inertial scenario of the development of mankind suggests that by 2050 the world
consumption of primary energy will increase one and a half times and will be about 20 billion
TOE. This indicator takes into account both the observed effects of energy conservation and a
very conservative estimate of future economic growth – within 2–2.5% of the
annual increase in global GDP.
However, crisis tendencies will be waiting for us much earlier than in 2050: it seems that
the gap between supply and demand on the global energy market will be formed by the early
2030s, when global energy consumption will approach the level of 16-17 billion TNE . As
already mentioned, peak years for world production of oil, natural gas and coal are coming in
the very near future. According to the IEA, the peak of world oil production will come as
early as 2022, when all of humanity will be able to provide about 4,530 million TOE with oil.
According to the same forecast, coal will be at its peak in 2028, when at the expense of it
it will be possible to get about 6 billion THE (which corresponds to about 8.4 billion tons
of physical coal mining, due to its lower energy value). And finally, global natural gas
production will peak in 2036, when this energy carrier can provide 3.9 billion ToE.
It is easy to understand that, taking into account the predicted share of oil, coal and
natural gas in primary energy of about 75% by 2030, the sum of peak production (14,430 TOE)
almost fully corresponds to ¾ the lower bar of estimated consumption in 2030 (16,000
TOE) . It should be understood that the peak values for oil and hard coal in
the world will be reached before 2030, after which these energy carriers will only decrease
in the volume of physical production. In part, this effect can be compensated for through the
involvement of more low-margin fields (as it happened with shale oil and gas), but the limits
of such compensatory mechanisms are not unlimited. In addition, a significant increase in the
price of primary energy in itself is a sign of the crisis of the existing economic structure,
which clearly links social stability with economic growth, and economic growth is fueled
precisely by the available (both physically and in price) energy.
Of course, the increase in the price of oil, natural gas and coal will improve the
economic prospects of "green" energy (simply due to the banal high cost of any energy
available to humanity), but this also means that within future economies huge amounts of
energy will simply be spent on maintaining the internal structure economies and the
livelihoods of the critically needed primary energy sector.
An idea of this kind of economic structure may well be given by the economic
model of the USSR, where such a bias towards the enterprises of "Group A" was dictated by
military and state construction, while consumer goods of the enterprises of "Group B" were in
short supply. However, in the USSR this mechanism was a reflection of the planned economy, in
the case of the supposed "peak" scenario of 2030, it would be formed by purely market
mechanisms within the framework of the "classical" capitalist economy.
It is clear that this implies a "contraction" of the final consumption of the population,
which will be caused by the forced flow of capital to the high-yielding primary energy
production sectors, forced and natural in the framework of the capitalist economy. At the
same time, the "welfare society" of the model countries of the "collective West", such as the
European Union and, in particular, the United States, will collapse. Faced with this kind of
crisis, the "overconsuming" Western countries will unambiguously join the battle for the
remnants of mineral energy resources. Such events and wars are likely to surpass even the
current "oil conflicts" in the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America, in which the
United States and its European allies are directly involved.
Probably, Russia will again be hit, which remains the "last natural storeroom" for large
reserves of sufficiently cheap oil, natural gas and coal. Most likely, the "energy predators"
will try once again to control the richest natural resources of our country, which, under
various pretexts, will strive to declare "the heritage of all mankind". In fact, we will talk
about the banal energy robbery of our country, which will hide behind the fig leaf of
propaganda.
Another disappointing conclusion follows from the energy "poverty" of the "world of the
future": Russia today has to prepare for the fact that our "four hard-earned oil equivalent
per capita", which, as noted above, is the basic condition for survival in Russia's severe
climate should be in the future provided for the population of the country from sources other
than oil, natural gas and coal. The challenges facing the world are facing Russia, but what
the United States is the reason for the rejection of overconsumption turns out to be another
challenge for Russia in the face of cold and death by starvation.
Unfortunately, the "world of the future" does not promise to be a pleasant and comfortable
place to live. And we should prepare for such a negative scenario today.
Thank you for the thought provoking thoughts Opritov Alexander.
It is useful to hear these ideas from the perspective of those from various countries, such
as yours.
The data dovetails closely with what has been presented from other sources, by and large.
The geopolitical ramifications of these challenges is obviously paramount.
I am concerned that countries will be pressured to go to war over the shortfall in energy,
through desperation.
A few points about different countries-
The USA could likely decrease it energy use/capita considerably (perhaps 30%), without severe
economic repercussion. But it is not taking the issue seriously.
Some countries like Korea will have a very hard time decreasing consumption. They are cold,
and heavily industrialized. And rely almost entirely on imported fossil fuel.
I expect India, and China, to lean heavily toward suppliers of fuel as they plan their
position in the world and choose allies. Iran and Australia both seem to be prime suppliers
considering proximity.
Concerns over global warming will be swamped by concerns over energy shortage, despite the
severity of the change, such as food supply disruption and forced migration. These climate
problems will likely be much more severe after energy shortage problems develop due to the
lag in CO2 effects.
Mostly I agree with you.
It's hard to imagine the future.
Much will depend on politicians and the willingness of peoples to reduce consumption for the
sake of an acceptable standard of living in the future.
Passing the peak of energy consumption will lead to a decrease in global GDP.
This means a decrease in per capita consumption.
Reduced consumption = reduced demand = industrial workload = crisis.
I believe that in order to save people, they will live in multi-storey buildings, perhaps
without an elevator (of course, it may not be soon for 50 years), the transport will be
public, there will not be enough private cars.
In addition to the peak of hydrocarbons, the peak of copper, gold, silver, tin, and a lot
more is coming. How to solve these problems I don't want to dream
Post scriptum. The problem of CO2 and the problem of global warming in Russia is not a
popular topic. So much that everyone refuses to discuss it and even think about it.
Approximately as an alien topic.
Saudi
Arabia's crude oil exports to U.S. are falling sharply, with shipments so far this month at
just 1.6 million barrels, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg , versus 5.75 million barrels a year ago.
For the whole of January, Saudi Arabia exported just 2.69 million barrels of crude to the
United States. The decline follows Saudi Arabia's decision to cut its crude oil production --
primarily heavy crude grades -- by more than it agreed to at the December OPEC+ meeting as it
seeks higher oil prices.
One analyst told Bloomberg oil exports from the Kingdom to U.S. refiners could even fall to
zero but that was unlikely to happen.
"We could see Saudi oil imports declining to zero into the U.S. Gulf Coast," Andy Lipow from
Lipow Oil Associates said. "OPEC and non-OPEC members feel prices are too low, and they will do
what it takes to put the market back in balance."
Peak oil is the simplest label for the problem of energy resource depletion, or more
specifically, the peak in global oil production.
Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, one that has powered phenomenal economic and
population growth over the last century and a half.
The rate of oil 'production', meaning extraction and refining (currently about 85 million
barrels/day), has grown almost every year of the last century.
Once we have used up about half of the original reserves, oil production becomes ever more
likely stop growing and begin a terminal decline, hence 'peak'.
The peak in oil production does not signify 'running out of oil', but it does mean the end
of cheap oil, as we switch from a buyers' to a sellers' market.
For economies leveraged on ever increasing quantities of cheap oil, the consequences may
be dire.
Without significant successful cultural reform, severe economic and social consequences
seem inevitable.
There's no doubt that economies suffer under high energy prices. Recently POTUS
acknowledged this when he said oil is too damn high.
Oil producers (frackers) have to be profitable and they just aren't. It seems to unclear
what the break even point is for fracking operations in the US, but let's say $50 per barrel
goes to production costs. That doesn't leave much room. If oil is selling for less than that
on the open market, the frackers are forced to finance their operations. This can't go on.
Clearly the cheap oil era has peaked.
Globalization was fueled by cheap oil. end of cheap oil means the end of globalization.
It looks like people started to notice the "gangster capitalism" nature of Trump administration.
If also raises the speculation that the end of "cheap oil" might signify the end of neoliberalism as a social system. At least
the "classic" version. Whether Trump inspired the evolution of neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" improves the survival
chances of this social system remains to be seen.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction. ..."
"... To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess. ..."
I think there are a lot of people that need a delusion check. Because a surplus of oil is
advocated by "western trustable sources" against the natural investment circle of the oil
industry does not automatically mean that the market balance is under control; it is in fact
never going to work.
The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring
Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the
problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme
of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction.
It is difficult to change my mind about the oil market; after all it is not supersonic
speed in this mature market. The digitalisation of data gathering (seismic and reservoir
control) together with horizontal wells represent probably huge gains and I would guess alone
can explain why for example Russia has been doing so well the last decade.
The next point is
that the world is not running out of oil yet, but potential oil reserves are not under
western control (most potential reserves are in Africa, Middle East, Ex USSR countries and
the Arctic). And that makes for an unstable political future between the west and the rest of
the world.
To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a
transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That
is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be
smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting
future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients
needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess.
We can already hear the whining from the uber-left's ivory tower as Fed Chair Jerome Powell
unleashed some common-sense on the latest fraud being thrust upon Americans - that of Modern
Monetary Theory (MMT).
As Bloomberg reminds, MMT argues that because America borrows in its own currency, it can
always print more dollars to cover its obligations. As a result, the thinking goes, the U.S.
can always run sustained budget deficits and rack up an ever-increasing debt burden. Helping
grease the wheels for some MMTers is the expectation that the Fed would keep rates low to
contain the cost of servicing America's obligations . With that in mind, Sen. David Perdue,
R-Ga., asked Powell about the theory, saying its advocates back a "spend-now spend-later
spend-often policy that would use massive annual deficits to fund these tremendously expensive
policy proposals." MMT advocates figure the Fed would be a partner in funding these programs
through easy monetary policy.
Powell's response was brief and to the point:
"The idea that deficits don't matter for countries that can borrow in their own currency I
think is just wrong..."
"And to the extent that people are talking about using the Fed -- our role is not to
provide support for particular policies," Powell said.
"Decisions about spending, and controlling spending and paying for it, are really for
you."
Simply put, Powell explained that the increasingly popular theory espoused by progressives
that the government can continue to borrow to fund social programs such as Medicare for
everyone, free college tuition and a conversion to renewable energy in the next decade is
unworkable and makes some "pretty extreme claims."
Earlier in the hearing Powell also noted that "U.S. debt is fairly high to the level of GDP
-- and much more importantly -- it's growing faster than GDP, really significantly faster. We
are going to have to spend less or raise more revenue."
In his book "A Time For Action" written in 1980 William Simon, a former Secretary of the
Treasury tells how he was "frightened and angry". In short, he sounded the trumpet about how
he saw the country was heading down the wrong path. William Simon (1927 – 2000) was a
businessman and a philanthropist.
Simon became the Secretary of the Treasury on May 8, 1974, during the Nixon administration
and was reappointed by President Ford and served until 1977. I recently picked up a copy of
the book that I had read decades ago and while re-reading it I reflected on and tried to
evaluate the events that brought us to today.
Out of this came an article reflecting on how the economy of today had been greatly shaped
by the actions that took place starting around 1979. Interest rates, inflation, and debt do
matter and are more significant than most people realize. Rewarding savers and placing a
value on the allocation of financial assets is important.
The path has again become unsustainable and many people will be shocked when the reality
hits, this is not the way it has always been. The day of reckoning may soon be upon us, how
it arrives is the question. Many of us see it coming, but the one thing we can bank on is
that after it arrives many people will be caught totally off guard. The piece below explores
how we reached this point.
1) It isn't a theory, just an explanation of the US monetary system and how it works. It
isn't advocating the system, it is just stating how it works and how one would need to
operate within it.
2) MMT states that money shouldn't be created (spent into the economy by the gov) unless
the necessary capacity, productivity, workers, resources and assets existed in the economy.
And, if they didn't, they'd have to be created first. This would prevent inflation, not
create it.
Most everyone is misinformed and hasn't done their homework as to what MMT is. The
Libtards have taken an MMT point out of context and run with it. PRINT MONEY! But they omit
the key MMT policy point of... "Print/spend ONLY ONLY ONLY if the productive capacity and
resources are already in the economy to balance any gov spending out." A slightly important
point that they conveniently overlooked due to their 2nd grade understanding of finance,
economics and accounting.
MMT simply doesn't work if a nation 'borrows' its own currency. However, if it does not,
then MMT would at least theoretically be correct because the issue of 'printing money'
(or creating credit) would not be tied to debt but would entail a balancing of the
beneficial and adverse effects of monetary inflation.
There is some evidence that you can print money and spend it and have a vibrant, powerful
economy. It depends on how you spend it. If it's spent on supportive infrastructure such as
energy, transportation, utilities, communications, etc. it's all upwards. If it's spent on
welfare, war machinery, and supporting the bureaucracy the system fails in one
generation.
Underlying the whole premise of MMT is the question; Does the market determine interest
rates or does the fed?
I know the fed determines the federal funds rate but are they the sole dictator of
interest rates? A large portion of our debt is purchased by both domestic and foreign
investors. These are independent people....as well as governments. Will they continue to buy
bonds at 2% interest from a country that has a debt-to-GDP ration of 300% and 10 trillion
dollar yearly deficits??
If US debt gets downgraded, can the fed over-ride the tide of reality and dictate low
interest rates? Can they print enough to buy them all or do they have to maintain a
functioning balance sheet as well?
cut spending - why does usa need fbi branches in every foreign country?
why do we need so many outdated military machines (ahem aircraft carriers)
why does health care and education cost so much (ahem we forget to talk about cost, only
how to pay the fee imposed by the business)
Much of our debt is result of party over country, pointless wars (that Iraq oil is now
controlled by Russia and china..so much for the return on investment there), Afghanistan is a
failed and foolish intervention - just ask russia, syria is a soverign nation leave them
alone, same as venezuala.
Retrench and let the world figure itself out - after pakistan and india nuke each other
back to stone age, lets hope for humanities sake we can get real global cooperative
leadership that doesnt include the capitalist big read white and blue **** smacking foreign
nations on the forehead to further the elites agenda.
To Wall Street, the shale industry has lost a lot of its allure. A decade's worth of
promises have failed to materialize, and Big Finance is cutting some of its ties with smaller
shale drillers who have not delivered.
The Wall Street Journal
reports that the shale industry only saw $22 billion in new bond and equity deals, down by
more than half from 2016 levels, which was a much worse time for the market.
The steep decline in new debt and equity issuance is a sign that major investors are no
longer rushing to finance unprofitable shale drilling. It's worth noting that this is a new
development. For years Wall Street financed unprofitable drilling, holding out on the promise
that rapid production growth would eventually pay off.
Shale wells suffer from precipitous decline rates, with as much as three quarters of a
well's total lifetime production coming out in the first year or two. After an initial burst of
output, shale wells enter a steep decline.
Of course, this has been known since the beginning and Wall Street has long been fully
aware. But major investors hoped that shale companies would scale up, achieve efficiencies and
lower breakeven prices to the point that they could turn a profit.
However, that has not been the case. While there are some drillers that are profitable,
taken as a whole the industry has been cash flow negative essentially since its beginning in
the mid-2000s. For instance, the IEA estimates that the shale industry posted cumulative
negative free cash flow of over $200
billion between 2010 and 2014.
The red ink has narrowed since then, but so too has the patience from Wall Street. In 2018,
even as oil prices hit their highest levels in years, new debt and equity issuance plunged.
That makes it harder for small and even medium-sized companies to finance growth. It's not all
that surprising, then, that a wave of spending cuts have cropped up in the last few months.
The WSJ notes that the credit environment also worsened when the market hit its nadir in
2016. Regulators tightened lending requirements, raising the cost of capital for indebted
drillers. That, of course, made it even more difficult for these drillers to turn a profit.
To top it off, all of these pesky investors are much more demanding than they used to be,
calling on companies to stop spending so much and instead return cash to shareholders. That
leaves less capital available to inject back into the ground. Earlier this month Barclays
issued a double-downgrade to Occidental Petroleum, lowering it from Overweight to
Underweight, citing the company's deficit after dividends at a time when the driller still
expected to aim for an aggressive production target.
But some companies are between a rock and a hard place. The WSJ notes that CNX Resources has
lost over 20 percent since late January when it announced that it was bowing to investor
pressure to cut spending. That led to speculation that the company wouldn't meet its production
target. It's a no-win situation for some.
What to make of all of this? As Liam Denning of
Bloomberg Opinion put it, "[t] the prevailing financial model for many frackers has hit a
wall ." Denning points out that the shale industry has not posted a return on capital above 10
percent any year since 2006, which says is a "feature of shale, not a bug."
According to Rystad Energy, the 33 largest publicly-traded shale companies, accounting for
39 percent of U.S. shale output, will struggle to please shareholders while also trimming debt.
"Shale E&Ps struggle to please equity investors and reduce leverage ratios simultaneously.
Despite a significant deleverage last year, estimated 2019 free cash flow barely covers
operator obligations, putting E&Ps on thin ice as future dividend payments remain in
question," Rystad Energy senior analyst Alisa Lukash said in a
statement .
Taking a step back, explosive shale growth was only possible because in the context of the
post-2008 financial crisis and the response by the Federal Reserve to drop interest rates close
to zero, something Bethany McLean argues in her book, "Saudi America." Cheap money financed the
debt-fueled shale revolution.
Rystad finds that over half of the total debt pile for the 33 companies it analyzed is due
within the next seven years. Ultimately, the industry may have to erase $4 billion in promised
dividend payments. "The obvious gap in expected versus likely dividend payments confirms the
industry's inability to deliver sustained investors' payback while simultaneously
deleveraging," Lukash said.
That doesn't mean that production is going to fall off of a cliff. These days, the shale
drilling frenzy is being pushed along increasingly by the oil majors, who have gobbled up
smaller companies. ExxonMobil and Chevron, for instance, can take a long view, and put
mountains of cash into drilling. Investor pressure is different for these multinationals and,
in any event, they are much more profitable than smaller shale companies due to various assets
in refining, chemicals, offshore and otherwise conventional production.
As such, production growth will continue for a while longer. But the go-go days are
over.
from what I recall the global debt to GDP ratio is about 320% in Q4 2018. GDP growth will cease when debt expansion ceases (FWIW
I suspect widely acknowledged peak oil in the rear view mirror, so to speak, will likely play a role in the realization that event)
In 2008 the size of the US economy was $14.5 trillion. A decade later, the size of the economy is $19.7 trillion, so about
36% greater.
Over the same ten years the national debt has grown from $9.4 trillion to over $21 trillion- about 123% greater.
It's hard to pretend that's not a problem, but people still do try.
Interestingly enough .
Census Bureau, Treasury, EIA Detail American Insolvency
"And comparing the US primary energy consumption versus the Wilshire 5000 (representing the value of all publicly traded US
equity), a funny thing shows up. Flat to declining energy consumption vs. surging asset valuations this is typically understood
as a red flag for phony wealth creation via market manipulation, monetization, and banana republic central banking."
Is a slow recession a tragedy, with chaos necessarily baked into the equation?
If we are lucky, that will be the global challenge.
If not so lucky, recession will be depression.
Some places more than others, of course.
Russia may be be looking more solid than most in the 2030's.
Western Europe, not so good.
Overall, I was referring to the conditions that will likely ensue after peak fossil.
As very well stated in the post by Opritov Alexander above (and by Ron so many times), the hurdles to replace fossil energy are
insurmountable, by and large.
As you have pointed out before, there is a big risk for economic contraction around the time of peal oil.
I expect it to be severe in degree, especially among countries that are elderly, heavily indebted, and heavily dependent on imported
energy. And many of these places are your trading partners, no matter what country you hail from.
Indebtedness is not just a transitory or 'paper' issue, IMHO. The cost to attempt transition to non-fossil energy will be huge
(beyond huge). How do you buy a second home (renewable energy on a countrywide basis), when you are already maxed out on your
credit for the 30 yr loan on your current one (maintenance of your current economic activity and dependents)?
As a slight aside, GDP is not very useful when determining the wealth of a country, since it includes frivolous activity that
will evaporate in tough times. Financial transactions, hair dressers, restaurants, sports and music entertainment, weddings, luxury
items such as fancy cars, boats and fashion, advertising , are examples of GDP components that can evaporate almost immediately
when the times get tough and the velocity of money heads towards zero.
GDP considers natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, tsunamis and hurricanes as being favorable to the economy. Add to this
the fact that these disasters are hated by the common people who rightly pray that this destruction happens as seldom as possible.
Once again, due to the poor fundamentals of the GDP system, the entire science of economics is branded as being anti social. Once
again, the true economic fundamentals are not being considered or else the question of economics being an anti-social science
does not arise. In this article we will first consider the prevalent viewpoint and then we will debunk the myths pertaining to
it.
When a metric values natural disasters as favorable to the economy then you know somethings being missed. I would suggest that
repairing after a storm is not growth. GDP makes no distinction between Construction and Reconstruction.
My understanding is that there are proved undeveloped reserves, those require new
wells.
Dennis, I need to know just how you arrived at this understanding? It is my understanding
that these are infill wells. The word "infill" implies developed, not undeveloped.
1. n. [Enhanced Oil Recovery]
The addition of wells in a field that decreases average well spacing. This practice both
accelerates expected recovery and increases estimated ultimate recovery in heterogeneous
reservoirs by improving the continuity between injectors and producers. As well spacing is
decreased, the shifting well patterns alter the formation-fluid flow paths and increase sweep
to areas where greater hydrocarbon saturations exist.
Infill drilling does increase the ultimate recovery as it gets gaps near the top of the
reservoir that otherwise might be missed. But mostly it just pulls the oil out faster. That
is most of the oil recovered by infill drilling is not oil that would otherwise be
missed.
There are no longer any undeveloped fields in Saudi Arabia. These wells are in the very
well developed Ghawar, and I assume the field to the west is Khurais. Both fields are not
just developed, but overly developed. They have been doing infill drilling in Ghawar for
almost two decades. I assume these new Ghawar wells will be in the very southern two
fields.
From what I understand it was also stated by Schlumberger that they are in-fill (infill?)
wells Just sticking more straws in an almost empty bucket. It seems to me that that will
bring forward future production(to sustain a plateau) and the eventual decline rate in the
future will necessarily be steeper, like a bell curve vs a Seneca Cliff type curve.
I would suggest infill drilling is a good indicator of what KSA feels it's oil development
priorities are. One could make an assumption about why they feel that way. I assume it's
because they don't have anything better to do with the drilling rigs.
Ron, what is your opinion on Saudi Arabia? A I have said here before, I think that the Ghawar
could water out at any time, reducing Saudi output by somewhere in the region of 3 mbpd in
short order. It could happen tomorrow, next week, next year, who (outside of Aramco) knows?
Islandboy, Ghawar is not one field, it is five fields. From north to south there is Ain Dar,
Shedgum, Uthmaniyah, Hawiyah and Haradh. Ghawar was developed from north to south.
Ghawar is currently estimated to account for about six percent of the world's total
daily crude oil output. The field's production peaked at 5.7million barrels per day in 1981
and later slipped below the five million mark. The development of the southern Hawiyah and
Haradh areas during 1994 and 1996, however, raised the production to five million barrels per
day again.
Ain Dar, Shedgum, and Uthmaniyah are all in decline and likely in steep decline. Hawiyah
and Haradh likely have not yet peaked. However, it is production from Khurais and Manifa and
Shaybah that is keeping the decline in Saudi production from becoming obvious. All other
fields, other than the bottom two Ghawar fields, and these three latest developed fields, are
in steep decline.
Khurais and Manifa were in mothballs for decades. Then they were brought on line, at great
expense, to counter the decline in all the other super-giant fields. But the decline in these
old super-giants is getting steeper.
In the third decade of the XXI century, which is about to come, one of the main problems
facing humanity, again, as in the 60s, will be its energy supply, as well as the search for
the main "energy carrier of the future."
The three whales that the world's energy industry today holds: oil, natural gas and coal
are, by their nature, non-renewable sources of energy. True, with regard to oil and gas, this
thesis is actively debated at the academic level, but for practical purposes it is
indisputable: modern civilization consumes so much hydrocarbons that their natural
substitution, if it exists, is not able to compensate for this exemption. The energy sources
mentioned above in 2017 accounted for about 81% of world primary energy production, and they
still define the image of our modern industrial world, while all renewable energy sources
provide only about 14% of primary energy production, and about 5% The balance comes from
nuclear energy (International Energy Agency, 2017).
At the same time, the situation with renewable sources is not at all as rosy as it may
seem at first glance: out of 14% of renewable sources, 10% is the energy from burning wood
and biomass, and 2.5% is hydropower. At the same time, the "fashionable" in the last decade,
and having received at the same time gigantic, almost trillion-dollar investments in solar
and wind energy projects, are not as high as 2% in the overall balance of the production of
primary energy. At the same time, it is not even about the absolute figures for the
introduction of new capacities of green energy, which may seem impressive, but about the
exponential dynamics of the relationship between "oil-coal-gas" and "green" in the long term.
After all, a decade ago, in 2008, the world balance of power generation looked like this: 78%
were oil, natural gas and coal, 5% were atomic energy, 3% were hydropower, about 13.5% were
wood and biomass, and 0, 5% produced wind and solar energy. Surprisingly, over the past ten
years, the transition from "wood and straw" to the energy of oil, natural gas and coal, which
occurred naturally, turned out to be two and a half times more significant for the global
energy balance than the development of "green" energy technologies.
The phenomenon of such meager growth of "green" energy is interesting in itself: for the
first time the capitalist mode of production, in which investments in fixed assets imply
quick returns in the form of profits, gives an obvious, albeit programmed failure. Its
essence becomes clear if we take into account in the picture the "quiet" transition of the
world from "firewood and straw" to oil, gas and coal, which lasted throughout the decade of
2008–2018. This process, which no one financed in a targeted manner or advertised in
the world media or Western scientific publications, went forward thanks to economic
expediency. At the same time, the planting of green energy was accompanied not only by a
powerful public relations campaign and trillions of financing, but also forced almost all
countries to accept special, non-economic overpriced tariffs for the purchase of green energy
in order to somehow force capital to finance unprofitable production. energy with wind
turbines and solar panels.
World energy: a general view
Several reputable organizations are engaged in the problem of the global energy balance.
These include the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the International Energy Agency
(IEA), located in Paris, and the well-known oil company BP (ex-British Petroleum). Each of
these organizations publishes annual reports on the situation in the global energy industry
and the prospects for its development. These reports are compiled on the basis of an analysis
of the mass of primary information, often of an incomplete and contradictory nature.
Nevertheless, due to a certain averaging of all the initial data, the annual reports of these
organizations quite fully and clearly reflect the overall world dynamics. In this article, in
order to bring the data to one standard, we will rely on the annual reports of BP, unless
otherwise explicitly stated in the text.
In accordance with the latest available BP report, global energy consumption reached
13,511 million tons of oil equivalent in 2017 (TNE, eng. "Tonne of oil equivalent", TOE). At
the same time, over the decade between 2007 and 2017, world primary energy consumption grew
by an average of 1.5%. That is, the dynamics of energy consumption correlate well with the
observed growth rates of the global economy over the same period – an average of 3.2%
per year (World Bank and IMF, 2018).
The fluctuations of this second parameter, associated with economic crises and recessions
observed in the period under review, make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the
notorious "energy efficiency" to the global growth in demand
No, there does not even remotely a hint of abiotic oil. Read the last two paragraphs again.
That is what it hints to. An average growth of 1.5% in energy consumption and a growth of
3.2% in the global economy has been enabled by a continual growth in energy efficiency. This
cannot possibly continue, especially the 3.2% growth in global economy. When the global
economy does not grow it receeds. This is called a recession.
Looks like a glut of condensates has developed and is getting worse.
Another thing to ponder about shale oil: falling capex, but solid production growth And
that's after three bad years (2015, 2016 and 2017) and low current prices.
Do the US shale oil producers want to establish some kind of "world record" and then "The
last one out please turn off the lights."
How can such a miracle happen?
The US oil production is really Alice in Wonderland phenomenon.
> It is very likely that Russia+ Canada will peak within the next two years.
I agree that Russia is close to its peak. But, at the same time, Russia has a huge Arctic
territory with a very low density of population (due to harsh conditions), which probably is
not explored that well. Also with their gas reserves, they might be able to increase the
condensate production considerably, repeating the USA path.
The other possibility is Russia sliding in chaos after Putin retirement, as there is no
any politician of equal caliber able to pick up the helm among the current elite. And there
will be "external helpers" like after Brezhnev's death who will try to get some comprador at
the top. Also, the leadership change historically is a huge problem in Russia.
Russia is a kind of 'A riddle wrapped up in an enigma.' Everybody wrote Russia off in late
90th. It is difficult to make predictions about Russia.
If I remember correctly, Fernando Leanme used to work at Russia in the past, and he might
share his thoughts about this issue.
What is interesting is that due to the use of natural gas in transport, Russia does not
consume that much oil internally, which makes an important difference with KSA.
Increasing Russia's Arctic production is feasible, but this will take many years, and I don't
think it can offset decline to make much of a difference. Yamal has huge gas condensate
reservoirs located under the Cenomanian, but they need many more wells. I believe they can
produce 1 mmbopd of condensate, but that would take 15 to 20 years.
I believe Putin is smart enough to set up a successful replacement, and the Russian elite
will also be keen on a smooth transition because they think they are under attack (yes, they
are convinced the USA, Germany, France and others are very keen on making them submit).
1.Russians are not very happy with Putin
2. Most Russians will support him in any circumstances. This is a principle. Otherwise,
chaos.
3.95% Rosiyan has a negative attitude towards liberals, as well as to "democratic values"
(this is a declaration that has no common with reality)
4.Most Russians dissatisfied with property inequality that appeared in the last 25 years
5. The greatest dissatisfaction is the destruction of industry. The lack of productive labor.
(We live with the income of hydrocarbons, the country-gas station). The consequence of
globalism.
>>>
During 2016-2017 Rosneft and the Russian government have been elaborating in details
additional options for the development of unique Samotlor field. As a result a joint decision
was made for an investment incentive in the form of an annual mineral extraction tax
reduction of RUB 35 billion during 10 years.
The Board has confirmed the Company's obligations to drill over 2,400 wells during
2018-2027 that would provide additional output in the amount of more than 50 mtoe. The
extended Samotlor development program would result in an increase of tax liabilities to
budgets of all administrative levels to RUB 1.7 trln. The investment incentives should give
new momentum to the development of one of the largest fields in the country and bring
significant multiplicative effect for Russian economy.
<<<
2,400 wells in a decade is 240 a year. This article is discussing just Samotlor.
A conventional field drilling a well more often than once every two days. Quite a bit more
than that I imagine in the good time of the year with the swings in Siberian weather
conditions.
That's nuts. It's also going to shark fin at some point.
Interesting, Schlumberger said during q&a in their q3 they they had a contract for 400
wells 2019-2021 for the saudis, it was ghawar and one neighbouring field to the west that i
cant remember name of that all 400 wells were going into. They were also quite honest about
its purpose that it was to mitigate declines.
So that makes it pretty much exactly 50% of the russian drill rate per day in samotlor you
mention abowe.
I asked in previous thread why that many wells were needed if we are to believe saudis
200gb+ of world class reserves remaining. In my opinion i didn't get any answer to that
question.
Somebody way up above said because Russia uses natgas for transport they don't consume much
oil.
Gas consumption growth last year was 1.3% Oil consumption growth was 1%.
Russian car sales grew 18% last year after a double digit gain the previous year. Lada
dominates their sales, and as best I can see they are all petrol fueled. Hyundai and Kia are
a substantial presence as well, but I see no evidence in general of natgas dominating
transport.
American model sales seem at best obscure. It's Lada, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, VW.
The statement about Russia using natural gas heavily for transport is simply inaccurate.
Russia "only" consumes 3.2 million barrels per day of oil. But that's more because the
country does not have anywhere near the continent-wide car infrastructure and other wealthy
sprawl the United States built out.
By
Al Troner, President Asia Pacific Energy Consulting (APEC)
U.S. production of field (lease) condensates is growing like crazy, especially in the Eagle
Ford. There is way too much of this material for it to be absorbed into traditional crude
blending markets. At the same time the production of plant condensate, a.k.a. natural gasoline,
is also increasing along with the yield of all other products from natural gas processing
plants. A glut of condensates has developed and is getting worse. Clearly this is an
opportunity for new market development, and the bizdev community is hard at work coming up with
concepts, projects and proposals to use all of this material in the U.S. and in export markets.
But there is a problem. Condensate markets in different geographies seem to have little in
common with each other. It's like walking through the looking glass. One term can have several
meanings. One meaning can be ascribed to several terms. Today we launch a RBN blog series to
make sense of it all.
First, let's consider a fundamental question. Are condensates in the natural gas liquids
(NGL) family? Like everything about this topic, it depends. In U.S. usage, a "plant condensate"
is the equivalent of products classified as "pentanes+" and natural gasoline, and these are
considered NGLs. On the other hand, U.S. usage typically does not consider "field or lease
condensate" as an NGL, instead classifying these commodities as crude oil. There are a
variety of reasons for this distinction in the U.S. market, some rational some not so rational
that we will explore a little later in this blog.
However, no such distinction exists in international markets, which consider both plant and
field condensates the same thing, with both classified as natural gas liquids – since
they are both liquids that come from natural gas. Of course, to further confuse things,
international markets have their own labeling problems, calling some of these products
"naphthas", when any refiner will tell you that term ought to be reserved for products that
have been through a crude distillation tower. Are you starting to get a sense for the problem?
Because all of these terms are so mixed, mingled and intertwined, the only thing we can do is
"Begin at the beginning" as Alice was told in Wonderland -- and that is with the general
category of products called natural gas liquids – NGLs.
NGLs, LPGs and Purity Products
NGLs seem to exist in the twilight zone between black oil, or crude, the basis of all
petroleum products, and natural gas (methane) the low carbon footprint, suddenly abundant (in
the U.S.) fuel source. NGLs are neither here nor there – they possess, to differing
extents, characteristics of both oil and gas and have values and market drivers both similar to
and distinctly separate from oil and gas.
Yet it would appear that the key factor that unites all NGLs is that they are derived from
gas and that most NGLs need special containment to remain liquids. Then, "What is in a
name?"
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I
choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you
can make words mean so many different things."
(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass,Chapter 6)
In fact, NGLs carry ambiguity in their very name. Ethane, propane, normal butane, isobutane
and (as the product is commonly called in the U.S.), natural gasoline are all found in natural
gas, but are liquid hydrocarbon molecules suspended within gas. This is equally true for lease
condensates, hence the classification of lease condensates as NGLs in international markets. In
this survey of the products alternatively called by names such as NGLs, condensates, pentanes
plus and various other monikers, we will explore the wide range of terms used to label these
products and how, at times, these different labels define each NGL somewhat differently.
The products we call crude oil and natural gas are base materials – oil is the
precursor of petroleum products; gas is primarily valued on its ability to create heat, i.e.
calorific value. NGLs are many things simultaneously and can be defined as end-products;
petrochemical feedstocks or semi-finished intermediates used to create finished oil products.
This very variability - this wide range of flexibility of NGL utilization - leads to much
uncertainty. To avoid confusion, it is important to define the terms used and to understand how
US market terminology and definitions differ from those abroad.
NGLs are liquid hydrocarbons suspended as particles in gas, under conditions of
subterranean pressure and temperature. As noted above, in the U.S. the term NGL is usually
reserved for these products produced through some form of processing (natural gas processing
plants or refineries), while in international markets it also includes field or lease
condensates.
Y-Grade, also called mixed NGLs or 'raw make' is an unfractionated blend of the various
purity products (see definition below) that make up the NGL product family. A Y-grade stream
is typically produced by a natural gas processing plant and transported by pipeline to a
central fractionation facility to be split into purity products.
NGL Purity Products – As this term is used in the U.S., the five purity NGL
products are ethane (C2), propane (C3), normal butane (NC4), isobutane (IC4) and natural
gasoline (C5+). The numbers indicate how many carbon atoms are contained in each NGL
molecule. While butane and isobutane both have four carbon atoms, they differ somewhat in
molecular structure. As a general rule, when at least 90% of the NGL stream has only one type
of carbon molecule, this NGL, whether ethane or butane, is defined as a purity product.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas, or LPG, is a subset of the NGL family. In the U.S. the term
includes propane, normal butane and isobutane and is often associated with refinery
production and demand for these products. The term is also used to refer to the international
trade for propane and butanes.
Pentane+ or C5+ designations include the products that we also call condensates. We'll
talk about that plus sign and the many varieties of condensates in the section below.
Heavier NGLs: In the US market, the term Heavy NGLs refers to natural gasoline and
butane/isobutane, but this definition is not universal and certainly can be misleading. The
only "heavy" NGL that can be separated, stored and transported without special containment is
condensate (natural gasoline), a point which we will detail further below. The term Heavy
NGLs is rarely used in foreign NGL markets, and when it is occasionally used, it refers
solely to condensate.
Ethane/Propane Mix: In the US market, ethane and propane are sometimes sold as a mixed
stream for use as a petrochemical feedstock. The most common is called E/P Mix, consisting of
80% ethane/20% propane. In some cases the buyers want a custom blend that differs in the
proportion of these two NGLs. E/P Mix is sold in European NGL markets and is the basis of
Mideast Gulf ethylene cracker feedstock supply, but is virtually unknown in Asia.
Note that most NGLs originate from gas production, whether associated with crude or solely
on its own non-associated gas production. When NGLs are contained within a gas stream, it is
said that they are in "vapor phase".
All natural gas contains some NGLs. Sometimes there are enough NGLs to be recovered
economically, sometimes not. Sometimes NGLs must be removed (whether economic or not) for the
'residue' natural gas to meet BTU and other specifications for the take-away natural gas
pipeline or LNG liquefaction facility. Regardless, for natural gas produced at the wellhead to
be sold and transported in pipeline systems, various impurities like sulfur and water must be
removed. When required by downstream specifications, or economically advantageous or both, the
NGLs are separated from the gas in a natural gas processing plant. The mixed stream or Y-grade
NGLs are then transported to a fractionator for separation into purity products. That
fractionator may be at the processing plant location, but in the U.S. is usually some distance
away. As discussed on many occasions in RBN blogs, by far the largest NGL fractionation center
in the U.S. is at Mont Belvieu, Texas.
The table below from the Baker Institute shows NGL products, their characteristics and their
markets.
Now that we've cleared up NGLs, we need to turn to the far more convoluted world of
condensates, and natural gasoline. But that's not the only labels we need to include. There is
also naphtha, Pentanes Plus and even A-180. Each of these terms may have a slightly different
meaning in different markets.
An Example of the Name Game: Pentanes Plus . For example, Pentanes Plus, as defined in the
United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi National Oil Company, or ADNOC) produces a condensate stripped
directly from the gas stream. It is a light, highly paraffinic naphtha equivalent and therefore
best suited for ethylene cracking. It excludes ethane and LPG and is sold as a naphtha grade.
So, this material is called pentane, which is a condensate that is sold as paraffinic naphtha.
Got it?
And there still is another Pentanes Plus, this one defined by the Energy Information Agency
(EIA), a unit of the US Department of Energy (DOE). EIA describes Pentanes as "a mixture of
hydrocarbons, mostly pentanes and heavier, extracted from natural gas. (It) includes
iso-pentane, natural gasoline, and plant condensate." Note that it excludes lease condensate,
which EIA inconveniently lumps into their crude oil production statistics. Obviously ADNOC's
"Pentanes Plus" is not the same stuff as EIA's Pentanes Plus.
To access the remainder of Through the Looking Glass: NGLs, Condensates and Pentanes Part
1 – U.S. versus the World you must be logged as a RBN Backstage Pass™ subscriber.
Full access to the RBN Energy blog archive which includes any posting more than 5 days old
is available only to RBN
Backstage Pass™ subscribers. In addition to blog archive access, RBN Backstage Pass™ resources include
Drill-Down Reports, Spotlight Reports, Spotcheck Indicators, Market Fundamentals Webcasts,
Get-Togethers and more. If you have already purchased a subscription, be sure you are
logged in For additional help or
information, contact us at [email protected] or
888-613-8874.
And that was just overnight. On Friday morning, another activist, Kimmeridge Energy
Management Co., announced it had taken a stake in PDC Energy Inc., an exploration and
production company with operations in Colorado and Texas. Kimmeridge wants PDC to overhaul
its financial priorities, costs, governance and maybe, given the line about "considering
all strategic alternatives," its entire identity.
Fracking has helped the USA boost oil production, but that is pressuring to get oil out of
older wells. Once those have been sucked dry, we'll need to import lots more. You read news
about occasional big new discoveries in the USA, but read the details to see that each
amounts only to a few days of oil consumption in the USA.
The world still runs on oil and the USA wants to control it all. If you doubt the
importance, look at a freeway or airport or seaport to see oil at work.
I used two pieces of recent info to estimate the percenatge range drop associated with EVs in
cold weather.
Recently the AAA issued a report in which they stated that at 20F, the average percentage
range drop of the four EVs they tested at 20F was 40%. A few weeks ago in our local paper, a
reporter tested a Chevy Bolt at 14F and reported that the range drop was 47%.
The range of a vehicle is determined in a test lab at 68F. So a temp drop of 48F reduces
the range by 40%, based on the AAA tests. Assuming the efficiency drop is linear, that
translates into 0.833% drop for each 1 degF drop.
So the percentage range loss for the Bolt, which is 54 degs below the test temp, should be
approximately 0.833*54=45%. Reasonably close to the 47% reported.
A 40% to 47% range loss is major and I am now beginning to think that the Canadian/US
govt/Automakers should be providing this info to customers on the fuel economy label. A good
bogie cold temp would be 32F. I can hear the howls from the EV crowd. "Automakers in
Canada/US discouraging consumers from buying EVs."
Maybe Consumers Report might start doing cold weather tests on EVs and plug in hybrids
after the recent cold snap in US and Canada this winter. As noted above, some plug-in hybrids
turn on the gasoline engine to provide cabin heat in winter. Not sure what they do at 95F.
Does the engine drive the AC compressor?
The drop in range depends on the length of the trip.
In cold temperatures such as 14F the battery energy is used to warm the battery over the
first few miles and range is not very good if calculated over a 5 mile trip. Over the course
of a longer trip such as 100 miles the range loss is not as great.
It also depends how high one heats their car. I dress warmly when it is 14F outside rather
than my typical clothing inside my house.
If I didn't dress properly, my range would be lower.
Average temperature where I live was about 19 F in January (average monthly temperature in
2019), the range was about 24% lower over about 1500 miles driven compared to October 2018
results (1600 miles driven in October 2018).
There is a loss of range, but it is not as large as 47% based on my experience in a Tesla
Model 3.
In October the average was 241 Wh/mi and in January it was 300 Wh/mi.
I just copied this from Quora, posted as part of a long comment by a person who understands
the basics of the oil biz.
"Oil is becoming difficult to extract, and this operation is becoming increasingly expensive.
While it is true that the use of fracking has enabled the extraction of previously
inaccessible deposits, this just buys us a little more time. As it is, a Goldman Sachs study
found that the cost of extracting crude oil went up over 15% a year in the decade prior to
the economic slowdown (and is still rising by possibly 10% a year)."
Obviously enough, the cost of getting tight oil out is declining, but tight oil is only a
small part of total oil production. I'm not sure about the costs of tar sands oil, it may be
declining in real terms, or rising. I haven't seen anything recent on the costs of tight
oil.
Hopefully somebody in the biz will have something to say about the cost of conventional
oil production is changing, based on their personal knowledge.
If it is going up anywhere close to ten percent a year, in real terms, world wide, the
price of oil will HAVE to get back into the hundred dollar plus range within five or six
years, maybe sooner.. economic troubles can lead to some countries selling for less than
production costs.
My opinion is since the crack in 2014 aproximately all exploration offshore stopped, there
have been some discoveries near exsisting infrastructure that some have been built out as
tieback. In General even with cut in drilling cost , subsea tecnology , remote controlled
platforms a brent price of 65 usd bbl will make some profit for oil Companies but you will
never see a huge increase in activity to find billions of new barrels that is needed. There
is also a fact less discoveries are made each 100 wells drilled and size declining in
average. This trend together with increase labour cost , everything else in general will
demand higher oil price to solve a global supply crize..
This doesn't explain why the Saudi's spend billions building and operating peripheral water
injection systems and refineries that can handle oil with vanadium. If they truly have 266
billion barrels in the ground, all they would have to do is drill some wells and millions of
cheap, extra barrels/day would gush out of the ground.
They say, total new shale oil produced in March will be 628,526 barrels per day. (Net
increace+Legacy decline)
Net Increase will be 84,406 barrels per day.
Legacy Decline will be 544,119 barrels per day
Therefore for every 1 barrel per day increase, 7.45 barrels of new oil had to be produced.
Therefore for every 1 barrel per day increase, 7.45 barrels of new oil had to be
produced.
This is simply mind-blowing. And the more oil they produce, the more oil they need to
produce to keep from going negative. How long can they keep this up?
https://www.rigzone.com/news/permian_oil_and_gas_production_to_hit_new_records-21-feb-2019-158209-article/
Seems EIA predict production in Permian will increase from 3.98 MMbpd to 4.02 MMbpd next
month. Guess it have been mostely flat at least US production have been 11.9 MMbpd since
January. Think than an increase of 40 000 /3 month = 13. 333 x12 = 160 000 barrels for 2019
increase seems reasonable. World demand seems increase by 1.5-2.0 MMbpd. Hopefully Permian
production will increase significant when tje new pipeline is compleated 4th Quartile 2019
but that remaind to see.
Reviewing this past weekly(2/15) oil inventory report reveals import of 7.5 million
barrels/day and 7.0 million barrels/day for the past 4 weeks. Yet I hear how we are down to
perhaps 1-2 million/day and even that we are a net exporter. Could someone Help me understand
what is going on to this non oil person! Thanks in advance
I'm not one of the experts, but I can nevertheless answer your question!
Short answer:
The fossil fuel industry is in bed with certain politicians whose mascot is the elephant,
and together they put out a continuous stream of half facts, cherry picked facts, and
outright lies in furtherance of their own ends.
You're at the right place to get the straight dope. HERE.
Crude imports on line 5 as 7,522 kbpd, crude exports on line 9 are 3,607 kbpd for net
crude imports on line 4 of 3,915 kbpd.
Other supply includes products and natural gas liquids. It shows net imports on line 21 of
-2,809 kbpd. Total net imports of Crude and Petroleum Products on line 33 are 1,106 kbpd.
Why on earth would Saudi stocks be falling at such a rate? If Saudi is concerned about low
oil prices, they do not need to cut production, they only need to cut exports.
Saudi has 266 billion barrels of oil in the ground, and in the dead of winter, their
lowest crude burn season, their stocks are falling? Something just don't add up here.
Saudi Crude Exports Slump to 6.2M B/D in 1H February: Kpler
Shipments tumble by 1.34m b/d in 1H February, compared with same period in January,
consultant says in report.
BBG #OOTT
Are there any (public) estimates of how much SA produce vs. draw from inventory to cover
their exports or are all these charts based on their own reported figures?
There are several issues with the reported numbers that appears odd to me.
I found, back when I was reporting JODI data, that for OPEC, they used the "direct
communication" data rather than the "secondary sources" data for their OPEC production data.
But that was several years ago.
It's just their own reported figures. I know that the secondary sources quoted in OPEC MOMR
use tanker tracking and reported refinery runs to check OPEC production but beyond that I
don't know.
In summary, while I have not proven that Saudi has 270 billion barrels of proved oil
reserves, I think the evidence points in that direction. And if you accept a much lower
number, you essentially accept that there is a vast conspiracy involved in hiding the real
numbers.
An old post by me, maybe I got the idea from Robert Rapier. I hadn't realized he had
written something on this at the time. (If so I apologize to Mr. Rapier for the lack of
citation.)
I don't find Mr. Rapier's logic even close to impeccable.
Mr Rapier does not address a number of issues which concern Saudi reserves in his article.
For instance, KSA reserves are known to consist mostly of a relatively small number of giant
fields, as compared to the USA which has a much larger geographic area, many small fields and
perhaps close to a million wells drilled.
In KSA most of its oil resources are concentrated in about a fifth of its 830,000 square
mile geographic area. It has conducted a systematic and thorough search using seismic,
drilling and other tools to explore for other resources. I believe their best undeveloped
findings have been deeper gas in the known oily areas. The Shaybah oil field, said to be the
last of the elephants, was discovered in 1968. Remote and relatively expensive, it was not
developed until 1998. Likewise, the development of Ghawar also proceeded slowly, with the
last southern parts not being developed until around 2000.
The manner in which the country's resources have been developed has not been addressed. In
the USA every promoter with access to OPM has drilled, including many wells of questionable
economics. Would the LTO currently developing here be brought on at all, or very slowly
anywhere else? Is LTO really economic at today's prices?
In KSA the government owned oil company has systematically developed their resources, and
by most accounts they have been thorough, methodical, and have used cutting edge technology.
In the early 2000's they combined advanced seismic, drilling, and completion technologies to
create multi-lateral super wells which have been used to develop Shaybah as well as to
rejuvenate many older worn out fields such as Abqaiq. These super wells have allowed KSA to
maintain its massive production but when these traps have been depleted there is not likely
to be an encore.
The nature of the giant Saudi fields is different from the USA. Ghawar has been described
as the perfect trap. With high perm and porosity KSA expects to produce a large percentage of
original oil in place. The old reserve reports Rapier referenced also expected to recover
high percentages of original oil. Technology has certainly increased the amount of oil KSA
will recover but I believe they are looking at increasing recovery by a few, maybe up to 10
percentage points in each field. Their best result, is pulling forward production with their
super wells, not creating recoverable oil from resources such as shale which were previously
considered uneconomic.
Rig counts in KSA were around 10 for much of the 90's. They have increased sharply since
with the push to maintain their production around 10 million bpd. Current levels of around
130 rigs seem needed to maintain 10, not 25.
Of course, the underlying problem comparing USA reserves with KSA is the geology, and I am
not a geologist, but my understanding is that the persian gulf area is unique and not
comparable to USA.
EIA used to publish stats regarding number of US oil wells, gas wells and average TD per
well.
I guess there are over one million active oil/gas wells in US, including Alaska and GOM.
There are over 100K "shale wells already and US is adding 10K +/- per year.
Schlumberger had a graphic awhile back comparing the drilling intensity of the US to both
Russian and the Middle East. Was an eye opener.
After reviewing recent comments, I see an additional area to address, that of the D&M
reserve review. As one who used to do audits, I can tell you that auditors rely heavily on
management to present them with a basis for their opinion. Auditors cannot review everything,
and most are familiar with some of the noted failures such as Enron and Billie Sol Estes.
One of the old standard auditor jokes goes like this.
A prospective client interviews three firms and asks each the same question: What is 2
plus 2.
First firm answer is : We pride ourselves on our expertise, the answer is 4. They do not get
the job.
Second firm: We would like to research this question and provide you with a suitable answer.
No job.
Third firm: What did you have in mind? Job!
A bigger question is why would KSA want to overstate its reserves. At its face value, the
answer is they would not, lower reserves should lead to higher prices realized from their
oil. I don't think it is that simple. The Saudi regime is an oppressive dictatorship that
oddly relies on extensive welfare type payments to maintain power. They do have a national
interest in overstating their reserves, its sort of an Emperor's new clothes thing.
And if you accept a much lower number, you essentially accept that there is a vast
conspiracy involved in hiding the real numbers.
That sentence is total nonsense. In 1980 ARAMCO suggested that quotas would be allocated
on the amount of proven reserves each country has. That is, the greater their proven
reserves, the higher their quota would be. Within the next few years, every OPEC nation
started increasing their "proven reserves" with a pencil. And their reserves just kept
growing and growing and growing. They never did allocate quotas based on proven reserves, but
that did not deter any of them from continually increasing their numbers.
But it is just downright silly to suggest that there is a conspiracy to hide their true
reserves. Of course their true reserves, like those of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE are
closely garded secret while their published reserves are published everywhere. But no
conspiracy is needed to keep their true reserves a secret. All they have to do is deny all
other published numbers. Besides, most OPEC officials really believe those numbers. It is not
really hard to believe something you really desire to believe.
I find it astonishing that you Dennis, or Robert, thinks a conspiracy is needed to claim
those absurded numbers. No, no, no. It's just a gross exaggeration, nothing more. A gross
exaggeration does not require a conspiracy and it is just absurd to claim it does.
Saudi Arabia published the first audit of its vast oil reserves since it nationalized its
energy industry about 40 years ago, saying its reserves total 268.5 billion, slightly more
than the 266.3 billion figure that the government published previously.
The audit, conducted by Dallas-based consultant DeGolyer & MacNaughton Corp., is the
first since Riyadh fully nationalized Saudi Aramco between 1976 and 1980, and it comes as the
kingdom tries to generate interest in Aramco ahead of a potential initial public
offering.
"This certification underscores why every barrel we produce is the most profitable in the
world, and why we believe Saudi Aramco is the world's most valuable company and indeed the
world's most important," Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said in a statement posted on
the state news agency's website.
This is a link from DeGolyer & MacNaughton about their audit on Saudi oil reserves. There
is no field by field split of the reserves or the quality – heavy, light, sweet etc
Feb 12, 2019
https://www.demac.com/dm-confirms-independent-assessment-of-reserves-in-saudi-arabia-for-the-saudi-arabian-oil-company/
DeGolyer and MacNaughton is pleased to acknowledge the recent completion of the first
contemporary independent assessment of reserves in Saudi Arabia for the Saudi Arabian Oil
Company. The study encompassed a highly detailed independent analysis of a massive dataset
and onsite review. More than 60 geophysicists, petrophysicists, geologists, simulation
engineers, reserves engineering specialists, and economists were involved in the 30-month
effort.
In 1943, one of our founders, Everette DeGolyer, surveyed the Middle East and Persian Gulf
area as part of the war effort. Mr. DeGolyer was quoted at the time as declaring, "The oil in
this region is the greatest single prize in all history." At the time of this survey, Mr.
DeGolyer's estimates and predictions that the Middle East would become the center of the
world's oil production were considered by some to be massive exaggerations, but his work has
since been found to be quite conservative. DeGolyer and MacNaughton's work in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia continues Mr. DeGolyer's legacy of knowledge and integrity, and the firm remains
at the forefront of the petroleum consulting services industry.
Below is a compilation of article links where you can find further information regarding
our most recent work in Saudi Arabia. At this time, DeGolyer and MacNaughton will make no
further comments on this extensive project.
More than 60 geophysicists, petrophysicists, geologists, simulation engineers, reserves
engineering specialists, and economists were involved in the 30-month effort.
All audits are paid for, so I guess that means we cannot believe any of them.
A reputable firm does not lie when they make these evaluations, they make their best
estimate as their reputation for honesty is the core of their business.
Just like tobacco danger audits funded by the tobacco industry were entirely credible
because the analyzing firms had to be so very careful about their reputation.
I also recall the brain cancer/cellphone linkage study was funded by Motorola and
challenging it on that basis never really got traction.
Why do they want to produce from the neutral zone – not really necessary the next 50
years with that reserves?
Why do they produce the expensive off shore fields? They could wait for a few decades more
before spending this money.
Normally, a tapped giant field produces for 50-60 years – so with an original 4-500
GB ressources(this survey + everything they produced already) they should have capacity for
up to 20 or 25 mb / day. They have erverything tapped they have, not some giant fields
untapped as reserve.
Russia produces 11 mb/day from reserves of round about 100GB.
Exactly, why would you develop more expensive and complicated offshore if you have
"unlimited" resources left in cheap and easily accessible already developed areas?
Dont they need that money to pave the streets with gold, balance the budget, keep people
happy? What king or politician would make that desicion? Lets develop the more expensive
stuff we dont need so i have less money to throw around.. makes sense?
Schlumberger mentioned in their q3 in the q&a they had contact for drilling 400 infill
wells for saudi during the next 3 years think starting year was 2019. Why is that needed if
these unlimited reserves are there?
Or should we look at it the different way, 400 new holes unlocks these reserves or perhaps
even more future reserves?
The Saudis have had 270B barrels of oil since the 80s even though they've been producing
3-4B/yr. An independent audit found, miraculously, that they still have 270B barrels of oil.
As a small business owner I can tell you that my books can be audited and deemed in good
order, and the auditor will never have gone back in the warehouse to see if there is actually
any of the stock that I have listed in the books. The Saudis will have 270B barrels of oil,
until, one day, they have none.
It's the 270 GB that implies they are lying – how much is unknown.
Reserve growth and production never is hand in hand – it would be slowly decrease to
200 during the 90s, increase to 300 with higher oil prices for reclassifying marginal fields
or introduction of new recovery technic, and reducing again.
Or a bump up with the discovery of a new field (this is always good for propaganda
reasons).
Instead it was constant 270 over almost 40 years – not believable. And the audit was
too near at this 270 – a 300 or a 250 would have been more believable.
So we still know nothing yet – perhaps it's 150, perhaps even 300.
Mamdouh G Salameh's Response to Robert Rapier's article
Jeffrey J. Brown
9:35 AM
From Oilprice.com (Dr Mamdouh G Salameh):
In a paper titled:"Saudi Proven Crude Oil Reserves: The Myth & the Reality Revisited"
I gave at the 10th IAEE European Energy Conference in Vienna, 7-10 September 2009, I reached
the conclusion that Saudi proven crude oil reserves actually range from 90-125 billion
barrels (bb) and not the 264 bb the Saudis were claiming then. That was 2009.
However, there has recently been claims that an independent audit has put Aramco's Oil
Reserves at $270 billion Barrels". It transpired that the audit was neither independent nor
unbiased since some of the companies that conducted the audit (DeGolyer, MacNaughton, and
Baker Hughes' Gaffney, Cline, and Associates) have or have had service contracts with Saudi
Aramco, so it can't truly be classified as an independent audit.
Still, I decided to make a new estimate of Saudi proven reserves by adding Saudi
production since the discovery of oil in 1938 till now (for which we have figures) and then
deducting them from Saudi claimed proven reserves along with an annual depletion rate of
Saudi aging fields averaging 5%-7% for the same period. My calculations came to around 70-74
bb of remaining reserves compared with the figure in 2009 allowing for production since
2009.
The fact that Saudi Arabia's proven reserves remained virtually constant year after year
despite sizeable annual production and a lack of major new discoveries since 1965 is due to
the Saudis increasing the oil recovery factor (R/F) and the oil initially in place (OIIP) to
offset the annual production. The Saudis have been declaring an R/F of 52% or even higher
when the global average is 34%-35%. They have also increased the OIIP from 700 bb to 900 bb
on the basis of Saudi Aramco projecting new discoveries which are yet to be discovered.
Venezuela does have the world's largest proven reserves estimated at 303 bb and growing.
However, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that there may be more than 513
bb of extra-heavy crude oil and bitumen deposits in Venezuela's Orinoco belt region. The fact
that the bulk of the reserves consists of extra-heavy oil doesn't detract from the fact that
they are proven and have been refined in Venezuela's own refineries in Texas and sold in the
United States as gasoline and diesel. Moreover, it is virtually no different from Canada's
tar sand oil.
Your argument that the rise of oil prices to triple digits has made Venezuela's extra
heavy oil economical to produce applies also to Canada's tar sand oil and US shale oil
(though shale oil is light).
Your argument that Saudi barrels were deemed to be economical to produce even before oil
prices spiked is a valid one but it misses the point about reserves. Irrespective of whether
crude oil reserves consist of light or medium or heavy or extra-heavy crude, once they are
proven they are all categorized as oil reserves. Of course, cost of production is a very
important factor in the economics of oil and the profitability of production. In this regard,
the production of Venezuela's extra-heavy oil at current prices is not different from an
economic point of view from US shale oil production or Canadian tar sand oil production.
Finally, the claimed audit about Saudi reserves smacks of a blatant attempt by Saudi
Aramco abetted by foreign oil companies which are beneficiaries of Saudi Aramco largess to
resurrect the IPO of Saudi Aramco. The IPO is dead and buried. We now know that the
withdrawal of the IPO was because of risk of American litigation related to the 9/11
destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York and question marks about the true size of
Saudi proven oil reserves. However, when Saudi King Salman called off the IPO, he justified
his decision by saying that he didn't want to expose Saudi Aramco's finances or reserves to
be scrutiny. His words speak volumes about Saudi reserves.
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
The data suggest that on a net exports basis, after subtracting out rising domestic
liquids consumption, Saudi Arabia has been supply constrained since 2005.
Their net exports of total petroleum liquids (BP data base) increased from 7.1 million bpd
in 2002 to 8.7 million bpd in 2005, but their net exports have been below the 2005 level for
12 straight years, through 2017, averaging only 7.9 million bpd for 2006 to 2017
inclusive.
Note the large increase in Saudi net exports from 2002 to 2005 as annual Brent crude oil
prices approximately doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005.
However, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled again, from $55 in 2005 to $110 for 2011
to 2013 inclusive, Saudi net exports averaged only 8.0 million bpd during this three year
period of triple digit oil prices, versus 8.7 million bpd in 2005.
"... But I must admit that a million barrels of ethanol means we need somewhere around seven hundred to eight hundred thousand barrels of gasoline a day less, so this must have a serious effect in terms of depressing the price of crude, and the price of gasoline. I can't seem to find any good figures on the elasticity of gasoline, except long term estimates, but the effect has to be real, even if it IS hard to measure accurately ..."
Just to keep it on the radar screen, the USA produces approx 1 Mbpd corn ethanol, utilizing
close to 40% of the USA corn crop acreage equivalent. This production is still
subsidized.
Oil producers facing a challenging pricing environment are in direct competition with corn
farmers, who face their own perennial economic challenges.
Is prime farmland being used (and subsidized) for corn ethanol a clever use of scarce
economic and environmental resources in a time when oil production from hydraulic fracturing
has emerged as a major energy source?
The moonshine to gasoline industry is an ecological and economic disaster, in every respect
except one. It makes and has made a lot of money for farmers in the corn biz, farm equipment
manufacturers and dealers, and business men in the processing and shipping end of the biz.
First class fuck up for everybody else, excepting certain politicians.
But I must admit that a million barrels of ethanol means we need somewhere around seven
hundred to eight hundred thousand barrels of gasoline a day less, so this must have a serious
effect in terms of depressing the price of crude, and the price of gasoline. I can't seem to
find any good figures on the elasticity of gasoline, except long term estimates, but the
effect has to be real, even if it IS hard to measure accurately.
It should also be acknowledged that the leftover mash is a superb livestock feed, and
worth quite a bit of money, on your feedlot operation, if you happen to have access to it in
bulk at wholesale prices.So this feed stock certainly offsets some of the higher price
farmers must pay for corn to feed it directly.
So, so long as we continue to eat lots of beef, the picture is not quite as bad as it
looks, at first glance.
But the rational thing to do, if we were actually rational, would be to spend the money on
efficiency and conservation, rather than moonshine. The corn and equipment and processing
guys would still be doing their NORMAL business, and ALL of us would be a little better off,
economically and environmentally.
It doesn't look too absurd.
But some numbers are not consistent. 50 billion in 4 yrs is 3.4 mbpd, rather a lot less
than quoted 4.Unless you count the 750K bpd condensate. Then . . . it's ballpark.
That's really the big story of Iran. 750K bpd condensate vs 0 in 1979. The final sentence
says they doubled gasoline output, also likely high vapor pressure pentane plus from the gas
field. Sanctions are not going to hurt these guys. They have plenty of money, especially when it
all becomes cryptorubles.
Russia has half the reserves of Iran and produces round about 11 mb/day – so they can
get up to 20? It's all conventional oil, mostly in giant fields so this should be possible.
Would be a death blow to their rival Saudi Arabia.
Crude imports on line 5 as 7,522 kbpd, crude exports on line 9 are 3,607 kbpd for net
crude imports on line 4 of 3,915 kbpd.
Other supply includes products and natural gas liquids. It shows net imports on line 21 of
-2,809 kbpd. Total net imports of Crude and Petroleum Products on line 33 are 1,106 kbpd.
"... Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes vote. ..."
"... how being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure, for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic? ..."
Foreign policy is more than just war and peace, it is a nuanced and complex issue that
directly affects us here at home. In this interview, Dr. Jane Sanders sits down with
Representative Tulsi Gabbard to talk about U.S. foreign policy and how it affects us here at
home.
Tulsi this is the first I've explored who you are. This conversation felt like a life
giving refreshment. The constant war and regime change policy of every administration since I
was a young child has been utterly confounding. We are bankrupting our society and
civilization with military expenditure exactly like a life destroying heroin addict except
it's on a global scale. These people in the powers that be together with the masses that back
them are literal sociopaths and they're entirely in control at both the highest and base
levels. The only other time I've felt as nourished by a public figure that somehow pierced
through the mainstream media was Bernie Sanders actually expressing the fact that we are an
oligarchy not a democracy. Like oligarchy, anti-war and imperialism is just not talked about.
US Americans won't acknowledge the scale of our imperialism.
Tulsi should run and both Sanders should follow her lead. As much as I love him, Bernie's
too old to be president - when it gets to the stage against Trump, we need a young, vibrant
face. Add onto that the fact that she's a veteran who actually asked to be deployed in
comparison to him, a draft dodger - he looks like an old fat pathetic septogenarian next to
an early 40s real populist. Ultimately it is up to Sanders whether this whole thing is about
a man or a movement. If he runs, he'll probably win the primary but it is not a guarantee
that he'd win - Tulsi would win and she'd be around for decades to come as a standard barer
too.
"Sensible politics" seems to be an oxymoron these days and pretty much throughout the
history of our country. It's so refreshing to see a politician who has a vision for the
future that the majority of us can get behind. It scares me though. I've read quite a bit
about JFK the past few years, and he amassed a number of very powerful and dangerous enemies.
They won't just stand by and allow someone in a position of influence to get the truth out
about our immoral and illegal wars. Tulsi, I support your efforts to bring peace to the
Middle East and elsewhere, but please do be careful. You're a fighter and I admire that, but
we all want you to be safe and healthy for many years to come.
Tulsi Gabbard, I am thrilled to have someone like you running for president. I am a fellow
Veteran dealing with disability and I am glad to have a candidate who understands the issues
Veterans are dealing with. I also realize that the voting public will support the person who
resonates with their personal lives and issues that don't exist in their life they will
disregard.Thank you for you're support.
The DNC will lie cheat and steal the election from Tulsi Gabbard just like they did Bernie
Sanders, and the 15 million Americans who Left the un-Democratic party will double and
triple....DEMEXIT
Tulsi Gabbard needs to be the president of the United States of America period. If she not
the president of our country will not survive. That is a fact, how stupid can our government
be. I guess very stupid, what else can I say. We don't hear that in main news media, the
reason we do hear it the media . The news media is totally brought, the main news media love
money and the devil, simple as that. How are you going to hear about wars from main news
media. They do care about the citizens or the country. We really don't have a real news
media, it all propaganda. All fake news, that why one doesn't hear anything from the new
medias.
Congress needs to take back the war powers. The fact that no one wants to be the one
responsible for deciding to go to war might help slow down if not stop all these regime
change wars. Maybe if Congress votes on it enough of them will be reluctant to make a yes
vote.
WAKE UP, PEOPLE! Bernie is a sell-out - a sheeple-herder that never intended to win. He
was a gatekeeper for Hillary because she is AIPAC-beloved and he is an Israel-firster. He
threw his supporters under the bus as they told him in real time that the nomination was
being stolen. He's part of the con, and the sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be.
BERNIE WORKS FOR DEMOCRATS. Vote Third Party (REAL third parties, not the Bernie Sanders'
kind).
Kinky, 2 months ago
Tulsi - re your comment about our veterans who have "served and sacrificed for their country," could you clarify how
being a mercenary soldier/terrorist in other people's countries, murdering their people and destroying their infrastructure,
for military and multinational corporate profits and Wall St., translates to "serving and sacrificing for the people of our
country"? How do you make that weird leap in logic?
How they can claim that US tight oil will be produced in larger quantities if they predict stagnant oil prices and at those price
the US production is unprofitable.
So from now on it's all condensate, and very little heavy and medium oil.
I like BP propaganda: "The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted,
may prompt low-cost producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources
are produced." That's not only stupid but also gives up the intent...
Notable quotes:
"... In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels – crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids – increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s. ..."
"... All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies. Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. ..."
"... The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude ..."
In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels – crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids
– increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s.
All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies.
Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. The growth in demand is initially met from non-OPEC
producers, led by US tight oil. But as US tight oil production declines in the final decade of the Outlook, OPEC becomes the main
source of incremental supply. OPEC output increases by 4 Mb/d over the Outlook, with all of this growth concentrated in the 2030s.
Non-OPEC supply grows by 6 Mb/d, led by the US (5 Mb/d), Brazil (2 Mb/d) and Russia (1 Mb/d) offset by declines in higher-cost, mature
basins.
Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s
Demand for liquid fuels looks set to expand for a period before gradually plateauing as efficiency improvements in the transport
sector accelerate. In the ET scenario, consumption of liquid fuels increases by 10 Mb/d (from 98 Mb/d to 108 Mb/d), with the majority
of that growth happening over the next 10 years or so. The demand for liquid fuels continues to be dominated by the transport sector,
with its share of liquids consumption remaining around 55%. Transport demand for liquid fuels increases from 56 Mb/d to 61 Mb/d by
2040, with this expansion split between road (2 Mb/d) (divided broadly equally between cars, trucks, and 2/3 wheelers) and aviation/marine
(3 Mb/d). But the impetus from transport demand fades over the Outlook as the pace of vehicle efficiency improvements quicken and
alternative sources of energy penetrate the
transport system . In contrast, efficiency gains when using oil for non-combusted uses, especially as a feedstock in petrochemicals,
are more limited. As a result, the
non-combusted use of oil takes over as the largest source of demand growth over the Outlook, increasing by 7 Mb/d to 22 Mb/d
by 2040.
The outlook for oil demand is uncertain but looks set to play a major role in global energy out to 2040
Although the precise outlook is uncertain, the world looks set to consume significant amounts of oil (crude plus NGLs) for several
decades, requiring substantial investment. This year's Energy Outlook considers a range of scenarios for oil demand, with the timing
of the peak in demand varying from the next few years to beyond 2040. Despite these differences, the scenarios share two common features.
First, all the scenarios suggest that oil will continue to play a significant role in the global energy system in 2040, with the
level of oil demand in 2040 ranging from around 80 Mb/d to 130 Mb/d. In all scenarios, trillions of dollars of investment in oil
is needed Second, significant levels of investment are required for there to be sufficient supplies of oil to meet demand in
2040. If future investment was limited to developing existing fields and there was no investment in new production areas, global
production would decline at an average rate of around 4.5% p.a. (based on IEA's estimates), implying global oil supply would be only
around 35 Mb/d in 2040. Closing the gap between this supply profile and any of the demand scenarios in the Outlook would require
many trillions of dollars of investment over the next 20 years.
Growth in liquids supply is initially dominated by US tight oil, with OPEC production increasing only as US tight oil declines
Growth in global liquids production is dominated in the first part of the Outlook by US tight oil, with OPEC production gaining
in importance further out. In the ET scenario, total US liquids production accounts for the vast majority of the increase in global
supplies out to 2030, driven by US tight oil and NGLs. US tight oil increases by almost 6 Mb/d in the next 10 years, peaking at close
to 10.5 Mb/d in the late 2020s, before falling back to around 8.5 Mb/d by 2040. The strong growth in US tight oil reinforces the
US's position as the world's largest producer of liquid fuels. As US tight oil declines, this space is filled by OPEC production,
which more than accounts for the increase in liquid supplies in the final decade of the Outlook.
The increase in OPEC production is aided by OPEC members responding to the increasing abundance of global oil resources by reforming
their economies and reducing their dependency on oil, allowing them gradually to adopt a more competitive strategy of increasing
their market share. The speed and extent of this reform is a key uncertainty affecting the outlook for global oil markets (see pp
88-89).
The stalling in OPEC production during the first part of the Outlook causes OPEC's share of global liquids production to fall
to its lowest level since the late 1980s before recovering towards the end of the Outlook.
Low-cost producers: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and Russia
The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted, may prompt low-cost
producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources are produced.
The extent to which low-cost producers can sustainably adopt such a 'higher production, lower price' strategy depends on their
progress in reforming their economies, reducing their dependence on oil revenues.
In the ET scenario, low-cost producers are assumed to make some progress in the second half of the Outlook, but the structure
of their economies still acts as a material constraint on their ability to exploit fully their low-cost barrels.
The alternative 'Greater reform' scenario assumes a faster pace of economic reform, allowing low-cost producers to increase their
market share. The extent to which low-cost producers can increase their market share depends on: the time needed to increase production
capacity; and on the ability of higher-cost producers to compete, by either reducing production costs or varying fiscal terms.
The lower price environment associated with this more competitive market structure boosts demand, with the consumption of oil
growing throughout the Outlook.
Growth in liquid fuels supplies is driven by NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude oil production
The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in
crude.
US reserves are estimated by some to about 50 billion barrels. Oil production, along with
reserve estimates, are growing in the US for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale
oil. Reserve estimates before 2008 were based on conventional oil.
Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep decline. Shale oil production is
intrinsically connected with financing and it produce along with oil a stream of junk bonds. At
some point investors might do not want them of the bubble start deflating. Then what.
Notable quotes:
"... Next three years for Shale Drillers may be a problem. I believe something like $150B in debt comes due between now and 2023. That's a lot of debt to roll over, as well as take on more debt to fund CapEx. ..."
"Dennis, with his calculation of a peak in 2025 + or – 3 years is about right."
That really depends on how much debt the Shale Drillers can take on, and presumes there is
not another global recession before 2025. Next three years for Shale Drillers may be a
problem. I believe something like $150B in debt comes due between now and 2023. That's a lot
of debt to roll over, as well as take on more debt to fund CapEx.
Without constant US Shale
production increases, world production peaks.
US reserves are estimated by some to about 50 billion barrels. Oil production, along with
reserve estimates, are growing in the US for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale
oil. Reserve estimates before 2008 were based on conventional oil.
Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep decline. Shale oil production is
intistically connected with financing and it produce along with oil a stream of junk bonds. At
some point investors might do not want them of the bubble start deflating. Then what.
Hugo Wrote:
"Dennis, with his calculation of a peak in 2025 + or – 3 years is about right."
That really depends on how much debt the Shale Drillers can take on, and presumes there is
not another global recession before 2025. Next three years for Shale Drillers may be a
problem. I believe something like $150B in debt comes due between now and 2023. That's a lot
of debt to roll over, as well as take on more debt to fund CapEx. Without constant US Shale
production increases, world production peaks.
Oil climbed as Saudi Arabia was said to curtail some output from its Safaniyah offshore oil
field, the largest in the world.
Futures in New York rose as much as 2.2 percent Friday, pushing toward its biggest weekly
gain in a month. Saudi Arabia was said to trim supply from Safaniyah to repair a damaged power
cable, while Russia plans to accelerate the output cuts it agreed to with OPEC+.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabian Oil Co.'s Safaniyah field has the capacity to pump 1.2 million to 1.5 million
barrels of crude a day, and is a major component of the Arab Heavy grade. The cable was damaged
in an accident about two weeks ago and repairs are expected to be completed by early March,
people with knowledge of the matter said.
"... Global shortage of medium to heavy sour crude: Cuts from OPEC, Canada and potentially Venezuela have increased the price of medium and heavy crude oils. The Mars benchmark, a medium, sour crude produced in the Gulf of Mexico, has moved to above par with Light Louisiana Sweet. ..."
"... several medium to heavy sour crude grades produced in the Middle East are now trading at a premium to Brent. ..."
Global shortage of medium to heavy sour crude: Cuts from OPEC, Canada and potentially
Venezuela have increased the price of medium and heavy crude oils. The Mars benchmark, a
medium, sour crude produced in the Gulf of Mexico, has moved to above par with Light Louisiana
Sweet.
Western Canadian Select (WCS) prices in the Gulf Coast also rose above par with the West
Texas Intermediate (WTI) benchmark at the end of January. WCS trades at a US$10/bbl discount to
WTI in Alberta, but now sells at a US$1.50 premium in Houston.
A similar effect is being seen globally, as several medium to heavy sour crude grades
produced in the Middle East are now trading at a premium to Brent.
"... I have been suspicious for some time that production numbers can be corrupted by fuzzy definitions. ..."
"... You can see how the definitions are going to blur and they're going to allow declaring oil production numbers to be anything that they want them to be. ..."
I have been suspicious for some time that production numbers can be corrupted by fuzzy
definitions. Iran is being sanctioned, but Iran shares that enormous gas field under the
Persian Gulf with Qatar. Gas production yields condensate and it yields NGLs.
High vapor pressure NGLs get labeled liquefied petroleum gas, and that is used for
transportation fuel in India. Pentane Plus is used or called something akin to natural
gasoline.
You can see how the definitions are going to blur and they're going to allow declaring oil
production numbers to be anything that they want them to be. Iran is using this to dodge
sanctions, or they did use it when condensate was not restricted. Don't recall if that
loophole was closed in the current sanctions. That would be a good thing to know.
The same thing can happen with shale. We hear all sorts of talk about how much gas is
being flared and how much gas is being captured, and you know perfectly well there has to be
condensate involved. There was an article a year or so ago about NGL capture in the Bakken,
but I don't recall any follow-up. It shouldn't take too much of a stretch on the part of
state regulators to find a way to count the high vapor pressure portion of NGL as oil.
You can see how the definitions are going to blur and they're going to allow declaring
oil production numbers to be anything that they want them to be.
Exactly. And this, in turn, allows Wall Street to suppress the price of "prime oil"
using fake production numbers, fake storage glut (which is essentially condensate glut)
and similar tricks. Please note that the US refineries consume mainly "prime oil" while
the USA mainly produces (and tries to export at a discount) "subprime oil."
Pretty polished and sophisticated racket. It might well be that shale oil companies are
partially financed from those Wall Street profits as nobody in serious mind expect those
loans to be ever repaid.
So OPEC cuts are the only weapon that OPEC countries have against this racket.
In any case, I think all those nice charts now need to be split into "prime oil" and
subprime oil parts and analyzed separately. In the current conditions, treating "heavy
oil" and condensate as a single commodity looks to me like pseudoscience.
I do not follow Laredo Petroleum closely, however their recent year-end results and
operations summary contained disclosures that may affect north American shale production more
broadly, or perhaps they are company specific, I don't know.
Laredo is a nice sized E&P producing around 70,000 boepd in the permian, mostly in
Glasscock and Regan counties. Much of their production is horizontal Wolfcamp.
Laredo has been disappointed with its oil production recently, as well as an increasing
GOR.
"Laredo has taken action to address the reduced oil productivity experienced in 2018 that
we believe was impacted by the tighter spacing of some wells drilled in 2017 and 2018.
Responding to these results, the Company began widening spacing on wells spud in the first
quarter of 2019. Laredo expects this shift in development strategy to drive higher returns
and increased capital efficiency versus 2018 as widening spacing is anticipated to address
one of the causes of higher oil decline rates."
They have changed their developmental strategy to widen spacing to improve recovery and
mitigate the increasing GOR. They have also reduced their capex by around 35 % from $575
million in 2018 to a planned $365 million in 2019.
"Responding to the current commodity price environment of WTI strip pricing of
approximately $54 per barrel, Laredo expects to invest approximately $365 million in 2019,
excluding non-budgeted acquisitions. This budget includes approximately $300 million for
drilling and completion activities and approximately $65 million for
production facilities, land and other capitalized costs. Laredo anticipates adjusting capital
spending levels to match operating cash flow if operating cash flow does not meet budgeted
expectations. Should operating cash flow exceed budget expectations, free cash flow could be
used to complete additional wells, repurchase stock or pay
down debt.
By the third quarter of 2019, enabled by the Company's operational flexibility, Laredo
anticipates reducing activity from the current three horizontal rigs and two completion crews
to operating one horizontal rig and utilizing a single completion crew, as needed. The
front-loaded completion schedule and disciplined reduction in activity should drive free cash
flow generation in the second half of 2019 that is expected to balance capital expenditures
with cash flow from operations for full-year 2019."
Of course this is just one producers take on productivity concerns. Link below.
Interesting. They are more a gas company than an oil company with only 23000 of the 70000
BOEs being oil. Interestingly, they are forecasting oil production to decline 5% year over
year while BOEs rises high single digits, showing how gas to oil keeps rising.
As such a tiny oil producer (23000 barrels) its pretty meaningless in the grand scheme,
but very interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.
"... The unplanned shutdown takes out another 1 million barrels a day of heavy oil from the market, Alex Schindelar, executive editor of content & strategy at Energy Intelligence Group tweeted Thursday, adding that the heavy crude oil market was already tight because of the OPEC output cuts and U.S. sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela. ..."
Saudi Aramco halts oil output at the world's largest offshore oilfield: report
Saudi Aramco halted oil output this week at Safaniyah, the world's largest offshore
oilfield, Energy Intelligence reported Thursday, citing sources familiar with the matter,
according to a tweet from Amena Bakr, senior correspondent at the news and research service
provider. Further information was only available through subscription-based Energy
Intelligence.
The potential impact on oil prices depends on how long output at the oilfield is down,
said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Price Futures Group.
"The thinking is that the field produces heavy crude, and the world is short of that [type
of] oil."
The unplanned shutdown takes out another 1 million barrels a day of heavy oil from the
market, Alex Schindelar, executive editor of content & strategy at Energy Intelligence
Group tweeted Thursday, adding that the heavy crude oil market was already tight because of
the OPEC output cuts and U.S. sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela.
In electronic trading, March WTI oil CLH9, +1.06% was at $54.51 a barrel, after settling
at $54.41 on the New York mercantile Exchange.
Okay, you will have to read the article to see how Robert arrived at his conclusion. But
his conclusion is:
So, I have no good reason to doubt Saudi Arabia's official numbers. They probably do
have 270 billion barrels of proved oil reserves.
I find his logic horribly flawed. Robert compares Saudi's growing reserve estimates with
those of the USA.
First, the US Securities and Exchange Commission have the strictest oil reporting laws in
the world, or did have in 1982. Also, better technology has greatly improved reserve
estimates. And third, the advent of shale oil has dramatically added to US reserve
estimates.
Saudi has no laws that govern their reserve reporting estimates.
From Wikipedia, US Oil Reserves: Proven oil reserves in the United States were 36.4
billion barrels (5.79×109 m3) of crude oil as of the end of 2014, excluding the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The 2014 reserves represent the largest US proven reserves since
1972, and a 90% increase in proved reserves since 2008.
Robert says US reserves are 50 billion barrels. I don't know where he gets that number but
it really doesn't matter. Oil production, along with reserve estimates, are growing in the US
for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale oil. Reserve estimates before 2008
were based on conventional oil. Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep
decline.
Robert Rapier is brillant oil man, but a brilliant downstream oil man. Refineries are his
forte. He should know better than the shit he produced in that article.
100 percent of Saudi Arabia's reserves are based on conventional oil. Their true reserves
are very likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 billion barrels.
As Ron Patterson explained several times here, OPEC members cheat. They cut from the
elevated, unsustainable level, achieved specifically to accommodate cuts.
So "after cut" level is often not that different from a reasonable "normal," sustainable
production level in their current production conditions, plus some, related to previously
delayed maintenance, shutdowns.
Four years of capital underinvestment bite production both in OPEC and non-OPEC. So
talking about excess capacity is somewhat problematic and we now need to distinguish between
"prime oil" and "subprime oil."
Most people who talk about "excess capacity" are interested in lower oil price (the list
includes US and EU governments ) That's why condensate and other "subprime oil" is counted in
total oil output. Supply of "prime oil" now is stressed.
In other words, everything connected with oil is now politically charged. That means that
it is not wise to take IEA data and their forecasts at face value. It should be viewed as an
opinion of the agencies deeply (institutionally) interested in the low oil price.
You need the ability to read between the lines, much like readers of the press in the
USSR. And as several experts here do. You need the acute ability to cut through "official
bullsh*t".
And neutral expert opinion is very difficult to come by. That's why this blog has so much
value.
Heads up. Some scroll upwards there is a quoted article from oilprice.com.
The writer is Nawar Alsaadi. I suspect we fell victim of presumption. He has an Arabic
sounding name, and that leads us to suspect he knows something about oil.
Look into this guy. There's nothing ugly or horrible about his background, but there is
nothing in it that shouts out expert. He is a writer. Including publishing fiction.
He's also "with" some investment firm. Turns out he's president and CEO of the firm and
conveniently an employee count is not easily found.
I'm curious – does anybody know, by the data trends, which OPEC country is likely to
run so low on oil that they become a net importer, next? I do understand this event may take
some time to occur.
If you take a look at PXD announcements, I reach the conclusion that Permian is slowing. Like
Dennis Coyne, I look at growth after fourth quarter 2018. Oil production in fourth quarter is
199.2 Kilo barrels/day. The guidance for 2019 is between 203 to 213 Kilo barrels/day. PXD is
spending 300 MM dollars for gas processing and water treatment infrastructure.
OPEC says they have 1214.21 billion barrels of proven reserves. And they say non-OPEC has
268.56 billion barrels of proven reserves. Average OPEC C+C production, over the last four
years, has been 12.78 billion barrels per year according to the EIA. The EIA says the average
non-OPEC C+C production over the last four years has been 16.8 billion barrels per year.
Okay, here is the killer. If those numbers are correct then the average non-OPEC nation
has an R/P ratio of 16 while the average OPEC nation has an R/P ratio of 95. If you think
those R/P ratio numbers are even remotely correct then I have a bridge I would like to sell
you.
I agree that the R/P numbers seem very suspicious. But if this is true then OPEC reserves
are closer to 400-500 billion barrels not 1.2 trillion barrels. That would give us another
trillion barrels at best to consume in the future in addition to the 1.3 trillion already
consumed. This brings the URR to 2.2-2.5 trillion barrels at best including extra heavy. What
do you think of the URR of 3.1 trillion barrels that is commonly assumed? Also canadian tar
sands and venezuelan heavy oil have very low EROI which brings down the extractable oil
reserves further. Do you think that is taken into account?
For motor vehicle type uses the efficiency is just terrible compared to electric and I doubt much improvement is likely
there
I am not so sure. It looks like hybrid cars are very competitive with the EV. The efficiency of Tesla and similar EV is grossly
overrated. You have losses in the transmission line, losses in the charger, losses in the battery. Plus if the mechanical transmission
is used, you have losses in transmission during driving (substantial).
The ~56kwh Roadster battery takes ~70kwh to charge. (approx) So ~20% of the electricity you pay for is lost to heat. How much
is the charger and cabling, and how much the batteries, I have no idea.
Here is a very simple calculation. Tesla with the air conditioner on auto 73F and external temperature 60F (minimal use of
the air conditioner) consumes around 300 watts/mile. Double this for temperatures below freezing point or temperatures above 90F.
The cost per mile at 15 cents per Kwh and 20% loss is 5.4 cent.
Hybrid SUV like RAV4 hybrid (which is a much better and safer car, especially in winter) with an average of 35 miles per gallon
and the price of gas at $2.5 per gallon has cost 7.1 cents per mile.
That means that Tesla provides just 24% economy, which is completely eaten by the higher cost of Tesla (say, $44K vs. $29K
).
Assuming mileage 200K at the end of the life of each car, this $15K difference adds 7.5 cents per mile.
Which means that at those price levels Tesla is competitive only if electricity is free.
I'm not really sure of the significance of that. Using fossil fuel products as combustible fuel limits the efficiency at which
one can obtain useful work from the fuel. That efficiency number is really only useful when comparing one source to another and
the ffs pretty much will operate in the 40%=/- range for most stationary applications. For motor vehicle type uses the efficiency
is just terrible compared to electric and I doubt much improvement is likely there. That rejected energy is just a fixture of
the way energy is extracted through combustion so I doubt it has any meaning except for how much you are overheating a river near
a coal or NG power plant.
For motor vehicle type uses the efficiency is just terrible compared to electric and I doubt much improvement is likely
there
I am not so sure. It looks like hybrid cars are very competitive with the EV.
The efficiency of Tesla and similar EV is grossly overrated. You have losses in the transmission line, losses in the charger,
losses in the battery. Plus if the mechanical transmission is used (for example 10:1 fixed gearbox like in Tesla), you have losses
in transmission and motor during driving (say 10%). So total efficiency of electricity usage would be around 70%, which is high,
by not that high. Atkinson-cycle ICE engines used in hybrids have ~40% efficiency.
The ~56kwh Roadster battery takes ~70kwh to charge. (approx) So ~20% of the electricity you pay for is lost to heat. How much
is the charger and cabling, and how much the batteries, I have no idea.
Here is a very simple calculation. Tesla with the air conditioner on auto 73F and external temperature 60F (minimal use of
the air conditioner) consumes around 300 watts/mile. Double this for temperatures below freezing point or temperatures above 90F.
The cost per mile at 15 cents per Kwh and 20% loss is 5.4 cent.
Hybrid SUV like RAV4 hybrid (which is a much better and safer car, especially in winter) with an average of 35 miles per gallon
and the price of gas at $2.5 per gallon has cost 7.1 cents per mile.
That means that Tesla provides just 24% economy, which is completely eaten by the higher cost of Tesla (say $44K vs. $29K ).
Assuming mileage 200K at the end of the life of each car, this $15K difference adds 7.5 cents per mile.
Which means that at those price levels Tesla is competitive only if electricity is free.
Your calculations are probably correct, but there are other considerations. For instance, UK oil production peaked in 1999
at around 3 million barrels per day, it has now fallen to 1 million. At $50 oil, it costs us $25 million per day to import the
oil we consume over our production. Our wealth is draining away in a trade deficit that has increased with declining oil and gas
production.
The Tesla Model 3 is perfectly safe in winter, and is a far nicer car than a RAV4 hybrid. The appropriate comparison would
be to Volvo XC60: https://www.edmunds.com/volvo/xc60/2018/hybrid/
What about road clearances? What about the ability to lock differential when driving on steep ice-covered incline ?
There are also "known unknown" related to lithium battery use (Panasonic cells) at low and very low temperatures. As no Tesla
3 is 8 years old yet, it difficult to say whether the battery can last till the end of the warranty period in continental climate
weather conditions (very cold in winter, very hot in summer).
Looks like if you cool a lithium battery below zero F and try to drive before it warmed to 70F the longevity of battery decreases.
Higher temperatures also have negative effect (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4526891/
)
As the operating temperature of LiB changes from 25 to 55 °C, the degradation rate of maximum charge storage after 260 cycles
is found to increase from 4.22% to 13.24%. At the component level, for the same change in the operating temperature, the degradation
rate of the Warburg element resistance after 260 cycles increases from 49.40% and 584.07% (Fig. 10) which is the highest change;
and that for the cell impedance ranks second, increasing from 33.64% to 93.29% (Fig. 8). As for the charge transfer rate, the
change in its degradation rate decreases from 68.64% to 56.19% (Fig. 7).
Simply turning on the electric vehicles AAA studied in 20 degree weather revealed a 12 percent loss in range. On a vehicle
like the Chevy Bolt, with an EPA rating of 238 miles per charge, that would drop range to 209 miles.
Brannon said using climate control revealed an even bigger surprise: Range dipped by an average 41 percent -- which would
bring an EV like the Bolt down to just 140 miles per charge.
For the Chevrolet Volt, engineers combat cold-weather energy draining by engaging ERDTT – Engine Running Due To Temperature.
This runs the Volt's supplementary gasoline engine to ensure enough power is available to run the defroster. But the all-electric
Tesla doesn't have this option.
At low temperatures lithium battery can't be charged so if in normal conditions Tesla recaptures energy for the battery during
regenerative braking (regen) this is not the case anymore. That further decreases range.
Even with other sources stating that cold weather lowers the Model S range by only a quarter, Rob said drivers should anticipate
on using an average of 40-percent more power. When the roads are icy or wet, increase this by another 25-percent.
"Expect to lose about 10 miles of real range for every 10 degree drop," said Rob. "Plan your charging and driving accordingly
– don't cut it close."
If you run out of energy at -5F, the car needs to be tolled.
If you try to keep battery warm your battery will be drained during parking, unless you are connected to the charger.
At low temperatures (especially with front wind) and during initial warm up of the cabin the heater consumes around 5KWH further
draining the battery.
At 90F loss of range is less then in winter -- about 20%, but at 100F it is similar and the effect of battery longevity are
also similar and negative.
So in areas with continental climate EVs make much less sense then say in California.
As I have suggested, works fine in winter. As long as one doesn't ride in the car naked during the winter, losses from using
the heater are not that great. So far the lowest temperatures the car has seen parked overnight outside have been about minus
15 F for a low with an average of about minus 10 F, battery lost about 250 Wh each hour on average. Battery capacity is about
78,000 Wh. Average temperature where I live is about 19 F in Jan. In Jan I drove about 1500 miles and averaged about 300 Wh per
mile vs 245 Wh/mile in October (1600 miles). That is my experience in average winter weather where temperature averaged 19 F in
Jan 2019. Range decreased by about 22%. My experience is that range also decreases in a hybrid during winter( I have been driving
Toyota hybrids since 2004).
Have driven plenty in snow and ice with the Model 3 this winter, take it to a ski area almost every weekend, the more snow
the better ;-)
Judging from people experiences there are some undeniable problem with driving Tesla 3 in winter.
The construction of door handles in Tesla3 is a problematic for winter. Frameless windows also represent a problem.
Some pretty educational videos:
1. People are running of energy with Tesla 3 parked at airport for a week or so at cold weather. You need to leave at least
15 km per day in battery in cold weather, or you are in trouble. 30 if weather is very cold. Looks like Tesla 3 tries to heat
battery all the time to avoid damage from low temperatures.
2. To drive Tesla 3 in cold weather you need to "preheat" the car until battery reaches "working temperature" range:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2gmphV8IZQ
3. ~52 miles commute to work in cold weather is all that can be made safely. In video below only 43 miles left at the end (the
car was not connected to the charger during the working day):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvybhb8P894
4. A very short round trip with a preheated car, which was parked outside) reveals problems some problems with handling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2Qjt0obVfI
Ample supply of heat from ICE engine helps steering. Tesla does not have it and it looks like it became very stiff.
It is actually amazing that lithium batteries (which are electrolyte based) work that well at such low temperatures. So in
way Tesla experiment opens new frontier for lithium batteries.
This fallacious narrative of the U.S. tight oil industry overcoming the oil price crash of
2014 through innovation and better efficiency is the product of bundling various tight oil
basins under one umbrella and the presentation of the resulting production data as a proof U.S.
shale resiliency.
To properly understand the impact of the oil price crash of 2014 on U.S. tight oil
production one must focus on shale basins with sufficient operating history prior to the oil
price crash and examine their performance post the crash.
To that end, the Bakken and the Eagle Ford are the perfect specimen.
The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are the two oldest tight oil basins in the United States, with
the former developed as early as 2007 and the latter in 2010.
Examining the production performance of these two basins in the 4 years preceding the oil
crash and contrasting it to the 4 years subsequent to it, offers important insight as to the
resiliency of U.S. tight oil production in a low oil price environment.
... ... ...
Both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford grew at a phenomenal rate between 2010 and
2014. The Eagle Ford grew from practically nothing in 2010 to 1.3M barrels by 2014, while the
Bakken grew five fold from 190K barrels to 1.08M barrels. Following the collapse in oil prices
in late 2014, the Bakken and Eagle Ford growth continued for another year, albeit at a slower
pace, as the pre-crash momentum carried production to new highs. However, by 2016, both the
Bakken and the Eagle Ford went into a decline and have hardly recovered since. It took the
Bakken three years to match its 2015 production level, meanwhile the Eagle Ford production
remains 22% below its 2015 peak. During the pre-crash years these two fields grew by a combined
yearly average of 600K to 700K barrels from 2012 to 2014. Post the oil price collapse, this
torrid growth turned into a sizable decline by 2016 before stabilizing in 2017.
Growth in both fields only resumed in 2018 at a combined yearly rate of 210K barrels, a 70%
reduction from the combined fields pre-crash growth rate.
The dismal performance of these two fields over the last few years paints a different
picture as to U.S. tight oil resiliency in a low oil price environment. The sizable declines,
and muted production growth in both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford since 2014 discredit the leap
in technology and the efficiency gains narrative that has been espoused as the underlying
reason beyond the strong growth in U.S. oil production. As we expand our look into other tight
oil basins, it becomes apparent that it was neither technology or efficiency that saved the
U.S. tight oil industry, although these factors may have played a supporting role. In simple
terms, the key reason as to the strength of U.S. production since the 2014 oil crash is better
rock, or rather, the commercial exploitation of a higher quality shale resource, namely the
Permian oil field.
... ... ...
The Permian oil field, unlike the Bakken and the Eagle Ford, was a relative latecomer to the
U.S. tight oil story. It was only in 2013, only a year before the oil crash, that the industry
commenced full scale development of that giant field's shale resources. Prior to 2013, the
Permian lagged both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford in total tight oil production and growth. As
can be seen from the preceding graph, the oil crash had only a minor dampening effect on the
Permian oil production growth. By 2017, Permian tight oil growth resumed at a healthy clip, and
by 2018, Permian tight oil production growth shattered a new record with production
skyrocketing by 860K barrels in a single year to 2.76M barrels. This timely unlocking and
exploitation of the Permian oil basin masked to a large degree the devastation endured by the
Bakken and the Eagle Ford post 2014. In essence, the U.S. tight oil story has two phases
masquerading as one: the pre-2014 period marked by the birth and rise of the Bakken and Eagle
Ford, and the post-2014 period, marked by the rise of the Permian.
To speak of the U.S. tight oil industry as one is to mistake a long-distance relay race
for the accomplishment of a single runner.
The performance divergence between the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and the Permian has major
implications as to the likelihood of U.S. tight oil production suppressing oil price over the
medium and long term. A close examination of U.S. tight oil production data leads to a single
indisputable conclusion: without the advent of the Permian, the U.S. tight oil industry would
have lost the OPEC lead price war. Hence, it's a misnomer to treat the U.S. tight oil industry
as a monolith, in many ways, the Bakken and the Eagle Ford tight oil fields are as much a
victim of the Permian success as the OPEC nations themselves.
... ... ...
Considering that the majority of U.S. tight oil production growth is
generated by a single field, the Permian, changes in the growth outlook of this basin have
major implications as to the evolution of global oil prices over the short, medium and long
term. Its important to keep in mind that the Permian oil field, despite its large scope, is
bound to flatten, peak and decline at some point. While forecasters differ as to the exact year
when the Permian oil production will flatten, the majority agree that a slowdown in Permian oil
production growth will take place in the early 2020s.
According to OPEC (2018 World Oil Outlook), the Permian basin oil production curve is likely
to flatten by 2020, with growth slowing down from 860K barrels in 2018 to a mere 230K barrels
by 2020:
...OPEC+ production
cuts could erase the supply surplus in the near future. Saudi Arabia has promised to cut
more than required, lowering output in January by 350,000 bpd while also promising another
500,000 bpd cut by March.
"[C]ore-OPEC producers are adopting a 'shock and awe' strategy and exceeding their cut
commitment," Goldman Sachs said in a note, predicting that Brent oil prices will average $67.50
per barrel in the second quarter.
To accommodate steadily rising barrels of light oil, OPEC and its non-OPEC partners have
backed out their own supplies in order to prevent a crash in prices. But many OPEC members
produce medium and heavier blends.
The quantity of global supply may not be vastly different, but the quality of the crude
slate has changed dramatically. Refiners cannot easily swap out one type for another. The
upshot is that the world is seeing a glut of light oil at a time when supply of medium and
heavier barrels are relatively tight.
... ... ...
U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Iran are magnifying this trend, knocking even more
medium and heavier barrels off of the market.
... ... ...
The IEA said that these quality differences could cause some problems this year. "In
quantity terms, in 2019 the US alone will grow its crude oil production by more than
Venezuela's current output," the agency wrote in its Oil Market Report published Wednesday. "In
quality terms, it is more complicated. Quality matters."
IEA is one-half EU marketing agency with the explisit goal to keep oil price low, and one
half a research organization. In different reports one role can be prevalent.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that margins for U.S. Gulf Coast
refiners have declined to the lowest levels since late 2014, based on recent price trends in
certain grades of crude oil and petroleum products. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/
Comment on Yahoo are absolutly idiotic. I have dount only a couple more or less reasonable
comment in the first 48. This level of incompetence and brainwashing is simply amazing.
The "call" on OPEC crude is now forecast at 30.7 million bpd in 2019, down from the IEA's
last estimate of 31.6 million bpd in January.
U.S. sanctions on Iran and Venezuela have choked off supply of the heavier, more sour crude
that tends to yield larger volumes of higher-value distillates, as opposed to gasoline. The
move has created disruption for some refiners, but has not led to a dramatic increase in the
oil price in 2019.
"In terms of crude oil quantity, markets may be able to adjust after initial logistical
dislocations (from Venezuela sanctions)", the Paris-based IEA said.
"Stocks in most markets are currently ample and ... there is more spare production capacity
available."
Venezuela's production has almost halved in two years to 1.17 million bpd, as an economic
crisis decimated its energy industry and U.S. sanctions have now crippled its exports.
Brent crude futures have risen 20 percent in 2019 to around $63 a barrel, but most of that
increase took place in early January. The price has largely plateaued since then, in spite of
the subsequent imposition of U.S. sanctions.
"Oil prices have not increased alarmingly because the market is still working off the
surpluses built up in the second half of 2018," the IEA said.
"In quantity terms, in 2019, the U.S. alone will grow its crude oil production by more than
Venezuela's current output. In quality terms, it is more complicated. Quality
matters."
dlider909, 7 hours ago Story will change in 30 days.
Robert, 7 hours ago ... ... ...
What this report fails to do is to pay the appropriate homage to American oilfield
roughnecks...
ralf
7 hours ago Nonsense. I see military action against Venezuela soon, just because of
our thirst for oil.
Talk about shale is like talk about Moon conquests, not supported by hard facts.
Saudi Arabia planning to drop March crude output by more than a half a million barrels per
day below its initial pledge.
... ... ...
OPEC said on Tuesday it had reduced oil production almost 800,000 bpd in January to 30.81
million bpd under its voluntary global supply pact.
Saudi Arabia Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih told the Financial Times that the kingdom would
reduce cut production to about 9.8 million bpd in March to bolster oil prices.
"... they expect maybe 200 kb/d higher output in the GOM and my interpretation of George Kaplan's and SouthLaGeo's recent comments is that flat or possibly declining GOM output is a more likely scenario. ..."
The EIA's STEO released today. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
They forecast US C+C production to increase +0.79 million barrels per day during 2019
From Dec 2018 11.93 million barrels per day
To Dec 2019 12.72 million barrels per day
The EIA's forecast might not be too far off, but I think they expect maybe 200 kb/d
higher output in the GOM and my interpretation of George Kaplan's and SouthLaGeo's recent
comments is that flat or possibly declining GOM output is a more likely scenario.
Venezuela production should take a larger drop in February. Today Interim President
Guaidó announced Feb 23 would be the day a big push would be made to push humanitarian
aid columns into Venezuela. Collection points for food and medicine are now available in
Colombia and Brazil, and others are being prepared.
Maduro moved 700 special forces (FAES) which are usually kept serving as death squads in
large cities, to cover the bridges between Ureña in Venezuela and Cucuta in Colombia,
with orders to fire on the humanitarian relief trucks. Guaidó responded the border was
plenty long and Maduro lacked enough FAES and Cubans to stop the relief from crossing the
border. He also pointed out that if Maduro had to use death squads to patrol the border it
meant he didn't trust the Army, the National Guard or the National Police, so he asked for
volunteers inside Venezuela to help overcome Maduro's thugs with sheer numbers.
Today it became very common to see an individual scream "Maduro!" and the crowd respond "f
k you!". It's the way people pass the time at metro stations and while waiting in line. And
the police seem to have abandoned the usurper, because they seldom do anything about it.
Middle East oil benchmarks Dubai and DME Oman have nudged above prices for Brent crude, an
unusual move as U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and Iran along with output cuts by OPEC tighten
supply of medium to heavy oil, traders and analysts said.
Heavier grades, mainly produced in the Middle East, Canada and Latin America, typically have
a high sulphur content and are usually cheaper than Brent, the benchmark for lighter oil in the
Atlantic Basin.
"... However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute. ..."
Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. died at the age of 76 on Sunday after an extended illness for which was a granted a leave of absence from
Congress last year.
The Republican representative for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district since 1995 had initially been a strong supporter
of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and even became well-known for getting french fries renamed as "freedom fries" in the House cafeteria
as a protest against French condemnation of the US invasion.
... ... ...
However, he was one of the few politicians initially supporting the Iraq invasion to later express profound public regret
over his decision , and went on to become a consistent advocate for ending regime change wars and Washington's military adventurism
abroad. As part of these efforts, he was an original Board Member of the Ron Paul Institute.
Remembering Jones as a tireless advocate of peace, Ron Paul
notes that he " turned
from pro-war to an antiwar firebrand after he discovered how Administrations lie us into war . His passing yesterday is deeply mourned
by all who value peace and honesty over war and deception." The Ron Paul Institute has also called him "a Hero of Peace" for both
his voting record and efforts at shutting down the "endless wars".
And Antiwar.com also describes Jones as having been among the "most consistently antiwar members of Congress" and
a huge supporter
of their work:
By 2005, Jones had reversed his position on the Iraq War. Jones called on President George W. Bush to apologize for misinforming
Congress to win authorization for the war. Jones said, "If I had known then what I know today, I wouldn't have voted for
that resolution."
Jones went on to become one of the most antiwar members of Congress, fighting for ending US involvement in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, and Yemen.
Also the BBC describes Rep. Jones' "dramatic change of heart" concerning the Iraq war starting in 2005, after which he began reaching
out to thousands of people who had lost loves ones in combat.
Rep. Walter Jones led an effort in the House to call French Fries "Freedom Fries" instead, but came to profoundly regret his role
in supporting Bush's war.
Noting that "no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq" and that the war was justified by the Bush administration based
entirely on lies and false intelligence, the BBC describes:
At the same time, Mr Jones met grieving families whose loved ones were killed in the war. This caused him to have a dramatic
change of heart, and in 2005 he called for the troops to be brought home.
He spoke candidly on several occasions about how deeply he regretted supporting the war, which led to the deaths of more than
140,000 Iraqi and American people.
"I have signed over 12,000 letters to families and extended families who've lost loved ones in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars,"
he told NPR in 2017. "That was, for me, asking God to forgive me for my mistake."
In total he represented his district for 34 years, first in the North Carolina state legislature, then in Congress. He took a
leave of absence last year after a number of missed House votes due to declining health.
"... By Justin Mikulka, a freelance writer, audio and video producer living in Trumansburg, NY. Originally published at DeSmog Blog ..."
"... Hints that gas investors are no longer happy with growth-at-any-cost abound. For starters, several major natural gas producers have announced spending cuts for 2019. After announcing layoffs this January, EQT, the largest natural gas producer in the U.S., also promised to decrease spending by 20 percent in 2019. ..."
"... As DeSmog has reported, the historically low interest rates following the 2008 housing crisis were a major enabler of the free-spending and money-losing attitudes in the shale industry. Wall Street has funded a decade of oil and gas production via fracking and incentivized production over profits. Those incentives have worked, with record production and large losses. ..."
"... However, much like giving mortgages to people without jobs wasn't a sustainable business model, loaning money to shale companies that spend it all without making a profit is not sustainable. Wall Street investors are now worried about getting paid back, and interest rates are rising for shale companies to the point that borrowing more money is too financially risky for them. And because they aren't earning more money than they spend, these companies need to cut spending. ..."
"... The days of unlimited low-interest loans for an industry on a decade-long losing streak might be coming to an end. As Bloomberg credit analyst Spencer Cutter explained to CNN : "Investors woke up and realized this was built on debt." ..."
"... One reason natural gas is so cheap right now is that fracking for oil in the U.S. ends up producing huge amounts of gas at the same time. This gas that comes out of the wells with the oil is known as "associated gas." And it is so plentiful that in places like the Permian Basin in Texas, the price of natural gas has actually gone negative . Paying someone to take the product that a company spent money to produce is not a sustainable business model. ..."
"... While U.S. politicians from both parties have given standing ovations for the U.S. oil and gas industry , investors appear to be losing their enthusiasm. The so-called shale revolution, the fracking miracle, may have resulted in record oil and gas production in North America, but the real miracle -- in which shale companies make money fracking that oil and gas -- has yet to occur. ..."
"... This has long been one of my concerns in the field. I've long held that the federal government should simply outlaw the practice, forcing drillers to find something to do with the gas (bury it, ship it or use it to create electricity). At the very least, it should be prohibited on federal lands as part of the contracts that are signed. ..."
By Justin Mikulka, a freelance writer, audio and video producer living in Trumansburg,
NY. Originally published at
DeSmog Blog
The fracked gas industry's long borrowing binge may finally be hitting a hard reality:
paying back investors.
Enabled by
rising debt , shale companies have been achieving record fracked oil and gas production,
while promising investors a big future payoff. But over a decade into the "
fracking miracle ," investors are showing signs they're worried that payoff will never come
-- and as a result, loans are drying up.
Growth is apparently no longer the answer for the U.S. natural gas industry, as Matthew
Portillo, director of exploration and production research at the investment bank Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Co., recently told The Wall Street
Journal .
"Growth is a disease that has plagued the space," Portillo said. "And it needs to be cured
before the [natural gas] sector can garner long-term investor interest."
Hints that gas investors are no longer happy with growth-at-any-cost abound. For starters,
several major natural gas producers have
announced spending cuts for 2019. After
announcing layoffs this January, EQT, the largest natural
gas producer in the U.S., also promised to decrease spending by 20 percent in
2019.
Such pledges of newfound fiscal restraint are most likely the result of natural gas
producers' inability to borrow more money at low rates.
As
DeSmog has reported, the historically low interest rates following the 2008 housing crisis
were a major enabler of the free-spending and money-losing attitudes in the shale industry.
Wall Street has funded a decade of oil and gas production via fracking and incentivized
production over profits. Those incentives have worked, with record production and large
losses.
However, much like giving mortgages to people without jobs wasn't a sustainable business
model, loaning money to shale companies that spend it all without making a profit is not
sustainable. Wall Street investors are now worried about getting paid back, and interest rates
are rising for shale companies to the point that borrowing more money is too financially risky
for them. And because they aren't earning more money than they spend, these companies need to
cut spending.
CNN
Business recently reported that oil and gas companies stopped borrowing money in October
2018, but not out of restraint. Instead, CNN wrote, "investors, fearful of defaults, demanded a
hefty premium to lend to energy companies."
The days of unlimited low-interest loans for an industry on a decade-long losing streak
might be coming to an end. As Bloomberg credit analyst Spencer Cutter explained
to CNN : "Investors woke up and realized this was built on debt."
Canada's Natural Gas Market Facing 'A Daunting Crisis'
Prospects for natural gas don't look much better north of the U.S. border. Like the Canadian tar
sands oil market , the Canadian natural gas market is also in the midst of a long losing
streak. The problems facing the natural gas market in Alberta, Canada, is "far worse than it is
for oil," said Samir Kayande, director at RS Energy, according
to Oilprice.com .
Canadian natural gas producers are being crushed by the free-spending American companies
that could produce records amounts of gas at a loss while using borrowed money.
One reason natural gas is so cheap right now is that fracking for oil in the U.S. ends up
producing huge amounts of gas at the same time. This gas that comes out of the wells with the
oil is known as "associated gas." And it is so plentiful that in places like the Permian Basin
in Texas, the price of natural gas has actually
gone negative . Paying someone to take the product that a company spent money to produce is not a
sustainable business model.
Additionally, the U.S. oil and gas industry chooses to flare large
amounts of natural gas in oil fields because it's cheaper than building the necessary
infrastructure to capture it -- literally burning its own product instead of selling it. And the Canadian producers, who used to sell gas to the U.S. market, simply can't
compete.
A natural gas advisory panel to Alberta's energy minister addressed the crisis for Canadian
natural gas producers in the December 2018 report "
Roadmap to Recovery: Reviving Alberta's Natural Gas Industry ." The report's opening line
summarizes the problem:
" Traditional markets for Alberta natural gas are oversupplied. Prices, and therefore
industry and government revenues, are crushingly low and have been increasingly volatile
locally since the summer of 2017."
Noting the dire situation, one natural gas executive
predicted that "this will only get worse in 2019." Too much supply, not enough demand. To remedy this problem, the report recommended expanding supply, decreasing regulation, and
bailing out companies with financial backing from the government, with the ultimate goal of
producing more gas and exporting it to Asia.
With Alberta's reliance
on oil and gas to support its economy, it is easy to see why its politicians are loathe to
recognize the economic realities of the natural gas (and tar sands oil) industries. However, some politicians feel the same way about the American coal industry, and that
is dying
primarily because renewables and natural gas are cheaper ways to produce electricity.
Desperate Times for Leading Gas Producer
Chesapeake Energy is often held up as a case study
for the fracking boom. It was a huge early financial success story (based on its stock
price, not actual profits), and in 2008, its then- CEO Aubrey McClendon, known as the "Shale
King," was the highest paid
Fortune 500 CEO in America. Since those high times, it has been a rough decade for Chesapeake. The stock price is near
all-time lows -- where it has remained for years.
Chesapeake has stayed afloat by borrowing cash and currently owes around $10 billion in
debt. Unable to make money fracking gas in America since the days of the Shale King, Chesapeake
has a new strategy -- fracking for oil.
The Wall Street Journal
recently reported this shift in Chesapeake's strategy, referring to it as "ill-timed" and
"straining already frayed finances."
But Chesapeake is all-in on this new strategy. According to The Wall Street Journal,
Chesapeake CEO Doug Lawler said the company "plans to dedicate at least 80 percent of 2019
capital expenditures to oil production because it sees crude as the key to a more profitable
future."
One of the top gas producers in America and a "fracking pioneer" is abandoning fracked gas
as a path to a profitable future. The fact that Chesapeake now believes fracking for oil is a
path to a profitable future -- despite all the evidence
to the contrary -- gives this move an air of desperation.
While U.S. politicians from both parties have given standing ovations for the
U.S. oil and gas industry , investors appear to be losing their enthusiasm. The so-called
shale revolution, the fracking miracle, may have resulted in record oil and gas production in
North America, but the real miracle -- in which shale companies make money fracking that oil
and gas -- has yet to occur.
The North American natural gas industry is facing a crisis with an oversupplied market and
producers that are losing money. Those producers desperately need higher natural gas
prices. However, higher gas prices mean renewables become even more attractive to investors, which
may lead to gas following in the footsteps of coal -- dying at the hands of the free
market. It may take some time, but eventually investors wake up -- or run out of money.
I no longer wonder why US press treats the Nord Stream 2 as "controversial" with this glut
of debt fuelled natl. gas. Instead, the media should be clamoring against gas flaring, a
practice that should be banned. ClimateChange101 regulation.
It does illustrate what any Green New Deal would be up against. Not only are simple
environmental steps like no flaring opposed, but investors and drillers cling to an
extraction process that doesn't even make money rather than give in to a more rational,
government planned energy system. You begin to think it's not even about the money but more
about who's in charge. Before we conquer AGW we may have to conquer human nature. The
assumption behind the GND and indeed all AGW activism seems to be that if the world is just
shown the rational path then the world will take it. The above illustrates how very
irrational the world really is.
But the real miracle -- in which shale companies make money fracking that oil and gas --
has yet to occur.
Which will be a miracle.
I was involved in the service part of the Peace River area gas extraction (and some oil)
since the early 1980, and also when the shale gas extraction started in the early 2000's with
horizontal drilling changing the face of gas production.
By 2006/8 there was talk after heavy investment by Petronas of up to TEN LNG plants at the
west coats in the Kitimat area not one has been build to date, no pipeline exists and no
means to get any gas to market other than to the internal Canadian and the now oversupplied
US market. It was a failure of politicians and regulatory agencies to speed up the
permissions and likely as well the dithering by investors, that now Australia has taken on
the supply of the Asian market.
Granted they are speaking of Canada as the source of bailout, but the country will be
bailing globalist investors which maybe has gone on long enough? Anyway, the same neoliberal
playbook "I got your free market right here shame if somethin' was to happen to it "
To remedy this problem, the report recommended expanding supply, decreasing
regulation, and bailing out companies with financial backing from the government, with the
ultimate goal of producing more gas and exporting it to Asia.
This has long been one of my concerns in the field. I've long held that the federal
government should simply outlaw the practice, forcing drillers to find something to do with
the gas (bury it, ship it or use it to create electricity). At the very least, it should be
prohibited on federal lands as part of the contracts that are signed.
>in the U.S. ends up producing huge amounts of gas at the same time.
And thus they were family-blogged. For the simple reason that this wasn't your, let alone
your father's "oil bidness" anymore. Once upon a time wells were dug for water. You pumped water out, more seeped in. Should
have been forever but well that's another discussion. Then you dug wells for oil. They were finite, but they lasted decades. Now you think you are "digging wells", but what you really are doing is building an
underground factory. In a factory, you seed the inventory and say "go" and stuff comes out
the other end. To make another batch the crank needs to be turned again.
They don't have any model in their heads that matches this. Thus they wind up with what to
a manufacturer is obviously "scrap" production, aka stuff that they don't have a market for.
Why it took Wall Street so long to understand this is a mystery, except I do wonder if many
of them knew it but just wanted to "screw the greenies". They aren't going to miss any meals,
so why not I guess.
This is just f*&%"#g depressing. A decade of using debt that will be never be paid
back to put carbon into the atmosphere that will never go back in the ground, sometimes not
even extracting the energy from it first. We deserve what is coming.
I read "investors are showing signs they're worried that payoff will never come" as
"investors can't borrow money for cheap anymore now that the Fed has raised rates". If the Fed were to reverse course and CUT interest rates, the party will continue. Wanna
bet? In another topic, how would MMT prevent people from investing in fracking?
Talking to a 2nd or 3rd generation owner of a small family run oil and gas company that
maintains local wells about 8 months ago. I expressed my concern about fracking locally. He
laughed. Then said in a serious and not at all condescending tone that there is no money
going into fracking at these NG prices and it's unlikely to change in the future. He went on
to explain where the deposits were, the expense and environmental issues the large frackers
are up against and basically said he doesn't see a scenario where it's ever expanded close to
populated areas, if it recovers at all. He genuinely didn't see much future in it.
Of course there is no future in it. Shale deposits are vertically small that horizontally
extend large distances, which means horizontal drilling. Not only that, usually you need
parallel wells for water injection to force the oil or gas out. The cost are much greater
compared to conventional vertical drilling with the technical solutions necessarily involved.
The wells deplete rapidly within a few years, requiring new wells.
I have been on sites in the Peace where wells were producing mainly water after three
years.
Those opposed to fracking for environmental reasons should perhaps also consider opposing
it on national security grounds, since, given the limitations/costs of fracking, those
resources should be seen as emergency rations, to be tapped only when absolutely
necessary.
That fracked oil and gas is being spewed into the atmosphere when prices are low and
falling, and more easily-obtained stocks are plentiful elsewhere, is just compounding the
mania with insanity.
It also suggests to me that, since there isn't real money being made, there are
geo-strategic, National Security State-related reasons for the US' sudden impulse to jack up
oil production.
These Wall Street fracking and shale subsidies percolate through the entire economy. In
addition to obvious hangers-on like the automobile industry, you have privately owned
electrical utilities rushing to load up on as much stranded asset, centralized fossil fuels
generation and distribution infrastructure as they can jam through their respective state
public utilities commission before the gas bubble bursts.
What is important here is extending and preserving stock price rallies, elevated CEO
salaries and coupon-clipping opportunities for rentiers as possible, not economic
efficiency in any form that could be understood by anyone but bankers and financiers.
> Are Investors Finally Waking up to North America's Fracked Gas Crisis?
No, because they are not investors but gamblers.
Wall Street has funded a decade of oil and gas production via fracking and incentivized
production over profits.
More to the point, no Wall Street criminal was harmed because not one was stupid enough to
throw his or her own money on the roll of the dice, but they certainly took the gamblers
money and for a fat fee, throw the dice for them.
This is getting old. Why does anyone believe in free-market economics in an emergency?
It's puzzling that just when oil went into a huge glut and the heavy, full-to-the-brim
tankers lined up in all the deep ports, like treasure chests, and the price of oil dropped
because the global economy had been slashed by a third it was just at this time that Obama
made his panicked decision to frack, to deregulate, and to subsidize it. So these so-called
"investors" who are raising their prices for loans, have either seen demand come back and
want their fair share of the whole ponzi operation, or the QE that facilitated it all has
been tapped out politically, regardless of the economics. No one seemed to care that all the
natgas blown off each well was accelerating the CO2 effect, measurably. No one cared about
the polluted ground water. Nobody acknowledged that Germany didn't want our LNG. Only free
money could have caused this perversion of productivity, all this destruction, this gold rush
to nowhere. Our sovereign money should be distributed wisely. Never like this. And never into
a deregulated market.
Yikes, ugh, and AAARRRRRGH! Not the 1st I've heard of this (Gas Bubble), but this nails it
all down.
Was this (partly/directly) caused by QE? My impression is that QE pumped a bunch of
"money" into the top end of the economy (Assets/Wall Street), propping up the Stock Market,
but I've never gotten exactly HOW they did it.
Did the Fed just buy lotsa Stock (or Corp Bonds)? If so, did they (partly) create the Gas
Bubble by (over-) investing in Fracking companies? If so, they are now stuck bursting that
bubble as they "De-QE"; either they (We!) get out of that market early – blowing it up
sooner – or wait until it deflates "normally" and lose a bunch of (Our?) money.
Are the details of QE (how much of which assets the Fed bought) public?
"... Last year, oil production dropped by 37% compared with 2017. So, Maduro has been struggling to pay back the loans and last year, Sechin had to fly to Caracas to negotiate with the Venezuelan leader over delayed oil supplies. ..."
As of 2017, Russia controlled 13% of Venezuela's crude exports, Reuters
reported . According to some experts, Rosneft has been taking advantage of Venezuela's
difficulties to secure deals which will be profitable in the long term.
... ... ...
The beleaguered country's economy is on the verge of collapse and the oil sector, which
accounts for over 90% of national export revenues, has not been spared. Last year, oil
production dropped by 37% compared with 2017. So, Maduro has been struggling to pay back the
loans and last year, Sechin had to fly to Caracas to negotiate with the Venezuelan leader over
delayed oil supplies.
Russia's concern about a collapse in Venezuela's economy is tangible. A delegation of
high-ranking Russian officials flew to Caracas in October to advise the government on how to
overcome the crisis. With the country in a state of turmoil, Russia's Deputy Minister of
Finance Sergei Storchak
said he expects Venezuela to struggle to repay its debt, and the next $100 million tranche
is due next month.
"... But otherwise, quite correct. Raise payments on deposits and get more deposits. Raise charges on loans and get fewer loans. I might note that the Fed has supposedly paused rate hikes, but deposits are still exiting the system faster than loans. This result can be had via Fred. Thus the curve is getting more3 inverted. ..."
Large Excess Reserves and the Relationship between Money and Prices - FRB Richmond
At the same time that it has been normalizing its balance sheet, the Fed also has been
raising its target for interest rates. The ability to pay interest on reserves has been
crucial to allowing the Fed to raise its target rate while there are still significant excess
reserves in the banking system. Despite these rate increases, due to various secular reasons,
interest rates are expected to remain historically low for a long time.
--------------
I sample the current expectation, and it is a bit more detailed. The expectation is that
the curve will remain inverted, generally with a zero near the five yer mark, if I judge from
the Treasury curve where the curve has been inverted with a zero near the five yer mark.
The ten year rate will remain historically higher than the five year rate for some time,
evidently. If we measure interest rate as the per annum percent of Real GDP devoted to
nominal federal interest charges, then the interest rate was higher than it has ever been
going back to 1972, briefly (four months ago) , and now occupies the second highest level
since just before the 92 recession, at about 3.5% of GDP. These result can be had in Fred by
dividing nominal interest payments by real GDP.
But otherwise, quite correct. Raise payments on deposits and get more deposits. Raise
charges on loans and get fewer loans. I might note that the Fed has supposedly paused rate
hikes, but deposits are still exiting the system faster than loans. This result can be had
via Fred. Thus the curve is getting more3 inverted.
Why do we know the curve will invert? It is the law, when the Fed loses deposits, loan
charges drop, not rise as would be normal. That is why we all expect the curve to remain
inverted, the law. The law is specifically designed so the Fed holds the current low rate as
long as possible, then does the sudden regime change. The law, written into the law, a rule
requires that we spend time with an inverted yield curve before price adjustment. I emphasis
the law because it is actually typed out, signed and enforced publicly.
The law requires the Fed hold the curve as long as possible, mainly so the pres and
Congress have time to react to changes in term of trade. So, like under Obama, we hold the
line on rates until Obama and the Repubs agree on a tax and spending plan going forward, then
the treasury curve gains traction again. Te law, it is not under debate unless you want to be
arreswted.
Nations should explore better system to break US hegemony
"The US dollar is used for the international oil and gas trade and a wide part of global
trade. This gives the US an exorbitant privilege to sanction countries it opposes.
..
The latest sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil company aim to cut off source of foreign
currency of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro's government and eventually force him to step
down.
..
A new mechanism should be devised to thwart such a vicious circle"
My question is really about those at the top of the power pyramid (those few hundred
families who own the controling share of the wealth of the world) -- those who position
idiots like Bolton to do their work, do they comprehend 'exergy' decline ?
If we can, then can they not? I agree with Parenti that they are not
'somnambulists'. They are strategists looking out for their own interests, and that means
scrutinising trends in political movements, culture, technology and, well, just about
everything. I find it hard, the idea that all these people -- people who have seen their
businesses shaped by resource discovery, exploitation and then depletion, have no firm grasp
on the realities of dwindling returns on energy.
The models were drawn up 47 years ago. I think that some of them at least, do
understand that economic growth is coming to a halt, and have understood for decades. If true
then they are planning that transition in their favour.
These hard to swallow facts about oil are still on the far fringes of any political
conversation. The neoliberal cultists are deaf to them for obvious reasons; the socialist
idealists believe that a 'New Deal' can lead us off the death train, but mostly ignore the
intractable relationship between energy decline and financial problems; even the anarchists
want their work free utopia run by robots and AI but stop short of asking whether solar
panels and wind turbines can actually provide the power for all that tech. It's the news that
nobody wants to think about, but which they will be forced to thinking about in the very near
future.
The Twitter feed 'Limits to Growth' has less than 800 followers (excellent though it
is).
I do not want to get into the mind of the Walrus of Death Bolton! I do not want to know
what he does, as he does. But at lower levels of government, and corporatism, there is an
awareness of surplus energy economics. And as Nafeez has also pointed out, the military (the
Pentagon) are taking an interest. And though it could rapidly change, who really appreciates
the nuances of EROEI? I'm guessing at less than a single percent of all populations? And how
many include its effects in a integrated political sense?
Its appreciation is sporadic: ranging from tech-utopia hopium to a defeated fatalism of
the inevitability of collapse. Unless and until people want to face the harshness of the
reality that capitalism has created: we are going to be involved in a marginal analysis.
There are very few people who have realised that capitalism is long dead.
Dr Tim Morgan estimates that world capitalism has conservatively had $140tn in stimulus
since 2008 -- without stimulating anything or reviving it at all. In fact, that amounts to
the greatest robbery in history -- the theft of the future. Inasmuch as they can, those
unrepayable debts -- transferred to inflate the parasitic assets of capitalists -- will be
socialised. Except they cannot be. Not without surplus energy.
Brexit, gilets jaunes, Venezuela, unending crises in MENA, China's economic slowdown, etc
-- all linked by EROEI.
It is a common socio-politico-economic energy nexus -- but linked together by whom? And
the emergent surplus energy-mind-environmental ecology nexus? All the information is
available. The formation of a new political manifesto started in the 1960s with the New Left
but it seems to have been in stasis since. Perhaps this might stimulate the conversation.
According to Nate Hagens: there is 4.5 years of human muscle power leveraged by each
barrel of oil. We are all going to be working for a very long time to pay back the debts
the possessing classes have built up for us -- with absolutely no marginal utility for
ourselves.
We are subsidising our own voluntary slavery unless we develop an emergent ecosocialist
and ecosophical alternative to carbon capitalism. We cannot expect paleoconservative carbon
relics like Bolton -- or anyone else -- to do it for us. The current political landscape is
dominated by a hierarchical, vested interest, carbon aristocracy. We can't expect that to
change for our benefit any time ever. Expect the opposite.
Graeber has a point, though. We could already have a post-scarcity, post-production society
but for the egregious maldistribution of resources and employment. Andre Gorz said as much 50
years ago (Critique of Economic Reason). Why do we organise around production: it makes no
sense but for the relations of production are, and remain, the relations of hierarchical
rule. So long as we assign value to a human life on the basis of meritocratic productivity --
we will have dehumanisation, marginalisation, and subjugation (haves and have nots). So why
not organisation around care, freedom and play?
Such a solution would require the transversalistion of society and not-full-employment: so
that no part of the system is subordinate, and no part is privileged. All systems and
sub-ordinate (care) systems would be co-equal, of corresponding value and worth. So, without
invoking EROEI, that would go a long way to solve our exergy, waste, pollution, and
inequality problems. It is the profligate, unproductive superstructure: supporting rentier,
surplus energy accumulating, profit-seeking suprasocieties -- that squanders our excess
energy and puts expansive spatio-temporal pressures on already stretched biophysical
ecological systems that engenders potential collapse. It is their -- the possessing classes
-- assets that are being inflated, at our environmental expense. When it comes to
survivability, we cannot afford a parasitic globalised superstructure draining the host --
the ecologically productive base. Without the over-accumulation, overconsumption, and wastage
(the accursed share) associated with the superstructure of the advanced economies -- and
their cultural, credit, military imperialisms I expect we could live quite well. Without the
pressures of globalised transportation networks, and unnecessary military budgets -- the
pressure on oil is minimised. It could be used for the 1001 other uses it has, rather than
fuelling Saudi Eurofighters bombing Yemeni schoolchildren, for instance. The surplus energy
could be used to educate, clothe and feed them instead. That would be a better use of
resources, for sure.
If we took stock of what we really have, and what we really are -- a form of spiritual
neo-self-sufficiency, augmented and extended into co-mutual care and freedom valorising
ecologies we wouldn't need to chase the perceived loss all over the globe, killing everything
that moves. The solutions are not hard, they are normative, once we are shocked out of this
awful near-life trance state of separationism. Thanks for the link.
It seems to me that there are two parallel arguments going on.
One is about social organisation, attitudes towards and policies determining work, money,
paid employment, technological development and the distribution of weath.
The other is fundamentally based on the laws of thermodynamics and concerns resource limits,
energy surpluses, the role of 'stored sunlight' in producing things and doing work for each
other, pollution and projections about these into the future.
I am surprised that Graeber (just as an example) seems to basically ignore the second of
these even though he clearly is an incisive thinker and makes good points about the first. It
is taken as a given that, theoretically at least, human civilisation could re-organise around
a new ethic, transform the economy into a 'caring economy', re-structure money, government
and do away with militarism. In terms of what to do now, as an individual, what choices to
make, it is disconcerting to me when talk of these ideals seems to ignore those latter
questions about overshoot.
I wonder if the egalitarian nature of much of indiginous North American society was
inescapably bound with the realities of a low population density, low technology,
intimate relationship with the natural world and a culture completely steeped in reverence
for Mother Earth.
The talk I hear from Bastani or Graeber along the lines of 'we could be flying around in jet
packs on the moon, if only society was organised sensibly' rings hollow to me.
Welcome to my world! Apart from as a managerial tool, systems thinking has yet to catch on
in the wider population. According to reductive materialism: there are two unlinked
arguments. According to Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) there is only one integrated argument --
with two inter-connected correlative aspects. We can only organise around what we can
energetically afford. Consequently, we cannot organise around what we cannot afford -- that
is, global industrialised production with a supervenient elitist superstructure.
Let's face it : ethical arguments carry little weight against organisation around
hierarchical rule. The current talk of an ethical capitalism -- in mixed economies with
'commons' elements -- is an appeasement. and distractional to the gathering and ineluctable
reality.
The current (2012) EROI for the UK is 6.2:1 -- barely above the 'energy cliff' of 5:1. The
GDP 'growth' and bullshit jobs are funded by monetised debt (we borrow around £5 to
make every £1 -- from Tim Morgan's SEEDS). From the Earth Overshoot Day website: the UK
is in economic overshoot from May 8th onward.
These are indicators that we will not be "flying jetpacks on the moon": even if we
reorganise. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have to make do with less. A lot less.
Everything would have to be localised and sustainable. Production would be minimised, and not
at all full. Two major systems of production -- food (agroecology) and energy -- would have
to be sustainable and self-sovereign. And financialisation and the rentier, service economy?
Now you can see why no one, not even Dave the crypto-anarchist, is talking about reality.
Elitism, establishment and entitlement do not figure in an equitable future. We can't afford
it, energetically or ethically.
So when will the debate move on? Not any time the populace is bought into ideational
deferred prosperity. All the time that EROEI is ignored as the fundamental concept governing
dwindling prosperity -- no one, and I mean no one, will be talking about a minimal surplus
energy future. The magic realism is that the economic affordances of cheap oil (unsustainably
mimicked by debt-funding) will return sometime, somehow (the technocratic superfix). The
aporia is that the longer the delay, the less surplus energy we will have available to
utilise. Something like the Green New Deal -- that has been proposed for around two decades
now -- may give us some quality of life to sustain. Pseudo-talk of a Customs Union, 'clean'
coal, and nuclear power, will not.
An integrated reality -- along the model of Guattari's 'Three Ecologies' -- of mind,
economy, and environment is well, we are not alone, but we are ahead of the curve. The other
cultural aporia is that we need to implement such vision now. Actually, about thirty years
ago but let's not get depressive!
We are going to need that cooperative organisation around care and freedom just to get
through the coming century.
As mentioned elsewhere here, Venezualan oil deposits are not all that the hype cracks them up
to be. They are mostly oil sands that produce little in the way of net energy gain after the
lengthy process of extraction.The Venezuala drama is about the empire crushing democracy
(i.e. socialism), not oil. [not that this detracts from Kit's essential point in the
article].
The Left (as well as the Right), by and large have not come to terms with the realities of
the decline in net surplus energy that is unfolding around the world and driving the
political changes that we see. So they still view geopolitics in terms of the oil economy of
pre-2008.
The productive economies of Europe are falling apart (check Steve Keen's latest on Max and
Stacy -- although even i he doesn't delve into the energy decline aspect).
The carbon density of the global economy has not changed in the 27 years since the founding
of the UNFCCC.
The Peak Oil phenomenon was oversimplified, misrepresented and misunderstood as a simple
turning point in overall oil production. In truth it was a turning point in energy
surplus.
I predict that by the end of this or next year, everyone will be talking about ERoEI.
Everyone will realise that there is no way out of this predicament. Maybe there are ways to
lessen the catastrophe, but no way to avert it. This will change the conversation, and even
change what 'politics' means (i.e. you cannot campaign on a 'new start' or a 'better,
brighter future' if everyone knows that that physically cannot happen).
Everyone will understand that their civilisation is collapsing.
Does Bolton understand this?
If you were referring to my earlier comments about Venezuelan extra heavy crude: it's
still massively about the oil. The current carbon capitalist world system does not understand
surplus energy or EROEI, as it is so fixated on maximal short term returns for shareholders.
It can't comprehend that their entire business model is unsustainable and self cannibalising.
Which is bad for us: because carbon net-energy (exergy) economics it is foundational to all
civilisation. The ignorance of it and subsequent environmental and social convergence crises
threatens the systemic failure of our entire civilisation. The Venezuelan crisis affects us
all: and is symptomatic of a decline in cheap oil due to rapidly falling EROEI.
I can't find the EROEI specifically for Venezuelan heavy oil: but it is only slightly more
viscous than bitumen -- which has an EROEI of 3:1. Let's call it 4:1: the same as other tight
oils and shale. Anything less than 5:1 is more or less an energy sink: with virtually no net
energy left for society. The minimum EROEI for societal needs is 11:1. Does Bolton understand
this? Francis hit the nail on the head there.
Do any of our leaders? No. If they did, a transition to decentralisation would be well
under way. Globalised supply chains are systemically threatened and fragile. A globalised
economy is spectacularly vulnerable. Especially a debt-ridden one. Which way are our leaders
trying to take us? At what point will humanity realise we are following clueless Pied Pipers
off the Seneca Cliff -- into globalised energy oblivion?
The rapid investment -- not in a post-carbon transition -- but in increased
militarisation, and resource and market driven aggressive foreign intervention policies
reveal the mindset of insanity. As people come to understand the energy basis of the world
crisis: the fact of permanent austerity and increased pauperisation looms large. What will
the outcome be when an armed nuclear madhouse becomes increasingly protectionsist of their
dwindling share? Too alarmist, perhaps? Let's play pretend that we can plant a few trees and
captive breed a few rhinos and it will all be fine. BAU?
The world runs on cheap oil: our socio-politico-economic expectations of progress depend
on it. Which means that the modern human mind is, in effect, a thought-process predicated on
cheap oil. Oleum ergo sum? Apart from the Middle East: we are already past the point where
oil is a liability, not a viability. Debt funding its extraction, selling below the cost of
production -- both assume the continual expansion of global GDP. Oil is a highly subsidised
-- with our surplus socialisation capital -- negative asset. We foot the bill. A bill that
EROEI predicts will keep on rising. At what point do we realise this? Or do we live in hopium
of a return to historical prosperity? Or hang on the every word of the populist magic realism
demagogue who promises a future social utopia?
EROEI = Energy Returned on Energy Invested (also known as EROI = Energy Return on Investment)
EROEI refers to the amount of usable energy that can be extracted from a resource compared
to the amount of energy (usually considered to come from the same resource) used to extract
it. It's calculated by dividing the amount of energy obtained from a source by the amount of
energy needed to get it out.
An EROEI of 1:1 means that the amount of usable energy that a resource generates is the
same as the amount of energy that went into getting it out. A resource with an EROEI of 1:1
or anything less isn't considered a viable resource if it delivers the same or less energy
than what was invested in it. A viable resource is one with an EROEI of at least 3:1.
The concept of EROEI assumes that the energy needed to get more energy out of a resource
is the same as the extracted energy ie you need oil to extract oil or you need electricity to
extract electricity. In real life, you often need another source of energy to extract energy
eg in some countries, to extract electricity, you need to burn coal, and in other countries,
to extract electricity you need to build dams on rivers. So comparing the EROEI of
electricity extraction across different countries will be difficult because you have to
consider how and where they're generating electricity and factor in the opportunity costs
involved (that is, what the coal or the water or other energy source -- like solar or wind
energy -- could have been used for instead of electricity generation).
That is probably why EROEI is used mainly in the context of oil or natural gas
extraction.
@Ilyana_Rozumova Despite huge increases in domestic oil production in the last years the
USA is still the second largest net oil importer in the word (behind China).
Also the USA is extracting its proven reserves at a much faster rate than any other large
producer (a pattern it also had in the past, leading to high fluctuation in its production)
so unless new reserves are discovered US production will likely start to decline again within
a few years.
@Ilyana_Rozumova Condensate, not oil. Only good for gas or lighter fluid. It may be
called oil but that's a deliberate misnomer.
Only financial engineering makes it appear profitable. Its a money losing psychopaths
power play, not a business. Without a heavy real oil to blend it with its useless, heavy oil
is where Venezuela comes in.
@Ilyana_Rozumova "Main factor here is that US due to fracking become self sufficient,
what actually nobody could foresee. Just a bad luck".
Bad luck for the USA. They have fallen into an elephant trap, because fracking has already
become unprofitable and is only being financed by ever-increasing debt.
Admittedly this gives them some advantage, but only in the very short term.
Of course, it doesn't really matter – in the short to medium term – whether
fracking is profitable or grossly unprofitable. They can still pay for it by printing more
dollars, as long as the "greater fools" (or heavily bribed officials) in other countries go
on accepting dollars.
"America's energy security just got a lot more secure . Located in the Wolfcamp Shale
and overlying Bone Spring Formation, the unproven, technically recoverable reserves are
officially the largest on the planet."
None of these breathlessly optimistic articles say how expensive it will be to get this
oil. If a dollar's worth of oil costs you more than a dollar to recover, you are obviously
losing in the deal. If you print the dollars, your entire economy loses.
DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, cut its crude output in
January by about 400,000 barrels per day (bpd), two OPEC sources said, as the kingdom follows
through on its pledge to reduce production to prevent a supply glut.
Riyadh told OPEC that the kingdom pumped 10.24 million bpd in January, the sources said.
That's down from 10.643 million bpd in December, representing a cut that was 70,000 bpd deeper
than targeted under the OPEC-led pact to balance the market and support prices.
The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia and other non-OPEC producers -
an alliance known as OPEC+ - agreed in December to reduce supply by 1.2 million bpd from Jan.
1.
The agreement stipulated that Saudi Arabia should cut output to 10.311 million bpd, but
energy minister Khalid al-Falih has said it will exceed the required reduction to demonstrate
its commitment.
Crude shipments to the U.S. from OPEC and its partners fell to 1.41 million barrels a day in
January, the lowest in five years, according to data from cargo-tracking and intelligence
company Kpler. Shrinking Iraqi imports and deep output cuts by Saudi Arabia fueled the
decline
We just got done conquering Iraq. We haven't stayed to loot the oil.
The US has NOT successfully conquered Iraq (has not pacified the country). Oil is not like
a bag of diamonds, which you can grab and run. In order to steal a worthwhile amount of the
greasy stuff, you have to make a substantial investment up front, in wells and shipping
terminals. Not even the greediest thief will risk his money if there is even the slightest
chance that his wells and terminals will be blown up by righteous nationalists. This is why
the US hasn't stolen much from Iraq.
So now you believe we're going to Venezuela to take their crappy heavy oil?
That the US hasn't been able to steal much from Iraq tells us little about whether the
Americans have larcenous motives with regard to Venezuela. Especially as Trump has been
talking loudly about the oil.
It would be easier for us just to build a pipeline to Alberta and import all their
cheap, shut-in heavy crude.
So Trump imposed sanction on the USA too. Of he hopes that Strategic petroleum reserve will
compensate for shortages... If Venezuela color revolution develops into Libya scenario, which
they could oil output can be suppressed for years to come. In other words Trump really has
chances to became Republican Obama.
Moreover, not only are the effects of the sanctions more far-reaching, but also more
immediate than first thought. At first, the U.S. seemed to exempt shipments that were underway,
outlining a sort of phased approach that would allow a handful of American refiners to
gradually unwind their oil purchase from Venezuela. The phased approach, which was supposed to
be extended into April, would help "to minimize any immediate disruptions," U.S. Secretary of
Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in late January.
But that now does not appear to be what is unfolding. PDVSA has demanded upfront payment,
likely because it fears not being paid at all or having the revenues steered to the opposition.
Indeed, the U.S. effort to steer PDVSA and its revenues into the hands of the U.S.-backed
opposition leader Juan Gauidó appears to be a decisive turning point.
Oil tankers linked to Chevron, Lukoil and Respsol are delayed, redirected or sitting
offshore because of lack of payment. The WSJ says that several of those tankers had recently
sent oil to Corpus Christi, Texas, but are now anchored off the coast of Maracaibo sitting
idle. "This is an absolute disaster," Luis Hernández, a Venezuelan oil union leader,
told the WSJ. "There's almost no way to move the oil."
Unable to sell any oil, Maduro's regime could quickly run out of cash. The result could be a
humanitarian catastrophe, a merciless and destructive objective that the Trump administration
seems to have in mind. The U.S. government is essentially betting that by driving the country
into the ground, the military and the people will turn on Maduro. It could yet turn out that
way, but it could also deepen the misery and exact an unspeakable toll on the Venezuelan
population, the very people the Trump administration says it is trying to help.
In the meantime, oil exports are likely heading into a freefall. The WSJ says that labor
problems, including "mass defections of workers" are accelerating declines. PDVSA could soon
run out of refined fuel.
Officials with knowledge of the situation told the WSJ that Venezuela's oil production has
likely already fallen well below 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), down more than 10 percent
– at least – from December levels.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that production
probably stands a little bit higher at about 1.1 mb/d, but that it could soon fall to 900,000
bpd.
... ... ...
That would push up oil prices significantly. But the U.S. government has blown past the
point of no return, leaving it with no other options except to escalate. That means that
Venezuela is set to lose a lot more oil than analysts thought only two weeks ago .
The original bronze disks of Rome circulated as currency. The metal money of U.S.
Confederacy circulated that is until the Confederacy became no more.
The point? Money's true nature is law. When a country collapses, then its money
collapses.
Paper money that was good? Lincoln's greenbacks circulated at par. Massachusetts Bills
circulated as money and prevented Oligarchs from England and their attempted takeover. The
colony used the money to make iron goods (like Cannons) and do commerce.
The real statement is this: Money when it becomes unlawful, always collapses.
Massive money printing can happen when too many loans are made, as in the case today as
all private bank credit notes come into being with loan activity -- a little more that
98%.
Driving a currency down with shorts causes new money to be loaned into existence, which in
turn is the underlying cause of hyperinflations. The new credit creation covers the short.
This mechanism always goes along with exchange rate pressures, where your country has to pay
a debt in a foreign currency.
If you had an internal gold currency, which is recognized internationally, then your debts
would be paid in gold, which would collapse your country into depression instead of
inflation.
Bottom line is that money's true nature is law, and making claims about "paper" or "metal"
obscures this fact.
Since both the Fed and your local bank create money from nothing
They also impose some obligations: repayment of principle and interest. Since we
can't create money from nothing, this payback has to come from money somehow created by the
banks as well.
I'm less worried about "disappearing" tax money than I am about misallocated spending
and its consequences -- eg the 'black budget' of the NSA and 'deep state' generally.
Can't we worry about everything ?
Good point about the 'black budget'. But the last time some sort of DOD audit was
attempted the Pentagon accountants' offices got hit by a missile, I mean airliner, on
911.
Will loss of Vezuellian oil exports to the USA be compensated from the USA strategic
reserve? Who will compensate this oil? Canada ? Or Trump administration decoded that temporary rise of oil prices is OK in
view of more strategic goal ?
Notable quotes:
"... As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol station. ..."
Bart Hansen@20 - Oil production costs are complex, secret and mostly lies. With that caveat,
Venezuela was thought to have about $10 - $15 production costs on average. That includes
their light and medium crude, and zero investment in repair of their distribution networks.
Well over half of Venezuela's reserves are Orinco extra-heavy, sour crude. Essentially tar
sands, but buried 500m - 1500m deep that require solvent or steam extraction. So (guess)
maybe $30-range/bbl for production. Those tar sand oils produced are so heavy that they need
pre-processing and dilution before they can be refined or exported. Naphtha or other refined
products are used as dilutent and cost maybe $55/bbl today, but were around $75/bbl last
October.
U.S. refineries were pretty much the only ones paying cash for their 500,000 b/d of
Venezuelan crude. Trump's sanctions not only ban those imports, but also ban the 120,000 b/d
of naphtha and other dilutents we sold them.
Interesting to note that part of Trump's beat-down of the Venezuela little people is a ban
on the 120,000 b/d of dilutent last week. That will completely shut down their exports. They
could find another source of naphtha, but that source will be looking for $6.6 million a day
hard cash for it.
Maduro needs to sell Venezuela's gold to buy naphtha to export oil for ANY revenue. The
$2.5 billion the Bank of England can't find and won't deliver is meant to hasten the food
riots and CIA-orchestrated coup. But Mercy Corps is setting up concentration camps on the
Colombian border and we're delivering food aid, so the U.S. is really the hero, here. God
bless America! Obey, or die.
Red Ryder @ 30: Venezuela's economy is as much ruined by US economic sanctions against the
country and (at US behest) Saudi Arabia's flooding of the global oil market that sent oil
prices down in order to crash the economies of other countries like Iran and Russia that were
presumed to be dependent on oil exports, as by mismanagement or poor leadership on Chavez or
Maduro's part.
On top of that, major food importers and producers (several of which are owned by
companies or individuals hostile to Chavez and Maduro) have been withholding food from
supermarkets to manipulate prices and goad the public into demonstrating against the
government.
As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the
result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a
petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol
station.
Chavez did try to encourage local food production and carried out some land redistribution
to achieve this. But his efforts did not succeed because importing food was cheaper than
producing it locally and farm-workers apparently preferred jobs in the oil industry that paid
better and were more secure.
I do not know how the collectives were organised, whether they had some independent
decision-making abilities or not, or whether they were organised from top down rather than
bottom up, so I can't say whether their organisational structures and the internal culture
those encouraged worked against them.
"... Many of us, actually most of us, were pleased with candidate Trump's declared intent to end our involvement in endless foreign interventions. He would put America first and refrain from sending our troops where they don't belong. Once elected, his record was mixed. ..."
"... PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: [W]e spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem. ..."
"... There also appears to be an effort to keep the Rojava Kurds as a proxy force after our troops withdraw to Iraq. We continue sending combat and engineering equipment into Rojava and fully intend to continue providing air support to the YPG. We just can't let it go. ..."
"... I see a confrontation in our future, especially with all the Iraqi PMS units in western Iraq. ..."
Many of us, actually most of us, were pleased with candidate Trump's declared intent to end our involvement in endless foreign
interventions. He would put America first and refrain from sending our troops where they don't belong. Once elected, his record was
mixed.
We launched an ineffective volley of cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase in response to a trumped up gas attack, but we never
sought to establish a no fly zone and risk war with Russia. For a while we were well on our way to establish an enduring client state
in east Syria. We assumed this was all the doing of the cabal of manipulating neocons that Trump surrounded himself with. His call
for immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria surely proved this true. Finally Trump was allowed to be Trump. He was even seeking
a way out of Afghanistan, after a literal lifetime of war in that godforsaken land.
The neocons are fighting back bigly. The pace of withdrawal from Syria was slowed and there is no indication we would ever
give up our outpost on the Baghdad-Damascus highway at Tanf. Why? I think Trump laid out HIS thoughts on the matter during the traditional
pre-super bowl presidential interview.
-- -- -- --
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to protect Israel. We have to protect other things that we have...
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you want to keep troops there [Iraq] now?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: [W]e spent a fortune on building this incredible base. We might as well keep it. And one of the
reasons I want to keep it is because I want to be looking a little bit at Iran because Iran is a real problem.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Whoa, that's news. You're keeping troops in Iraq because you want to be able to strike in Iran?
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: No, because I want to be able to watch Iran. All I want to do is be able to watch. We have an unbelievable
and expensive military base built in Iraq. It's perfectly situated for looking at all over different parts of the troubled Middle
East rather than pulling up. And this is what a lot of people don't understand. We're going to keep watching and we're going to
keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things, we're going to know it before
they do.
-- -- -- --
So, We are staying in Iraq to keep an eye on Iran and we are doing this to protect Israel. It was not any of the neocons who said
this. It was Trump himself. So much for America first. There also appears to be an effort to keep the Rojava Kurds as a proxy force
after our troops withdraw to Iraq. We continue sending combat and engineering equipment into Rojava and fully intend to continue
providing air support to the YPG. We just can't let it go.
However, Baghdad has thrown a monkey wrench into this developing Trump doctrine. Iraqi President Barham Salih has told Trump to
slow his roll.
-- -- -- --
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi President Barham Salih said on Monday that President Donald Trump did not ask Iraq's permission for
U.S. troops stationed there to "watch Iran."
Speaking at a forum in Baghdad, Salih was responding to a question about Trump's comments to CBS about how he would ask troops
stationed in Iraq to "watch" Iran. U.S. troops in Iraq are there as part of an agreement between the two countries with a specific
mission of combating terrorism, Salih said, and that they should stick to that. (Reuters)
-- -- -- --
I see a confrontation in our future, especially with all the Iraqi PMS units in western Iraq.
Internally, a national currency has a value corresponding to demand placed by the
government, such as money for the taxes the state requires of its people. The ups and downs
of Lincoln's Greenback fiat currency, especially its interaction with the value of gold,
demonstrates how currency is tied to confidence in the government, as you suggest.
Externally, a nation's currency usually has value to the extent that a nation has
something to offer others, which makes the currency useful for making a desired purchase.
Today, the "desired purchase" is oil. The dollar is valued because you need dollars to buy
oil, as formerly enforced by diplomatic pressure. Because of US sanctions, trade in oil is
now beginning using rubles, yuan, and most unforgivably, Venezuelan currency! (Like Iraq,
Libya and Syria). If this keeps up, countries will no longer need dollars for their oil, and
$ will have to compete internationally based on other considerations. That won't be pretty.
IMHO, US leaders have dangerously eroding the dollar's pre-eminence by profligate use of
sanctions.
I need to remedy my own deficiencies in this area, but advocates of Modern Monetary
Theory, like Michael Hudson, Steve Keene, and like-minded economists who often post at
nakedcapitalism, make a strong case for a fiat money system, issued and controlled by
state banks, in contrast to the private banks as now.
But objecting to the fact that private bankers charge us interest, and act above the law
and democratic accountability, is such a quaint complaint.
The bank expects oil supply to tighten in the first quarter as top exporter Saudi Arabia
cuts production , but Citi's Ed Morse also forecasts a soft spot for demand in the opening
months of 2019. Further complicating matters are a series of geopolitical and market dramas
that will play out through the beginning of May.
This follows a three-month period that saw oil prices spike to nearly four-year highs as the
market braced for U.S. sanctions on Iran. Prices then tumbled more then 40 percent to 18-month
lows, blowing up long-held trading strategies and forcing drillers to rethink their 2019
budgets.
"The volatility every year is a good $20 to $25 a barrel between low and high," Morse said.
"December was kind of the nightmare for the world where the swings were $50 at a low, $86 at a
high and $68 for the average of Brent."
... ... ...
Citi expects Brent crude to continue rising into the mid-$60 range and hit $70 before year
end. That will be enough to keep in play another wild card: surging U.S. oil production.
Feb 2, 2019 The REAL Reason The U.S. Wants Regime Change in Venezuela. The U.S. and its
allies have decided to throw their weight behind yet another coup attempt in Venezuela. As
usual, they claim that their objectives are democracy and freedom. Nothing could be farther
from the truth.
Feb 3, 2019 Venezuela's Oil Enough for World's 30 Year Energy Needs
The long bankrupt fiat financial system is pushing the Deep State to target Venezuela for
the latter's natural resources that dwarfs that of its satellite province Saudi Arabia.
"... An indefinite military presence in Iraq makes no more sense for the U.S. than it does to have one in Syria. Keeping troops in Iraq isn't going to give the U.S. any knowledge about what Iran's government is doing inside its borders, and announcing that their mission is an anti-Iranian one exposes them to potential attack from militias aligned with Tehran ..."
"... Another country with a large permanent garrison of US Troops to join Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. how long will this occupation of Iraq last? Five years? Fifty years? We have had Troops in Germany and Japan for 73 years. How long will this continue? For another 100 years? ..."
"... The neocons will not rest until we have US boots on the ground in every nation on earth. Enough of this foolishness. ..."
Trump wants to
keep U.S. forces in Iraq so they can "watch" Iran:
President Trump plans to keep United States troops in Iraq to monitor and maintain pressure on neighboring Iran, committing
to an American military presence in the region's war zones even as he moves to withdraw forces from Syria and Afghanistan.
"I want to be able to watch Iran," Mr. Trump said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation." "We're going to
keep watching and we're going to keep seeing and if there's trouble, if somebody is looking to do nuclear weapons or other things,
we're going to know it before they do."
An indefinite military presence in Iraq makes no more sense for the U.S. than it does to have one in Syria. Keeping troops
in Iraq isn't going to give the U.S. any knowledge about what Iran's government is doing inside its borders, and announcing that
their mission is an anti-Iranian one exposes them to potential attack from militias aligned with Tehran.
Many Iraqis already want U.S. forces out of the country now that ISIS has been dealt with, and there will probably be even more
demanding our withdrawal if Trump tries to keep U.S. forces there for this purpose.
Trump's suggestion that Iran might "do nuclear weapons" is more of the same propaganda that he and his officials have been pushing
for months. Iran is unable to develop and build nuclear weapons because it is complying with the nuclear deal that Trump reneged
on. Thanks to the nuclear deal, the IAEA is able to conduct very intrusive inspections as part of the most rigorous verification
regime, and they would be the first to know if Iran were violating the restrictions set down in the JCPOA.
It is unlikely that the Iraqi government is going to agree to a U.S. presence that is being justified by hostility to its neighbor.
Iraq's president has already said that the U.S. military presence is permitted in the country only for the purposes of counter-terrorism:
Iraq's government wants to maintain good relations with Iran, and it isn't going to go along with an anti-Iranian agenda that
can only harm Iraq's economic and security interests. Many of Iran's neighbors are not as obsessed with and hostile to Iran as the
Trump administration, and Iraq definitely doesn't want to be a front-line state in some anti-Iranian coalition. Trump's proposal
would needlessly put U.S. troops at greater risk in Iraq, and it would gain the U.S. nothing except more resentment from Iraqis.
Another country with a large permanent garrison of US Troops to join Japan, Germany, South Korea, etc. how long will this
occupation of Iraq last? Five years? Fifty years? We have had Troops in Germany and Japan for 73 years. How long will this continue?
For another 100 years?
The neocons will not rest until we have US boots on the ground in every nation on earth. Enough of this foolishness.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what
having that oil control will mean for the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we
blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has
Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the
Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran,
figuratively or literally. The US signed a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply
Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
"... And oh yes, there is this famous outcry 'costs will come down!' almost like it's some kind of birthright, and that repeating it ad-infinitum ad- nauseum – is supposed to make it true. No, costs do not have to come down. Power systems (battery, ICE, whatever) are not the same thing as the last 3 decades of improvement in electronics. Energy does not equal technology. Historically, costs for metals used in energy systems have outdistanced standard inflation by many hundreds of percent. The following elements have increased in price from 1980 to 2018; copper 200%, nickle 55.4%, iron ore 504.2%, lithium +800%, manganese 0% (unchanged), cobalt 534%. It doesn't look to me like 'costs are-a commin' down!!', in fact quite the opposite. ..."
Mining lithium consumes huge amounts of diesel and natural gas. As the cost of these fuels go
up, so must the produced metal. And not just in the mining operation, but in building roads
to the mines, and other processing infrastructure. I think it is very clear that these
operations cannot be powered by solar or wind.
Automobile lithium packs have to be exchanged every couple of years in a car, costing 10s
of thousands of dollars. Because of this, many electric car owners get rid of their ride when
the battery expires. A whole new business has arisen, that of selling used Teslas minus the
battery. It is already possible to buy a relatively recent model 3 'shell' (stripped of
battery, but has everything else and is fully functional) for as low as $6,000. Essentially
we are now seeing that service life of the vehicle shell is contingent on the economics of
the battery that powers it. Perhaps it makes sense to low-cash buyers to buy a used shell and
re-battery it, which is contingent on the original owner to take a substantial hit to the
pocket book.
And oh yes, there is this famous outcry 'costs will come down!' almost like it's some
kind of birthright, and that repeating it ad-infinitum ad- nauseum – is supposed to
make it true. No, costs do not have to come down. Power systems (battery, ICE, whatever) are
not the same thing as the last 3 decades of improvement in electronics. Energy does not equal
technology. Historically, costs for metals used in energy systems have outdistanced standard
inflation by many hundreds of percent. The following elements have increased in price from
1980 to 2018; copper 200%, nickle 55.4%, iron ore 504.2%, lithium +800%, manganese 0%
(unchanged), cobalt 534%. It doesn't look to me like 'costs are-a commin' down!!', in fact
quite the opposite.
Now as for lithium specifically – no, 'there aint' lots of it, as some here want so
desperately to believe. From Metalary – 'There's only a limited supply of this element,
because it only makes up 0.0007 percent of the Earth's crust. Chile produces most of the
element for the world market, with Australia coming in second. In the US you can only find a
single mine in the whole country. It doesn't occur naturally in elemental form, either.'
' What these things all mean is that the demand for lithium-ion batteries will rise even
further. The price of LITHIUM CARBONATE IS UP 47% FROM 2015 and the year 2017 will see
increased sales of pure electric cars. Add the fact that Li-ion batteries are also used for
mobile devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops, and other wearable devices, and the
demand for the commodity will surely increase as well.' Clearly, from all of the above, there
is only one direction for lithium prices and it will rocket up accordingly.
EV, if it is here to stay, will remain as a status item of very limited quantity as
governed by sales prices equivalent to the upper echelon of the luxury car market. Battery
materials costs, which in lithium format are not and will not decrease going forward, will
permanently keep it there.
Okay, I am not taking sides in this cat fight. But I would like someone to give some stats on
the lifetime of lithium batteries along with the cost of replacing them. And a link
supporting your stats.
I googled it and got this.
The typical estimated life of a Lithium-Ion battery is about two to three years or. 300
to 500 charge cycles, whichever occurs first. One charge cycle is a period of use from
fully charged, to fully discharged, and fully recharged again.
But I could find nothing on the replacement cost of a Tesla battery.
The Model 3 Long Range warranty is for at least 70 percent range at 120K miles
Tesla sells a Model S (and X I assume) warranty for at least 70 percent capability for 8
years and unlimited miles.
Based on this, I find it very hard to believe your statement of "Automobile lithium packs
have to be exchanged every couple of years in a car, costing 10s of thousands of dollars.
"
Here's an example of Tesla owners debating battery replacement costs. Main takeaways: it
costs a lot, and you really aren't expected to have to do it. The battery should last the
life of the car. If it does not for some reason, your vehicle is essentially totaled.
I have a 2013 Leaf, battery still has about 90% of life, so even if it degrades another 10%
in the next six years, it'll still be usable, for twelve years of use, which I would guess is
about average life span for a car. My guess is the battery tech has improved in the interim.
Price to replace it is around $7K. Keep in mind I've never had to change the oil, flush the
radiator or any of that other maintenance crap that sucks up a lot of time also.
Seems unlikely that majority of the middle class can afford EV's. Most new vehicles are sold
using a lot of debt. as loan durations increase. I believe the current trend to sell
inventory is with 84 month loans and there is increasing interest in 96 month loans as
interest rates move higher. Also dealer inventories have been very high since 2017:
https://www.autonews.com/article/20181015/RETAIL01/181019834/inventory-matches-slowing-market
I just don't believe the average Joe can afford an EV. In additional the US grid would
need add a heck of lot of infrastructure and power plants to support an EV transportation
system. My guess it would probably cost at least $1T USA (which we don't have). Since most of
the new power comes from NatGas, switching to EVs is re-arranging Deck chairs on the Titanic:
switching from Oil to NatGas for transportation. To move to a renewable power source to
support EV transportation is probably around $10T for the US, which is economically
unobtainable considering the looming debt & demographic problems.
Realistically the bucket bottom of the US Economy is likely to fall out during the 2020's,
as Debt & Demographics overwhelm the economy. US Nat Debt is now over $22T and increasing
by more than $1T per year ($1.4T in 2018). There is at least $100T in underfunded
entitlements & pensions. Its not as if the USA is going to go Soylent green on its
retirees to solve its financial problems.
That said EVs are dumb idea considering the amount of resources needed. The obvious choice
would be to focus on mass transportation and rebuilding the oil rail network that was
destroyed by air travel. It would made a lot of sense to start rebuilding rail &
railstations decades ago rail improvements take long time it has to be integrated with
working rail-lines (ie you cannot shutdown a highway or rail line to make improvements: You
have to work around the traffic). If every major town and city was connected it could bring
in local freight & move passengers. People could use their ICE vehicles to commute the
short distance to the nearest rail station. it would also reduce the need for long haul
trucking and switch most of the trucking to just local delivery.
The only reason people want EV is so they don't have to change!
Well said Tech Guy, absolutely 100% endorse what you've written above.
You're 'spot-on' in your assessment of costly infrastructure issues, unsustainable
government debts, and demographic problems. These factors will constrain EV production to
those that can afford them, which isn't the impoverished middle class anymore. EV's will
therefore remain a purchase option only for an upper-middle to upper-high class range
demographic.
You guys focus too much on the US. What I want to know is how do you expect for EVs to get
charged in Spain, and what are we supposed to do stretch battery life when we have 35 deg C
in long summer days and -5 deg C winter nights. And where is the country supposed to get that
electricity when the idiots who run the government don't like nuclear, nor natural gas?
Stephen Hren Wrote:
"Ethanol production consumes 40% of our corn crop."
Yup. Ethanol is just a subsidy to corn growers & its an energy sink since it take more
energy to fertialize, plant, harvest, ferment & distill than you get out with combustion.
Not to mention the depletion of aquifiers and fertializer\herbicide\pesticide runoffs that
end up in rivers, lakes and oceans.
Stephen Hren:
"As the switch to EVs continues, this food will be available to people rather than ICEs"
Nope. Most people cannot afford them, and EVs and Ethanol use the same power source:
NatGas. EVs will never go mainstream and probably largely disappear in the 2020s. Probably
Hybrids will remain on the market (for those that can afford them). Considering the entire US
vehicle economy survives on subprime auto loans, its just a matter of time before it just
implodes. The only people that can afford EVs are those making more than $100K per year.
"The study shows that the average buyer of a regular Ford Focus was 46 years old and had a
household income of $77,000 per year, as compared to the an annual household income of
$199,000 for the average, 43-year-old owner of Ford Focus electric."
The number of used cars sold are expected to reach 39.5 million, while new car sales are
expected to decline to 17.1 million. You have declining new car sales, probably because of
affordability.
"... Big oil has its benefits, and this benefit fits into big oil's need for future existence. When the price of oil goes up, then what's the projected stock price of Exxon or Chevron? They will be back into the mode they were in decades ago, start to finish. ..."
Motiva had previously upgraded refinery capacity to accept light oil, Exxon keeps adding
more, and now Chevron will, no doubt, expand.
Maybe the big oil will buy up some more of the weaker Permian players, which could slow
down the insane growth; and make the Permian more of a feeder for their refineries than an
export source. I really can't imagine that they are spending billions on refineries with the
expectation that it may start to expire in five years. Exxon and Chevron are already two of
the top ten producers in the Permian, and they can get bigger, if they want to.
Gobbling up most of these producers would only amount to a snack for them. And doing it
while the pure Permian producers a floating in the doldrums of 2019 would fit perfectly.
That could affect projections for US shale growth. The refiners would look at it over a
longer term usage, and not how much they can ship out. However, it could still lower net
imports. Win, win.
Thus, possibly saving West Texas from extinction, and move away from boom or bust some.
Add pipelines to the East and West coast, and upgrade refineries, and you have a longer term
solution.
With Canadian and Mexican heavy oil and sprinkle in some EOR, we could get by for a longer
period of time. Peak oil is a meaningful event, but it does not, absolutely, have to affect
the US for a while.
On a different topic, a Japanese company is interested in becoming an Eagle Ford player.
Japan needs LNG. Eagle Ford has a largely untapped huge gas window. So, even if we do not use
the planned upgraded ports for oil, we may still be using them for LNG.
Ok, it's only a dream, now, but the parts are beginning to come together. Big oil has
its benefits, and this benefit fits into big oil's need for future existence. When the price
of oil goes up, then what's the projected stock price of Exxon or Chevron? They will be back
into the mode they were in decades ago, start to finish.
This rings true to me. The big boys have few other options left for expansion (Guyana, Mexico
and/or Brazil if they can work their way through the corruption) other than the Permian. Oil
prices are likely to remain volatile for the foreseeable future, generating occasional buying
opportunities for companies with lots of cash on hand. Kind of the way the tech giants like
Apple and Amazon and Facebook bought up all the small fry app/tech companies for lack of
anything better to do with their money. If this happens I would expect a slower pace of
development to emerge for tight oil over the next decade and a longer tail.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Make peak closer to the time period of somewhere pretty
close. I think we better move, we may be sitting to close to that smelly fan.
Chevron's holdings are the size of Yellowstone, and Exxon is not far behind. Will they
pick up any additional acreage if the get a good buy? Does a dog bark?
This says nothing about the quality of rock, but lists acreage by the top holders. Oxy,
ConocoPhillips, and EOG will be more conservative in development, and are not really prime
acquisition targets. But adding them and Exxon and Chevron, you get most of the acreage.
Energen and Diamondback have merged.
Leach, chairman and chief executive officer of Concho Resources, cited statistics
indicating Permian Basin crude production is expected to climb from the current 4 million
barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day in just six years. That, he told the sold-out crowd
at the Horseshoe, would comprise 7 percent of total world oil production and 40 percent of
U.S. production. In addition, the Permian Basin could see 45,000 new high-paying technical
jobs on top of the 50,000 jobs that have been created since about 2000.
"Companies operating here today will be investing $50 billion a year in drilling and
completing wells," leading to over $1 trillion in spending in that same timeframe, he said.
That has created numerous opportunities throughout the Permian Basin, but also significant
challenges, he said.
When he and other leaders of local oil companies review their business plans and consider
their greatest concerns, he said it's not sand or pipeline capacity or technology.
"Collectively, they say it's schools, roads, doctors and housing."
Neoliberalism like Bolshevism is sticky, so the collapse "USSR-style" is a real possibility if nationalist sentiments explode
in the USA. But I would give it 40 years instead of 20. This forecast has a distinct advantage that nobody will remember it in 40
years ;-)
I think the U.S. is at most 20 years away from severe dysfunction at every level of society,
and possibly even civil war and break up.
I mention this only because I can sense a certain desperation in your post and why not
counter it with pessimistic reality? The U.S. is not the only country in the world. 95% of
the world's population, and 80% of it's economy, is outside the U.S.
The unipolar moment of American dominance is over, finished, never to return. Still
possible to have a decent life for awhile, but we'll see. Just remember, Europeans believed
in the early 20th century that they would rule the world for centuries to come, if not
millenia. They had no reason to believe otherwise. Look how that turned out.
The problem is that the decline of the conventional fields does not sleep...
Notable quotes:
"... If it takes more energy to extract the oil from shale than you get from the oil you pump out then it is a sink, not a source. For instance it would be extremely difficult to extract oil from offshore shale. You would have to ship the sand out by barge, build huge platforms for every well to hold all that fracking equipment and so on. ..."
"... Return on investment is the primary problem with shale. If it cost more in time and energy than you receive from the extracted producte, it will stay in the ground. Anyway, that's just my unprofessional opinion. Some of the professionals on this blog may have a better educated opinion. ..."
"... New shale production, which is subject to extraordinarily fast decline in and of it self, would have to be brought online fast enough to offset both its own decline PLUS the decline of the worlds giant conventional legacy oil fields. ..."
"... Even if it's profitable to do so, and in large enough quantities, at some particular price, this does not necessarily mean that it will be possible to muster enough capital, equipment, skilled labor, and political will to make it happen FAST ENOUGH to offset conventional legacy oil declining production. ..."
"... I have read from news lately a more strict requirements from investors, banks, hedge funds makes it reasonable that investment in shale oil compeared to 2018.budget will be reduced by 19%. ..."
"... I doubt there will be lots of investments in US shale with oil price in range 50-60 USD, because there is significant documentation only a very limited part ( decreasing) within core area is profitable as of now. Beside this a oil price in range 50-60.WTI or 55- 65 usd each barrel Brent is not enough to pay the cost of exploration drilling offshore, build new infra structure. ..."
New here, been lurking for a while. I'm a geologist with a small oil and gas exploration and
operating company. We explore conventional only. I have however read all your predictions of
peak oil etc. but don't you think that given higher prices, other basins world wide that are
similar to the Permian could be successfully exploited for years to come holding off peak oil
for decades? I'm no expert but I would venture there are hundreds of basins that could as
good or better than the Permian. Just in the U.S., we have the Permian, Bakken, Niobrara,
Eagleford and about a dozen others. Surely our success could be duplicated on a global scale
if the price was right.
There is the Vaca Muerte in Argentina, but probably under the scale of the Eagle Ford. There
are a LOT of contraints holding the dead cow back. A lot of countries I have heard of that
have gas potential, e.g. China, even UK. But, I have not heard of a lot of oil potential. The
way my limited understanding goes, the play has to be new enough on the geological age, to
still have oil. As in, the Eagle Ford has three windows which depend on geological age, and
pressure. The oil window is younger, the condensate and gas windows are older. I think the
Permian will have areas, too. But, I received my geology degree from a cracker jacks box
but your last sentence may hold some
validity. For that matter, I don't think shale has given up completely after the first go
round, if the price is right. Would that delay peak to another date? Quien sabe. Money talks.
What price? I know I would keep an ICE around for long trips at $200 a barrel for the
convenience. Food may be higher, though.
Speaking as a geologist, this is incorrect. Thermal maturity depends on far more than age. The Utica gas window is 300 million years older than the eagle fords gas window, just for
example.
Yes, of course there are more shale sources out there. But perhaps not as many as you think.
All reservoir rock is not so tight as to hold most of its oil in place. There is, or rather
was, lots of oil in West Texas but not much shale oil. The same is true for Southern
California. I suspect most of the Middle east is similar.
Also there is the cost. If it takes more energy to extract the oil from shale than you get
from the oil you pump out then it is a sink, not a source. For instance it would be extremely
difficult to extract oil from offshore shale. You would have to ship the sand out by barge,
build huge platforms for every well to hold all that fracking equipment and so on.
There are lots of shale oil sources in Russia. And if prices get high enough, they will
probably try to extract it. Imagine hauling train loads of sand to the north slope of Alaska,
then trucking it over the tundra by truck to every well. You would have similar problems in
Western Siberia.
Return on investment is the primary problem with shale. If it cost more in time and energy
than you receive from the extracted producte, it will stay in the ground. Anyway, that's just
my unprofessional opinion. Some of the professionals on this blog may have a better educated
opinion.
"If it cost more in time and energy than you receive from the extracted producte, it will
stay in the ground."
@Ron Patterson, you seem to be saying that extraction will go forward as long as there is
the potential for *any* marginal return, at least expressed in money if not in EROEI. So for
example, as long as I can charge $101 for a barrel of oil that cost me $100 to get out of the
ground, I'll keep doing it (or someone else will). Do you really think this is the case, or
is there a threshold/floor below which it won't make economic sense due to produce oil? Due
perhaps to knock-on factors in the larger economy? Obviously I'm no expert on any of this, so
please take it easy on me in any replies. Thanks!
Phil, I really have no idea at what point oil companies will decide it is not worth the
effort due to low profits or other causes, they will cease drilling. However it must be noted
that a majority of oil companies producing shale oil today are doing it at a loss. Of course
they all expect to be making money sometime soon. They expect prices to rise so they are just
trying to hang on until they are profitible.
So you see it is just not that simple. They may produce oil at a loss for some time before
they fold. But obviously they cannot produce oil at a loss forever. There are many factors
that govern their decision to fold their tents and walk away. I think it is impossible to
predict exactly at what or when that point is. At least it is beyond my ability to do so.
I don't have any better idea how much shale oil is out there, or whether it can be produced
profitably, than you do.
But I will add this much to the discussion. Even if it is out there , and can be produced profitably, this is no guarantee that shale
oil can prevent peak oil happening.
New shale production, which is subject to extraordinarily fast decline in and of it self,
would have to be brought online fast enough to offset both its own decline PLUS the decline
of the worlds giant conventional legacy oil fields.
Even if it's profitable to do so, and in large enough quantities, at some particular
price, this does not necessarily mean that it will be possible to muster enough capital,
equipment, skilled labor, and political will to make it happen FAST ENOUGH to offset
conventional legacy oil declining production.
It's been a while since I paid much attention to the actual numbers, but I know you are
well acquainted with them.
So what's your estimate, these days, of the conventional legacy oil decline rate? Have you
raised it or lowered it recently?
As I have read from news lately a more strict requirements from investors, banks, hedge funds
makes it reasonable that investment in shale oil compeared to 2018.budget will be reduced by
19%.
One significant player will reduce their number if riggs from 24 to 18 as they expect
oil price WTI in 2019 to be in mid 50 usd range.
To me it seems the confident among investors
to US shale have changed significant espesialy 4th quartile of 2018. Now they only want to
support projects that give cash return , seems they are tiered of promises as there have been
to much of and shale oil depth have never been higher.
Since oil demand is linked to groth
in world economy that is also same for interest of liability. EIA , and some other analyst
like Rystad sees US shale production in 2019 will continue with strong increase and predict
we only have seen the beginning. After working within oil and gaz projects in many years I
know the oil majours dont want to loose money ,when a project seems not profittable they stop
until oil price incresse or they get cost down.
I doubt there will be lots of investments in
US shale with oil price in range 50-60 USD, because there is significant documentation only
a very limited part ( decreasing) within core area is profitable as of now. Beside this a
oil price in range 50-60.WTI or 55- 65 usd each barrel Brent is not enough to pay the cost of
exploration drilling offshore, build new infra structure.
"... Production is likely to head south, so nobody will get it. Perfect storm. Iran sanctions, Saudis are going to cut to 10.1 instead of 10.3, Venezuela production to plummet, and US oil is on a hiatus. What a glut. ..."
Production is likely to head south, so nobody will get it. Perfect storm. Iran
sanctions, Saudis are going to cut to 10.1 instead of 10.3, Venezuela production to plummet,
and US oil is on a hiatus. What a glut.
Oil prices are on track for strong gains this week, and the price increases are not only the result of
the crisis in Venezuela.
The oil market received a boost from the US Federal Reserve this week, which signaled on Wednesday
that it would essentially suspend its plans to hike interest rates this year. Fed chairman Jerome
Powell said that economic growth remained
"solid"
but that the central bank had
"the
luxury of patience"
when deciding on further rate hikes. That is a big change from prior
guidance, in which the Fed very clearly outlined multiple rate increases in 2019.
"The case for
raising rates has weakened somewhat,"
Powell said. Slowing growth in China and Europe, a
weakening housing market, tepid inflation – these are not exactly the ingredients that call for
aggressive rate tightening.
The announcement contributed to strong gains for oil prices on Wednesday and Thursday. At the time
of this writing, WTI was trading in the mid-$50s, with Brent above $62 per barrel, both close to
two-month highs.
A more dovish position from the Fed boosts the bullish case for oil in two ways. First,
lower-than-expected interest rates will provide a jolt to the economy. Stock markets rose on the news.
But second, a softer rate outlook also undercuts the US dollar a bit. A weaker dollar stokes crude oil
demand in the rest of the world, and historically the dollar has had an inverse relationship with oil
prices.
Meanwhile, the oil market received a more direct boost this week on news that Saudi Arabia slashed
shipments to the United States. The US has the most transparent and up-to-date data on the oil market,
which include weekly releases on production levels, imports and exports, and inventories. That kind of
visibility is not readily available in most places around the world.
As a result, Saudi Arabia appears to be deliberately targeting that data. By reducing shipments to
the US specifically, Riyadh can help create the appearance of a tightening oil market. Saudi shipments
to the US dropped by 528,000 bpd last week to just 442,000 bpd, the lowest weekly total in more than
two years.
More to the point, OPEC's production declined by 890,000 bpd in January, according to a
Reuters
survey, the largest monthly decline since early 2017 (the month that the first round of
OPEC+ production cuts took effect). Iraq produced above its production ceiling, but aside from that,
the cartel is well on its way to implementing the production curbs.
In fact, there is suddenly a remarkable confluence of events pushing oil in a bullish direction.
First and foremost are the OPEC+ production cuts of 1.2 mb/d that are phasing in. But beyond that, US
shale is starting to slowdown, and while output is still expected to grow this year, the increase
could be the smallest in years.
Then there are the supply outages. Libya lost some output unexpectedly in December, with some of
its production still offline. Iran sanctions waivers are set to expire in May, and the US
hopes
to further cut into Iranian oil exports. The new
sanctions
on Venezuela threaten to create yet another major source of supply outages.
In fact, when considering that OPEC+ is determined to keep 1.2 mb/d of supply off of the market,
and painful US sanctions on Venezuela and Iran threaten to shut in even more output, it's pretty
amazing that Brent crude is only trading at $62 per barrel. The Fed backing off interest rate hikes is
the cherry on top.
Traders and investors are starting to wake up to this bullish sentiment.
"The market is more
convinced that there will be aggressive production cuts and the macro picture has improved a bit.
That's positive for prices going forward,"
Jean-Louis Le Mee, CEO of London-based oil hedge fund
Westbeck Capital,
told
the Wall Street Journal.
Another investor echoed that sentiment in comments to the WSJ.
"The Saudis are sincere about
higher oil prices, they need to balance their budget. The OPEC cuts will lower stocks so I'm pretty
bullish,"
said Mark Gordon, portfolio manager at the Ascent Oil Fund.
Oil prices are back up to where they were in November, and significant outages from Venezuela in
the short run could pave the way for more price increases.
Karl- I see that you asked 'what' rather than when.
Seneca Cliff refers to a very rapid decline in a feature (such as global oil production)
after it has achieved a peak. This is as opposed to a very slow decline.
Obviously for oil, a fast decline would be catastrophic.
US production will be close to flat 2019, and if ports are not improved much until late
2020, then 2020 will not be great. After that, I don't see it catching up.
As stated many times on 'theoildrum', State of the art EOR projects deplete oilfields, who
without EOR would go in terminal decline much earlier, very rapidly. So a world oilproduction
cliff cannot be ruled out, especially if money reserves from oil companies dry up.
Oil prices are likely to rise if there is a shortage of oil, this will mean oil companies
will have plenty of financial resources as long as demand is sufficient to consume the oil
produced. Not suggesting there will not be a decline, just unlikely there will be a cliff
unless oil prices drop, so far there is no evidence of a cliff and given World stock level
trend, prices are unlikely to drop further and are more likely to increase in the future.
But to repeat a cliché: depletion never sleeps. Already about fifteen years ago EOR
projects were started that extracted oil from (quite) 'past peak' or 'on plateau production'
oilfields. EOR projects in case of 'quite past peak' fields, to get 'the last recoverable'
barrel out resulting in oil production/day far less than peak production.
I know, the recoverable quantity increases with rising oilprices and better extraction
techniques, but still the production/day way past peak will be much less than on peak.
What will happen when oilprices don't increase a lot for the next ten years, for a
combination of reasons ?
At a certain point in time all the money in the world couldn't prevent world production
decline and the further that point will be in the future, the steeper will be the decline I
think. So better sooner than later oilprices begin to increase significantly, to buy some
time for the transition to EV's, etc.
I am not an expert in engineering nor in geology, far from that, just expressing a feeling
that I got after having read the many posts on theoildrum regarding this matter.
How come Poland's at 6% & Lithuania is at 29%? Don't they both import American LNG?
And how come Estonia is at 3%? Sounds like the Estonians import Russian gas. Bulgaria's at
37%. Now what were the assurances John McCain gave Sofia regarding alternative gas options to
Southstream? Please spell them out for me again, I'm pretty slow, you know!
What is so ridiculously ClusterFrack-Failed about this, is that BGR nixed a CNG Pipeline
Deal with RUS under pressure from the EU_EXECUTIVES.
Instead of Jobs and Transit Fee Income, BGR will have to stand in line and pay more for
CNG since TRK picked up the Pipeline. The Southeastern EUROZONE are STILL going to Import
that same RUS_CNG.
The project created controversy due to non-compliance with European Union competition and energy
legislation, in particular the Third Energy Package , which
stipulates the separation of companies' generation and sale operations from their
transmission networks.
It was seen as rival to the Nabucco pipeline project. Construction
of the Russian onshore facilities for the pipeline started in December 2012. The project
was cancelled by Russia in December 2014 following obstacles from Bulgaria and the EU, the
2014 Crimean
crisis , and the imposition of European sanctions on Russia. The project has been
replaced by proposals of Turkish Stream and Tesla pipeline .
"... US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking "oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S. crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply". ..."
"... Mars currently trades at a premium to U.S. crude at $58.19 vs $53.69 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI)". Currently, the US also imports 500,000 barrels of Venezuelan crude a day to meet refinery blending requirements. ..."
"... All other shale fracking regions than the Permian have peaked or are in decline as shown by http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2018/Shale-is-dead-long-live-conventional-oil.pdf ..."
He neglects other factors such as:
(1) poor soil management practices;
(2) demographics such as some 3 million Columbian citizens fleeing the Fascist Columbian
military attacks and putting extra stress on the social programs;
(3) Increasing US needs for Venezuela heavy crude to blend with the light fractions coming
from fracking operations (e.g. Eagle Ford light "oil" condensates;
(4) US military need for War to support funding levels (e.g. Smidley Butler's "war is a
racket";
(5) batshit crazy neocon and neoliberal ideology and world domination.
The EROI issue is worse that many consider. See Gail Tverberg article "How the Peak Oil
Story Could Be "Close," But Not Quite Right". The article points out that wellhead costs do
not capture the downstream costs of production and tax capture that bust further reduce the
EROI. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/peak-oil-story-close-not-quite-right.html
US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking
"oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has
a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to
process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S.
crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply".
The economics of the US fracking light oil condensates industry is much worse when you
consider the offloading of pollution costs (drinking water), health effects, wear and tear of
highways from trucking the oil, water and fracking sands (one pound/barrel), climate change
from massive methane flaring, volatile organic compounds (VOC) release and earthquake damage
from deep injection of the water cut fluids.
Its interesting that in Asia, the USG also says it wants to help build infrastructure for
LNG use (as an element of its anti China strategy) but then also wants Asian nations like
Vietnam to buy American LNG (to reduce America's trade deficits, etc.) once the
infrastructure is in place.
Except it would be economically stupid for anyone in Asia to buy more expensive US LNG,
when adequate supplies of LNG at lower costs are available from nations like Australia,
Malaysia and Indonesia and of course Qatar.
I guess when you really can't compete because you subsidize the military and FIRE sectors
and don't invest in your society, you resort to government interference in the market or
"regime change", and then criticize anyone for doing the same thing. Hypocrisy at its
finest.
" it has offered to sell high-priced LNG from the United States (via port facilities that do
not yet exist in anywhere near the volume required)." -- facilities that are themselves
dangerous and highly controversial. Oregon is in the midst of one of those controversies,
trying to stop construction of an LNG export "facility" at Coos Bay, a scenic but impoverished
port on the southern Oregon coast. It would come with a pipeline across the state, which is
also highly unwelcome. LNG facilities are a fuel-air bomb waiting to happen, if it should leak
-- the Oregon coast is subject to Magnitude 9 subduction quakes and tsunamis. The project would
also involve massive dredging that would threaten the local seafood industry. And gas pipelines
are subject to their own threats, doubly so in earthquake country. Maybe they can be built
uncontested in Europe -- but I doubt it.
Money quote: " neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large, and to
make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under
feudalism."
Notable quotes:
"... ... if you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt cancellation. ..."
"... neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were under feudalism. ..."
"... They call themselves free marketers, but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ..."
"... Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc. ..."
"... The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for centuries. ..."
"... Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of course. ..."
"... In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans. ..."
Just finished reading the fascinating
Michael Hudson interview I linked to on previous thread; but since we're discussing Jews
and their religion in a tangential manner, I think it appropriate to post here since the
history Hudson explains is 100% key to the ongoing pain us humans feel and inflict. My
apologies in advance, but it will take this long excerpt to explain what I mean:
"Tribes: When does the concept of a general debt cancellation disappear historically?
"Michael: I guess in about the second or third century AD it was downplayed in the Bible.
After Jesus died, you had, first of all, St Paul taking over, and basically Christianity was
created by one of the most evil men in history, the anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria. He
gained power by murdering his rivals, the Nestorians, by convening a congress of bishops and
killing his enemies. Cyril was really the Stalin figure of Christianity, killing everybody
who was an enemy, organizing pogroms against the Jews in Alexandria where he ruled.
"It was Cyril that really introduced into Christianity the idea of the Trinity. That's
what the whole fight was about in the third and fourth centuries AD. Was Jesus a human, was
he a god? And essentially you had the Isis-Osiris figure from Egypt, put into Christianity.
The Christians were still trying to drive the Jews out of Christianity. And Cyril knew the
one thing the Jewish population was not going to accept would be the Isis figure and the
Mariolatry that the church became. And as soon as the Christian church became the
establishment rulership church, the last thing it wanted in the West was debt
cancellation.
"You had a continuation of the original Christianity in the Greek Orthodox Church, or the
Orthodox Church, all the way through Byzantium. And in my book And Forgive Them Their Debts,
the last two chapters are on the Byzantine echo of the original debt cancellations, where one
ruler after another would cancel the debts. And they gave very explicit reason for it: if we
don't cancel the debts, we're not going to be able to field an army, we're not going to be
able to collect taxes, because the oligarchy is going to take over. They were very explicit,
with references to the Bible, references to the jubilee year. So you had Christianity survive
in the Byzantine Empire. But in the West it ended in Margaret Thatcher. And Father
Coughlin.
"Tribes: He was the '30s figure here in the States.
"Michael: Yes: anti-Semite, right-wing, pro-war, anti-labor. So the irony is that you have
the people who call themselves fundamentalist Christians being against everything that Jesus
was fighting for, and everything that original Christianity was all about."
Hudson says debt forgiveness was one of the central tenets of Judaism: " ... if
you take the Bible literally, it's the fight in almost all of the early books of the Old
Testament, the Jewish Bible, all about the fight over indebtedness and debt
cancellation. "
Looks like I'll be purchasing Hudson's book as he's essentially unveiling a whole new,
potentially revolutionary, historical interpretation.
@ karlof1 with the Michale Hudson link....thanks!!
Here is the quote that I really like from that interview
"
Michael: No. You asked what is the fight about? The fight is whether the state will be taken
over, essentially to be an extension of Wall Street if you do not have government planning.
Every economy is planned. Ever since the Neolithic (era), you've had to have (a form of)
planning. If you don't have a public authority doing the planning, then the financial
authority becomes the planners. So globalism is in the financial interest –Wall Street
and the City of London, doing the planning, not governments. They will do the planning in
their own interest. So neoliberalism is the fight of finance to subdue society at
large,and to make the bankers and creditors today in the position that the landlords were
under feudalism.
"
karlof1, please email me as I would like to read the book as well and maybe we can share a
copy.
And yes, it is relevant to Netanyahoo and his ongoing passel of lies because humanity has
been told and been living these lives for centuries...it is time to stop this shit and grow
up/evolve
@13 / 78 karlof1... thanks very much for the links to michael hudson, alastair crooke and the
bruno maraces articles...
they were all good for different reasons, but although hudson is being criticized for
glossing over some of his talking points, i think the main thrust of his article is very
worthwhile for others to read! the quote to end his article is quite good "The question is,
who do you want to run the economy? The 1% and the financial sector, or the 99% through
politics? The fight has to be in the political sphere, because there's no other sphere that
the financial interests cannot crush you on."
it seems to me that the usa has worked hard to bad mouth or get rid of government and the
concept of government being involved in anything.. of course everything has to be run by a
'private corp' - ie corporations must run everything.. they call them oligarchs when talking
about russia, lol - but they are corporations when they are in the usa.. slight rant..
another quote i especially liked from hudson.. " They call themselves free marketers,
but they realize that you cannot have neoliberalism unless you're willing to murder and
assassinate everyone who promotes an alternative ." that sounds about right...
@ 84 juliania.. aside from your comments on hudsons characterization of st paul "the
anti-Semite Cyril of Alexandria" further down hudson basically does the same with father
coughlin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin..
he gets the anti-semite tag as well.. i don't know much about either characters, so it's
mostly greek to me, but i do find some of hudsons views especially appealing - debt
forgiveness being central to the whole article as i read it...
it is interesting my own view on how money is so central to the world and how often times
I am incapable of avoiding the observation of the disproportionate number of Jewish people in
banking.. I guess that makes me anti-semite too, but i don't think of myself that way.. I
think the obsession with money is killing the planet.. I don't care who is responsible for
keeping it going, it is killing us...
Just so long as you remember that most of the strongest and most moving condemnations
of greed and money in the ancient and (today) western world are also Jewish--i.e. Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Micah, the Gospels, Letter of James, etc.
The history of Jewish banking after the fall or Rome is inextricable from cultural
anti-judaism of Christian west and east and de facto marginalization/ghettoization of Jews from
most aspects of social life. The Jewish lending of money on interest to gentiles was both
necessary for early mercantilist trade and yet usury was prohibited by the church. So Jewish
money lenders were essential to and yet ostracized within European economies for
centuries.
Now Christianity has itself long given up on the tradition teaching against usury of
course.
I too greatly admire the work of Hudson but he consistently errs and oversimplifies
whenever discussing the beliefs of and the development of beliefs among preNicene followers
of the way (as Acts puts is) or Christians (as they came to be known in Antioch within
roughly eight or nine decades after Jesus' death.) Palestinian Judaism in the time of Jesus
was much more variegated than scholars even twenty years ago had recognized. The gradual
reception and interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls in tandem with renewed research into
Phili of Alexandria, the Essenes, the so-called Sons of Zadok, contemporary Galilean zealot
movements styles after the earlier Maccabean resistance, the apocalyptism of post exilic
texts like Daniel and (presumably) parts of Enoch--all paint a picture of a highly diverse
group of alternatives to the state-Church once known as Second Temple Judaism that has been
mistaken as undisputed Jewish "orthodoxy" since the advent of historical criticism.
The
Gospel of John, for example, which dates from betweeen 80-120 and is the record of a much
earlier oral tradition, is already explicitly binitarian, and possibly already trinitarian
depending on how one understands the relationship between the Spirit or Advocate and the Son.
(Most ante-Nicene Christians understood the Spirit to be *Christ's* own spirit in distributed
form, and they did so by appeal to a well-developed but still largely under recognized strand
in Jewish angelology.)
The "theological" development of Christianity occurred much sooner
that it has been thought because it emerged from an already highly theologized strand or
strands of Jewish teaching that, like Christianity itself, privileged the Abrahamic covenant
over the Mosaic Law, the testament of grace over that of works, and the universal scope of
revelation and salvation as opposed to any political or ethnic reading of the "Kingdom."
None
of these groups were part of the ruling class of Judaean priests and levites and their
hangers on the Pharisees.
In John, for instance most of the references to what in English is
translated as "the Jews" are in Greek clearly references to "the Judaeans"--and especially to
the ruling elite among the southern tribe in bed with the Romans.
So the anti-Judaism/Semiti
of John's Gispel largely rests on a mistranslation. In any event, everything is much more
complex than Hudson makes it out to be. Christian economic radicalism is alive and well in
the thought of Gregory of Nysa and Basil the Great, who also happened to be Cappadocian
fathers highly influential in the development of "orthodox" Trinitarianism in the fourth
century.
I still think that Hudson's big picture critique of the direction later Christianity
took is helpful and necessary, but this doesn't change the fact that he simplifies the
origins, development, and arguably devolution of this movement whenever he tries to get
specific. It is a worthwhile danger given the quality of his work in historical economics,
but still one has to be aware of.
This is pretty nasty propaganda, completely detached from reality. Shale oil and condensate
are less valuable for refineries and have lower energy content. That's why they are undesirable
and refineries in the USA prefer heavy oil, which has a right mixture of hydrocarbons to produce
diesel and aviation fuel along with gas,
Texas and other shale-rich states are spewing a gusher of high-quality crude -- light-sweet
in the industry parlance -- feeding a growing glut that's bending the global oil industry out
of shape.
Refiners who invested billions to turn a profit from processing cheap low-quality crude are
paying unheard of premiums to find the heavy-sour grades they need. The mismatch is better news
for OPEC producers like Iraq and Saudi Arabia, who don't produce much light-sweet, but pump
plenty of the dirtier stuff.
The crisis is Venezuela, together with OPEC output cuts, will exacerbate the mismatch. The
South American producer exports some of the world's heaviest oil and Trump administration
sanctions announced this week will make processing and exporting crude far more difficult.
American refiners are scrambling for alternative supplies at very short notice.
"We still have some holes in our supply plan" over the next 30 days, Gary Simmons, a senior
executive at Valero Energy Corp., the largest refiner in the U.S., told investors on Thursday.
"We are not taking anything from Venezuela."
Crude isn't the same everywhere: the kind pumped from the shale wells of West Texas
resembles cooking oil -- thin and easy to refine. In Venezuela's Orinoco region, it looks more
like marmalade, thick and hard to process. Density isn't the only difference -- the sulfur
content is also important, dividing the market into sweet and sour crude. Heavy crude tends to
have more sulfur than light crude.
As Saudi Arabia, Russia and Canada cut production, and American sanctions force Venezuelan
and Iranian exports lower, the market for low-quality crude is feeling the impact.
"The strength in the physical crude market continues, led by sour crude shortages," Amrita
Sen, chief oil analyst at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd. in London, said echoing a widely held
view within the market
"... UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington. ..."
"... It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT. ..."
"... No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis, living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being a fool? ..."
"... The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. ..."
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today ..."
"... Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces. ..."
"... If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum, by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner measures. ..."
"... Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization. ..."
Agent76 says:
January 30, 2019 at 7:21 pm GMT 100 Words Jan 24, 2019 Catastrophic Consequences What's Really Happening in Venezuela
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on the current situation in Venezuela with Maduro, the election, and Trump's
response.
UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the
synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington.
@Sergey Krieger Negotiations are not necessarily a sign of weakness. However, Maduro should negotiate with the puppet masters,
not with the puppet. I don't think that killing that pathetic Guaido is a good strategy: you don't want to make a martyr out of
nonentity.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
FUCK YOU! Venezuela is not "our" back yard. And the oil does not belong to "us".
[Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end
of the old republic. ]
It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the
end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter,
Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR
RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the
deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT.
The ignorant Jewish mafia 'president' IS MORE DANGEROUS because he like his 'advisors' is totally ILLITERATE. It is a family
business dummies.
Are dummies going to hold petty people like Bolton who lie to get money from MEK to buy a new suit and new shoes, is responsible
for the policy of the Trump regime where he wages WARS, economic sanction, to starve children to surrender? Then NO ONE Trusts
you. MEK people are not more than 20, but are funded by the US colony, Saudi Arabia where MBS transfers money to the Jewish mafia
family funding US wars.
Maduro has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to arrest Juan Guiado, a gigolo who is taking orders from a US and an illiterate 'president',
where its dark history known to every living creature on earth. US has massacred millions of people in all continents including
Latin America.
Maduro has every single right to arrest him and put on trail and execute him as a traitor and an enemy of the state. How many
years the people in Venezuela should suffer for the US 'regime change' and its crimes against humanity in Venezuela to STEAL ITS
RESOURCES.
"So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few facebook ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and
ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight."
:
[The last Venezuelan Presidential election was a joke. ]
YOU ARE A JOKE ZIONIST IDIOT.
The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader
[Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as
a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.]
Illiterate Jewish Mafia 'president' must be kicked out of the office. Hands of Israel is all over the SELECTION.
The ignorant 'president' is MORE DANGEROUS THANT OTHER CRIMINAL US REGIMES because on top of being a criminal, he is ILLITERATE
as well.
[In 2009, the Generation 2007 youth activists staged their most provocative demonstration yet, dropping their pants on public
roads and aping the outrageous guerrilla theater tactics outlined by Gene Sharp in his regime change manuals.This far-right group
"gathered funds from a variety of US government sources, which allowed it to gain notoriety quickly as the hardline wing of opposition
street movements," according to academic George Ciccariello-Maher's book, "Building the Commune."
That year, Guaidó exposed himself to the public in another way, founding a political party to capture the anti-Chavez energy
his Generation 2007 had cultivated.]
@By-tor See, this is the typical lie. Socialism fails, so the socialist blames the outside wrecker for causing the problem.
If Moscow freezes, then it is because of the wreckers. If Moscow starves, then it is because of the wreckers.
If Venezuela collapses, then it is because of "sanctions," not the failure of the new socialist economy.
America has the right to lock anyone out of its economy that it wants, for whatever reasons. This should not matter because
that nation can still trade with the rest of the world, like China. Venezuela could get everything it wants by simply selling
oil to China in exchange for goods. The problem is, there is not enough oil production to do so and other nations are reluctant
to replace American investment for fear of losing their assets as well.
Think about how wrong-headed the Chavez policy has been. If the Venezuelans have problems with their local ruling class and
want to get rid of them fine do so. But, why go after the American oil company? The Americans don't care who rules Venezuela as
long as their contracts are honored. Chavez could have then been a true socialist an allocate a greater dividend to Venezuelans
that was previously being hoarded by the ruling class an arrangement similar to what Alaskans have with American oil companies.
But no there was an immediate seizure of assets because the only purpose of socialism is to make the socialist leaders rich.
And Chavez and Maduro became very rich indeed.
@AnonFromTN I would happily martyr gorbachov , Yeltsin and all their gang. I think everybody would have been far better of
then. Same is applied to the puppet. Nikolai II was martyred and things got a lot better. What is important is winning and final
outcome, while making some martyrs in the process.
@Harold Smith Trump's personnel picks are mind-boggling. I cannot see how he disapproves Eliot Abrams for deputy SoS with
one breath, then blandly allows Pompeo to appoint him an envoy to a trouble-spot. Bolton, Pompeo, Goldberg et al.
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big
Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a real danger for the USA.
@Tyrion 2 There is not a single complaint here that did not exist before the election or before Pres Chavez.
There are poor management leaders all over the globe. That';s their business. Hey we have some right here in the US I take
it your solution is a military coup or better yet a coup fostered by the EU or the OAS, or maybe ASEAN or SDG . . .
It would be nice if someone simply asked Trump why it is he originally wanted to get along with Russia and pull out of the middle
east and generally opposed the "neoconservative" approach and now seems to be hiring neocons and doing what they want. Is he trying
to placate Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's lackeys, or what? I don't know of his being asked about this directly.
Venezuelan lawmaker Jose Guerra dropped a bombshell on Twitter Tuesday: The Russian Boeing 777 that had landed in Caracas the
day before was there to spirit away 20 tons of gold from the vaults of the country's central bank. Guerra is a former central
bank economist who remains in touch with old colleagues there. A person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg News
Tuesday that 20 tons of gold have been set aside in the central bank for loading. Worth some $840 million, the gold represents
about 20 percent of its holdings of the metal in Venezuela.
No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they
couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis,
living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all
that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being
a fool?
No, Chavez had popular legitimacy. Maduro has nothing but force to keep himself in power now. Yes, there's easy definition
for the above but Chavismo is decrepit.
Pressure for a reasonable Presidential election is based on that.
The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens after I leave White House.
Chavez had popular support . He felt the need to intimidate opponents from the beginning. Like Bill Bellicheck and Tom
Brady feeling the need to cheat.
Makes sense. They owe a big chunk of money to Russia and a payment of 100 million is coming due. Russia gets security for future
payments while it holds their gold in a safe place. They may ship the rest to China if they are smart
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join
protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone
at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their
President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and has signed with a Speakers agency
to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the private sector after leaving the U.N.
According to a public financial disclosure report based on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would
pay down more than $1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years
3. There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what having that oil control will mean for
the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams
project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran, figuratively or literally. The US signed
a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
@Hibernian I hate those two guys so much, and the owner Kraft also. I'm hoping for a helmet to helmet collision for Brady
early in the second quarter with his bell ringing for the rest of the game. (Evil grin)
@Tyrion 2 Yes, the int'l monitors said the elections were fair as Maduro received over 60% of the vote. You think the 'deplorables'
of venezuela elected the known US-Wall Street neo-liberal puppet Guaido? No, the US Tape Worm groomed this twerp, all-the-while
his backers and paymasters in the American neo-Liberal ruling class claim Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections. The shamelessness
and hypocrisy is astounding.
@Tyrion 2 Pres Hugo Chavez's admin was very controversial. And the conditions you speak of have plagued Venezuela even before
Pres Chavez came to government.
This really is none of our affair. We don't have a mandate to go about the planet tossing out whoever we think is crazy. He
is not a threat to the US. There's no indication that he intends to harm US businesses.
Their polity means their polity. You'll have to do better than he's crazy, mean, a despot, etc. That's for them to resolve.
@Commentator Mike Seems some will never learn the definition of insanity, especially the NeoCons who have been running America
for far too long. I recommend John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for the less informed among us here today. Maybe
at some point they will get a clue.
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power.
I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his
family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy
of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been
that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed,
poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate "government" we have here. We let them
get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a
mess in Africa. All the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA crimes, more
will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all of them are, and there are lots of
Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one
one group, I think Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St, Corporations, Banks, The
MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists. I think
Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to
control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they dicovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it. Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists"
here are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can claim to be a Jew. So how do you
solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to
enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want. Capitalism is the problem always has
been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral, unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force
is maximizing profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced form of capitalism because
it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us, taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money
while paying little to no taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody dares say
it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it, again paying little or no taxes
on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and
they used the money for the people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors running
our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system of ours, don't you think we should try something
else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism,
that is what all of this is about, follow the money. Just muh opinion
@Tyrion 2 From the people fool not by the C.I.A. declaring that well we like the other fellow best for president,after all
using the logic you fail to have Hillary could have said call me madam president and leave the orange clown out in the dark,stupid,stupid
people
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
OMG, Cathey really said that. Is he always such a shit? He certainly has Venezuela completely wrong.
@AnonFromTN This phylosophical questions should not led to no actions. Modern Russia is actually in much better position now
than it was in 1913. True. There is never final. Sorry for wrong words choice. Dialectics.
@Wizard of Oz The scenario you describe is an accurate. And requires me to make judgments about a dynamic I am unfamiliar
with -- no bite. Several sides to this tale and I have heard and seen it before.
I may however make a call.
In 2017 2/3 of the states in the region chose not to interfere. They have not changed their minds on intervention.
ohh by the way I did ask and here's the familial response:
But reading the data sets makes it clear that what they want is some humanitarian relief. B y and large I have the family telling
me to mind my own business, but they would like a meal, some medicine and some water.
By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he
have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today.
Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces.
In Trump's remaining 2 years he must throw off the parasites, bring in real men, and go to work on infrastructure, health
care, and real jobs. He has to out the naysayers, the creeps and the war mongers. Throw Bolton from the train, and divorce Netanyahu
and Israel. Appeal directly to the public.
If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum,
by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner
measures.
@RobinG That would be an easy, almost optimistic explanation: some people are venal enough to say or write anything for money.
Pessimistic explanation is that some people who can read and write are nonetheless dumb or brainwashed enough to sincerely believe
the BS they are writing.
Can you define what capitalism is ? Once that idea is refined, finessed, and compared to multiple color changes of capitalism,
it becomes easier who to fit in the plastic infinitely expandable box of ideas of capitalism starting with the chartered company
to patient laws to companies making military hardwares paid by tax payers to tax cut by government to seizure of foreign asset
by US-UK to protection of the US business by military forces to selling military gadgets to the countries owned by families like
Saudi royals Gulf monarchs and to the African ( American installed ) dictators to printing money .
A great article I posted in another thread few days ago dives deep into who Juan Guaido is and his past grooming for the past
10+ years:
Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing
as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.
"Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed."
The thing is, Trump just didn't fail to drain the swamp, he "took the ball and ran with
it." Apparently he's an enthusiastic imperialist who gets off on the illegitimate use of
military force. (His attack on the Shayrat airbase in Syria should end any debate about
that).
Supposedly he's been wanting to attack Venezuela for a while:
I can understand Trump's die-hard supporters' argument that Trump is being coerced into
doing evil things (although I don't agree with it), but how can they explain Trump's apparent
enthusiasm?
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Trump's anti-war/anti-interventionist
tweets from 2013 were insincere and his whole presidential campaign was a brazen fraud.
Edit: I just saw your comment #71; so you apparently see it the same way I do.
@By-tor Maduro is just Venezuelan Mugabe. Has it really come to this? That people on Unz
will support any random lunatic as long as he mouths off about America or Israel every now
and again?
Oh, but the sanctions! Proper economic sanctions were only very recently applied. The
Venezuelan economy was already utterly wrecked by their joke of a government.
Liken the US not trading with Venezuela to a medieval siege if you like, but I suggest you
read up on medieval sieges first. Hint: they weren't merely a government run boycott.
@onebornfree Some all to rare common sense – a writer who understands that both big
government Trump and the big government "opposition" to Trump are not, never were , and never
will be, "the answer":
"The Real Problem Is The Politicization Of Everything"
" While on the market and in radically decentralized systems, disagreements and
polarization are not a problem, centralized political decision-making has in its nature that
only one view can prevail. Suddenly, who is in the White House or whether regulation X or Y
is passed does matter a great deal, and those with a different opinion than you on it may
seem like actual enemies. Within voluntary settings, one can live with people that one
disagrees with. All parties curate a way of life that works while living in peace with
others.
To regain civility in human interactions and finally treat other human beings as human
beings again, we would do well to get politics out of human affairs."
For those who think this coup attempt was sudden, here is something from my blog:
Oct 9, 2018 – Ambassador Supports Coup
Few Americans know that our nation imposed harsh economic sanctions on Venezuela because
the Neocons want to overthrow its democratic government. They hate that oil rich Venezuela
insists on controlling its oil production rather than allowing big American corporations to
run things. Almost three years ago, Neocon puppet Barack Obama declared a national emergency
to impose sanctions by designating Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to
national security, and Trump continued sanctions.
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest
neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the
democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York
rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to
overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
Jimmy Dore assembled this great video of CNN presenting their expert calling the President of
Venezuela paranoid for saying the USA wants to overthrow his government. A few hours later, a
different CNN report documented recent efforts by the USA to overthrow his government!
@Tyrion 2 This is not about Maduro, or Guaido, who is likely an even bigger shit, as he
clearly serves foreign masters. Don't you think it should be up to the people of Venezuela to
change their president? The US meddling is against every rule of behavior of countries
towards other countries. How would you feel if Burkina Faso told you who should be the
president of the US? That's exactly how every Venezuelan who has dignity feels, regardless of
their opinion of Maduro and his coterie.
@Tyrion 2 The US has been plotting against Venezuela since the last Wall Street puppet
Pres. Rafael Caldera was defeated by Chavez and ownership of oil assets returned to Venezuela
thereby cutting out anf angering the NYC-London predatory globalist cabal. Trump's hitmen are
now preventing the Venezuelan state from accessing credit and from withdrawing its own money
and gold foolishly deposited in US and London banks. The Venezuelan corporate elite act
against the general population. You do not fully understand the situation.
Ethnonationalist stuff is ridiculous, it's stupid on the face of it, it's ridiculous,
I've said it from day one. Ethnonationalism is a dead end, it's for losers. Economic
nationalism and civic nationalism bind you together as citizens, regardless of your race,
regardless of your ethnicity, regardless of your religion
@Digital Samizdat Digital Samizdat -- As civic nationalism is no kind of nationalism and
presents no obstacle to race replacement, I imagine Jewry will be happy with it. Jewry will
also be happy that
Bannon the race realist ('It's been almost a Camp of the Saints-type invasion into
Central and then Western and Northern Europe') has been successfully neutered.
"... In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick for Deputy Secretary of State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the campaign. ..."
"... On January 25, 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ." ..."
There he was, right there on the stage to the right side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
who was briefing the press on America's position concerning the recent coup in Venezuela. I
rubbed my eyes -- was I seeing what I thought I was seeing?
It was Elliot Abrams. What was HE doing there? After all, back in February 2017, after
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had pushed for his nomination as Deputy Secretary of
State, it was President Trump himself who had vetoed his appointment.
Here is how the anodyne account in Wikipedia describes it:
In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick
for Deputy Secretary of
State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were
supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the
campaign. [emphasis mine]
Abrams during the 2016 campaign had been a NeverTrumper who vigorously opposed Donald Trump
and who had strongly attacked the future president's "Make America Great Again," America First
foreign policy proposals.
Abrams, a zealous Neoconservative and ardent globalist was -- and is -- one of those foreign
policy "experts" who has never seen a conflict in a faraway country, in a desert or jungle,
where he did not want to insert American troops, especially if such an intervention would
support Israeli policy. He was deeply enmeshed in earlier American interventionist miscues and
blunders in the Middle East, even incurring charges of malfeasance.
Apparently, President Trump either did not know that or perhaps did not remember Abrams's
activities or stout opposition. In any case, back in 2017 it took an intervention by a
well-placed friend with Washington connections who provided that information directly to Laura
Ingraham who then, in turn, placed it on the president's desk And Abrams' selection was
effectively stopped, torpedoed by Donald Trump.
But here now was Abrams on stage with the Secretary of State.
What was that all about?
Again, I went to Wikipedia, and once again, I quote from that source: " On January 25,
2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United
States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ."
Despite President Trump's resolute veto back in February 2017, Abrams was back, this time as
a Special Envoy, right smack in the department that President Trump had forbade him to serve
in. Did the president know? Had he signed off on this specially-created appointment? After all,
the very title "Special Envoy on Venezuela" seems something dreamed up bureaucratically by the
policy wonks at State, or maybe by Mike Pompeo.
Then there was the widely reported news, accompanied by a convenient camera shot of National
Security Adviser John Bolton's note pad (which may or may not have been engineered by him),
with the scribble: "5,000 troops to Colombia."
What gives here?
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela, with the head of the national
assembly, Juan Guiado, proclaiming himself as the country's new and rightful president, and the
theoretical deposition of then-current President Nicolas Maduro. And we were told that this
action was totally "spontaneous" and an "act of the Venezuelan people for democracy," and that
the United States had had nothing to do with it.
If you believe that, I have an oil well in my backyard that I am quite willing to sell to
you for a few million, or maybe a bit less.
Of course, the United States and our overseas intelligence services were involved.
Let me clarify: like most observers who have kept up with the situation in oil-rich
Venezuela, I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I
did Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the
economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional
rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by
elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I
support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
But potentially sending American troops -- as many as 5,000 -- to fight in a country which
is made up largely of jungle and impassible mountains, appears just one more instance, one more
example, of the xenophobic internationalism of men like Bolton and the now state department
official, Abrams, who believe American boots on the ground is the answer to every international
situation. Experience over the past four decades should indicate the obvious folly of such
policies for all but the historically blind and ideologically corrupt.
While we complain that the Russians and Chinese have propped up the Maduro government and
invested deeply in Venezuela, a country within our "sphere of influence" in the Western
Hemisphere (per the "Monroe Doctrine") -- we have done the very same thing, even more
egregiously in regions like Ukraine that were integrally part of historical Russia, and in
Crimea, which was never really part of Ukraine (only for about half a century) but historically
and ethnically Russian. Did we not solemnly pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, under George H. W.
Bush, that if the old Soviet Union would dissolve and let its some fourteen socialist
"republics" go their own way, leave the Russian Federation, that we, in turn, would not advance
NATO up to the borders of Russia? And then we did the exact opposite almost immediately go back
on our word and move our troops and advisers right up to the borders of post-1991 Russia?
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still am. In
effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete recouping of
power by the Deep State, the only slight glimmer of light -- that immovable force who stands up
at times to the power-elites and who has perhaps given us a few years of respite as the
managerial class zealously attempts to repair the breach he -- and we -- inflicted on it in
2016.
My major complaint, what I have seen as a kind of Achilles' Heel in the Trump presidency,
has always been in personnel, those whom the president has surrounded himself with. And my
criticism is measured and prudential, in the sense that I also understand what happens -- and
what did happen -- when a billionaire businessman, a kind of bull-in-the-china shop (exactly
what was needed), comes to Washington and lacks experience with the utterly amoral and
oleaginous and obsequious political class that has dominated and continues to dominate our
government, both Democrats and, most certainly, Republicans.
The wife of a very dear friend of thirty-five years served in a fairly high post during the
Reagan administration. Before her untimely death a few years ago, she recounted to me in stark
detail how the minions and acolytes of George H. W. Bush managed to surround President Reagan
and subvert large portions of the stated Reagan Agenda. Reagan put his vice-president
effectively in charge of White House personnel: and, as they say, that was it, the Reagan
Revolution was essentially over.
In 2016 a number of friends and I created something called "Scholars for Trump." Composed
mostly of academics, research professors, and accomplished professionals, and headed by Dr.
Walter Block, Professor of Economics at Loyola-New Orleans, and Dr. Paul Gottfried,
Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, we attempted
to gather real professed believers in the stated Trump agenda. We received scant mention
(mostly negative) in the so-called "conservative" press, who proceeded to smear us as
"ultra-right wingers" and "paleo-conservatives." And, suddenly, there appeared another
pro-Trump list, and that one composed largely of the same kinds of professionals, but many if
not most of whom had not supported Donald Trump and his agenda during the primary
campaigns.
What was certain was that many of the amoral time-servers and power elitists had decided
that it was time for them to attach themselves to Trump, time for them to insinuate themselves
into positions of power once again, no matter their distaste and scorn for that brash
billionaire upstart from New York.
Remember the (in)famous interview that the President-elect had with Mitt Romney who
desperately wanted to be Secretary of State? Recall the others also interviewed -- some of whom
we remembered as Donald Trump's opponents in the campaign -- who came hat-in-hand to Trump
Tower looking for lucrative positions and the opportunity once again to populate an
administration and direct policy? And, yes, work from within to counteract the stated Trump
agenda?
It would be too facile to blame the president completely: after all, the professional policy
wonks, the touted experts in those along-the-Potomac institutes and foundations, were there
already in place. And, indeed, there was a need politically, as best as possible, to bring
together the GOP if anything were to get through Congress. (As we have seen, under Paul Ryan
practically none of the Trump Agenda was enacted, and Ryan at every moment pushed open
borders.)
Our contacts did try; we did have a few associates close to the president. A few -- but only
a few -- of our real Trump Agenda supporters managed to climb aboard. But in the long run we
were no match for the machinations of the power elites and GOP establishment. And we discovered
that the president's major strength -- not being a Washington Insider -- was also his major
weakness, and that everything depended on his instincts, and that somehow if the discredited
globalists and power-hungry Neoconservatives (who did not give Trump the time of day before his
election) were to go too far, maybe, hopefully, he would react.
And he has, on occasion done just that, as perhaps in the case of Syria, and maybe even in
Afghanistan, and in a few other situations. But each time he has had to pass the gauntlet of
"advisers" whom he has allowed to be in place who vigorously argue against (and undercut) the
policies they are supposed to implement.
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only
thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic. The fact that he is so violently and
unreservedly hated by the elites, by the media, by academia, and by Hollywood must tell us
something. In effect, however, it not just the president they hate, not even his rough-edged
personality -- it is what he represents, that in 2016 he opened a crack, albeit small, into a
world of Deep State putrefaction, a window into sheer Evil, and the resulting falling away of
the mask of those "body snatchers" who had for so long exuded confidence that their subversion
and control was inevitable and just round the corner.
President Trump will never be forgiven for that. And, so, as much as I become frustrated
with some of the self-inflicted wounds, some of the actions which appear at times to go
flagrantly against his agenda, as much as I become heartsick when I see the faces of Elliot
Abrams -- and Mitt Romney -- in positions where they can continue their chipping away at that
agenda, despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he
will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is
usually not what you'll get.
I cannot imagine a more evil person to be allowed back into govt than this man, who is
more evil than he looks.
It is over, in my mind, with the trump admin; nothing has been done about the long list of
crimes committed by the obama gang during the election and after. Nothing has been done about
seth rich, I would add michael hastings, and the long list of clinton "suicides" and the
clinton crimes. the list is endless with no progress.
The dimos in doj, fbi, etc have completely out-manuevered trump and he really has no junk
yard dog to protect him-guliani is a joke, even if he is sober as he claims to be.
Linh Dinh on this website (June 12, 2016) predicted both the election outcome and its
meaninglessness. He had by then, of course, been blackballed by Scholars, Inc., and is now
helping to run a recycling operation back in Vietnam. But he has emerged as one of the top
Unz columnists, most of his Heritage American attackers who couldn't see past their DNA
having slunk away.
Conversely, go read the comment thread under Mr. Buchanan's latest. People who used to
fall for the "we/us/our" conflation of their country and Uncle Sam are waking up, due largely
to the President in whom you still place your scholarly hope. We may not be scholars, but we
understand that the blood of people in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and soon enough
Venezuela is on the hands of those who endorse the warmongering imperialism of Exceptionalia.
Your scholarly enabling, such as:
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I
support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
is naive at best. As a scholar, did you support the "economic pressure" rationalized by
Secretary of State Albright that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them
children?
Those of you who still expect the Unz readership to give two sh ** s about Donald Trump or
anyone else in the Washington Puppet Show are fast losing your relevance around here.
Yup, Personnel is Policy; always has been. The scale of it all really precludes the kind of
benefit-of-the-doubt explanation the author struggles to formulate. It's not that Trump tried
to do the right thing but some war-hawks, jews, and Wall-Street shysters got through
regardless. Those were the only people that needed apply because Trump wasn't considering
anybody else. One simply has to conclude that the people that currently surround him are
indeed "his kind of people". And let's not forget that after a crash course in the realities
of government he replaced Tillerson and notorious torturer McMaster because they were not
hawkish, not pro-Israel, enough .
What evidence is there that your definition of "doing the right thing" coincides with
Trump's anyway. Yes he made some non-interventionist noises during the campaign, but that was
mostly during the primary before he'd kissed Adelson's ring in exchange for the shekels. But
he was also "a very militaristic guy" who was all for "taking the oil" and who nonstop hated
on Iran. Face it, it was just the Obama playbook: throw an incoherent mishmash to the proles
in the hope that they remember only those parts they liked.
Isn't Trump's CV rather more illuminating on who he is than his campaign rhetoric: casino
operator and pro-wrestling MC. He gets off on playing the rubes.
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still
am. In effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete
recouping of power by the Deep State
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the
only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic.
.despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he
will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is
usually not what you'll get.
The US military has kept some 3000 soldiers in Columbia for years. Maybe that has grown to
5000, but Bolton's yellow pad note was a simple trick to fool simpletons. Invading Venezuela
would require at least 50,000 US troops.
Americans are quick to denounce socialists, especially those in the US military who thrive
in a socialist US military. Most Americans do not realize that their police, firefighters,
schools, most universities, roads, water, and electricity are products of socialism. If you
have an emergency in the USA, you dial 9-11 for socialists to help you. Everyone thinks that
is great!
From my blog:
Jan 27, 2019 – A Clumsy Slow Coup
Corporate America media has not reported basic facts about the attempted takeover of
Venezuela. The Deep State has tried to overthrow the popular, elected government of Venezuela
for a decade as it gradually nationalized its oil production. Several coup attempts failed so
the USA imposed sanctions to punish the people for voting wrong. Sanctions caused shortages
and inflation but the elected government remains in power.
In the past, the USA conducted coups by bribing Generals to conduct a quick military
takeover, and always denied participation. The Trump administration gave up on deception and
began a clumsy, slow coup. I suspect Trump's new CIA appointed attorney general told Trump
that he had the power to appoint foreign presidents, so last week he openly appointed a new
president for Venezuela. The Venezuelan army openly backs the existing president so nothing
changed. The UN did not recognize Trump's puppet president nor did any other major world
power. These facts do not appear in our corporate media, although the internet provides
reality via a Paul Craig Roberts article. (posted at unz.com)
Trump has now ordered other nations to send payments for oil purchases to a bank account
controlled by his new president. This infuriates foreign governments because they know oil
shipments will stop if they fail to pay the legitimate government of Venezuela, and oil
prices will rise worldwide as they scramble to buy oil elsewhere. Meanwhile, a massive
humanitarian and refugee crisis is building as the result of this economic embargo.
I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields
from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do
not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela
were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect
that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)
@Taras77 I agree Taras. Although I much enjoyed reading Boyd Cathey's essay, sadly, I
think he remains too optimistic. With the D's back in charge of the House, and the R's
impotent in the Senate, (McConnell as majority leader is a joke), Trump's stated agenda is
all over. He got nothing in his first two years besides the traditional GOP tax cut for the
rich. And he waited far too long to get serious about the wall. Yes, Koch-man Paul Ryan
opposed it, but surely Trump could have tried harder to get enough R votes to override him.
His only option now, unless Pelosi budges a little, would be to declare a National Emergency
on Feb 15. There is no way he could shut down the government again. Let's see how that goes.
However I disagree with Realist's comment. With Trump being attacked viciously on all
sides, I don't understand how anyone could think he is part of the Deep State. I think Victor
Davis Hanson got it right when he called Trump a "Tragic Hero."
Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign
policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical
gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to
instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another
country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim
country, not in DC.
I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields
from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do
not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela
were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect
that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)
@Ilyana_Rozumova It is not clear whether you are saying that Trump is trying to raise or
lower oil prices.
If he wants to lower oil prices then why is he making it difficult for Iran to sell its
oil?
If he wants to raise oil prices then why does he want the big US oil companies in
Venezuela to sort out that country's oil business and raise exports?
I suspect he, and those around him, have no idea what they want to achieve. They are
simply trying to demonstrate their "power" and ability to change regimes. To give the Monroe
Doctrine a bit of oxygen. To scare the European vassals.
@Taras77 Correct, Trump is a member of the Deep State. Trump's election and big talk is a
charade. It is hard to believe anyone would not see Trump as a chimera after all his
bullshit.
Also I do not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves
in Venezuela were planed long before
Trump is doing the same thing he did in his businesses ..using 'other people's
money.assests' to cover his ass.
Now picture this ..sanctions on Iran, sanctions on Russia, sanctions on Venezuela + rising US
interest rates + a slowing economy + half of US oil reserves sold to cover government
spending.
Hope people get use to riding a bike when this perfect storm hits.
U.S. sells 11 million barrels of oil from reserve to Exxon, five other
firmshttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-reserve/u-s-sells-11-million-barrels-of-oil-from-reserve-to-exxon-five-other-firms-idUSKCN1LG2WT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Six companies, including ExxonMobil Corp, bought a total of 11
million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a Department of Energy
document showed on Friday, in a sale timed to take place ahead of U.S. sanctions on Iran that
are expected to remove oil from the global market.
Sale of the oil from the reserve was mandated by previous laws to fund the federal government
and to fund a drug program, but the Trump administration took the earliest available time to
sell the crude under the law.
The sale's timing "would appear to reflect President Donald Trump's concern regarding oil
market tightness associated with the reinstatement of Iran oil sanctions," analysts at
ClearView Energy Partners said after the sale was announced on August 20.
@Carlton Meyer A slight correction is needed here. The UK, Germany, Israel and France has
signed onto this.
Just as all four of them were more than willing to help smash Libya to dust so they could
steal their oil fields and all that gold Gaddafi had hoarded up for his independent gold back
African currency.
I think what is happening in Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is connected to a broad
"connect the dots" South American strategy. The other dots are:
1) Bolsonaro's election victory.
2) Changes in structural relationship with Argentina, Chile, Colombia.
3) Cuba isolation.
4) Bolivia isolation.
5) And finally the recent unexpected dam collapse in Brazil, followed by IDF's offer to fly
in hundreds of soldiers to help.
S America is about to become the next Middle East (Syria). Weapons proliferation. War
profiting. Mass scale disruption. Already a profound refugee crisis. And all the traditional
war hawks there – with IDF leading the charge.
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and
I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
So in effect, you wish for the success of the globalists in their relentless struggle with
the concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law, and you support American imperialist
efforts to overthrow yet another democratically elected government, no matter how many people
have to die in the process. After all, the victim country is relatively close and its huge
oil reserves make for a reasonable pretext.
Venezuela, the Deep State, and Subversion of the Trump Presidency
Also on UR, link to,
Bolton: We're Taking Venezuela's Oil
Yesterday, Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton made the US position clear in a
FoxNews interview: Washington will overthrow the Venezuelan
RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT
@Johnny Rico "How many barrels a day does Venezuela pump?"
Something like 50,000 barrels per day. And pumped is perhaps the wrong word more like mined.
Venezuelan oil is locked up in surface tar sands along the Orinoco River and of very low
quality, rich in metals such as vanadium which catalyze sulfur into sulfuric acid rotting out
engines and turbines if not cleaned up. It is actually sold as a emulsion with about 25%
water to get the stuff to flow. The Canadian tar sands now produce something like 500,000
barrels per day. Try driving through the Alberta tar sands to see mommie earth ravaged
without conscience and birds murdered en masse landing on their vast polluted effluent ponds
but then the loathsome colonial denizens of our Canadian satrap to the north don't care as
long as we let them have a couple of hockey teams and legal pot.
Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign
policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical
gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to
instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another
country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim
country, not in DC.
@Tyrion 2 Venezuela is under US sanctions that substitute for a medieval siege, and
Venezuela's comprador ruling class are Wall Street loyalists, not nationalists. The US is
trying to starve the population of Venezuela and economically ruin them wherein a US puppet
gov't will enable predatory Americans to buy coveted resources on the cheap. This usurpation
of int'l law and criminality was pulled off by Obama-Nuland-Soros in Ukraine in 2014. The
majority of Venezuelan 'deplorables' who are bearing the brunt of US sanctions know well what
Uncle Sham's man-on-the-ground Guaido is up to, and have, hopefully, organized and armed
themselves with rifles to defend their lives and property from invaders.
@Amon It's possible that Venezuela will be another Libya. But I question whether the US
Imperialists could get away with weeks of saturation bombing on a country in the same
hemisphere, just to its south. I find it hard to believe that the rest of South America would
take this lying down. Then there's the presence of Russia and China, who both have
substantial investments in the country. Will they just sit on their hands too?
With its jungles and mountains, any US invasion would be more like Vietnam, I think. This
could be, and I hope it is, a Bridge Too Far for the Empire. Empires always eventually
overreach.
But, bbbuuuttt, I thought we were gonna be energy independent and export oil all over the
globe. What need have we of some heavy crude in Venezuela if this forecast is at hand? Just
hedging the BS ya know.
Maduro and Chavez are as socialist as I am capitalism fan. They are indeed populist dictators
and regime is still capitalistic. They just rely upon lumpens and military to hold onto
power. Things wound not change for the better and probably for worse if coup succeeds though.
Now, it is neither USA nor author's business to interfere into other countries affairs as
Americans quite obviously only make things worse and what if when USA finally kicks the
bucket as United country others start interfering in USA affairs ? I actually see it coming
considering demographic and cultural realities on the ground in USA. Once $usd is gone as
reserve currency the process as Gorbachiv stated would start.
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela,
actually the use of the term coup d'etat is incorrect. A coup occurs when the military
disposes the government and replaces it with a military government.
This has not yet occurred. It has not yet been successful, what is actually happening is
the beginning of a civil war, the outcome which is not clear.
The situation bears a certain similarity with the beginning of the Syrian civil War.
If it follows the Ukrainian scenario like what took place in 2014, then I would expect
some type of situation where foreign mercenaries are employed to create divisions in the
population, like firing on the opposition supporters. It is highly likely that some sort of
false flag incident will be use to fire up the situation.
If the military were to revolt and replace it with civilian rule it would be called a
pronunciamiento
Trump just congratulated self-proclaimed US puppet Guaido in Venezuela. So, he can no longer
pretend to be an innocent bystander: he showed himself to be a willing participant in the
criminal activities of the swamp.
Three notes on the bright side. One, the Empire is getting ever more reckless, no longer
bothers even with fig leaves. That looks like an overreach typical of empires in their death
throws. Two, Maduro, despite his obvious failings, appears to be prepared to defend his
country against banditry. So, maybe he is not just a piece of shit, like Yanuk in Ukraine.
We'll see soon enough. Three, Erdogan, who the same gangsters tried to overthrow not too long
ago, remembers that and voiced his support of Maduro in no uncertain terms, despite Turkey
being a NATO member.
"... In the meantime, the strategy for oil and gas executives to appease investors is to focus on "quick cash, quarterly payouts and fast talk," Sanzillo says. "Either way the stocks lack a long-term value rationale." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. shale industry has been over-hyping the production potential from their wells. The WSJ compared well-productivity estimates from shale companies to those from third parties. After looking at the production data at thousands of wells and how much oil and gas those wells were on track to produce over the course of their lifespans, the WSJ found that company forecasts seemed to be misleading. ..."
"... Schlumberger, for instance, has reported that secondary shale wells near older wells in West Texas have been 30 percent less productive than the initial wells, the WSJ found. Also, many shale companies used data from their best wells and extrapolated forward, projecting enormous growth numbers that have not panned out. ..."
Of course, that is largely just a reflection of the sharp decline in oil prices. But the share prices of most oil and gas companies
are also largely based on oil price movements. So, the steep slide in oil prices in the final two months of 2018 led to disaster
for investors in energy stocks.
"The stock market went to hell in December. And when it got there, it found that the energy sector had already moved in, signed
a lease and decorated the place," Tom Sanzillo, Director of Finance at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
(IEEFA), wrote in a
commentary
.
The energy sector was at or near the bottom of the S&P 500 for the second year in a row, Sanzillo pointed out. And that was true
even within segments of the oil and gas industry. For instance, companies specializing in hydraulic fracturing fell by 30 percent,
while oil and gas supply companies lost 40 percent. "The fracking boom has produced a lot of oil and gas, but not much profit," Sanzillo
argued.
Looking forward, there are even larger hurdles, especially in the medium- to long-term. Oil demand growth is flat in developed
countries and slowing beginning to slow in China and elsewhere. The EV revolution is just getting started.
The last great hope for the oil industry is to pile into
petrochemicals
, as oil demand for transportation is headed for a peak. But profits in that sector could also prove elusive. "The industry's rush
to invest in petrochemicals to maintain demand for oil and gas is likely to continue, but the profit potential in this sector is
more limited than oil and gas exploration, and is likely to keep the energy sector at or near the bottom of the S&P 500," Sanzillo
concluded.
In the meantime, the strategy for oil and gas executives to appease investors is to focus on "quick cash, quarterly payouts
and fast talk," Sanzillo says. "Either way the stocks lack a long-term value rationale."
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. shale industry has been over-hyping the production potential from their
wells. The WSJ compared well-productivity estimates from shale companies to those from third parties. After looking at the production
data at thousands of wells and how much oil and gas those wells were on track to produce over the course of their lifespans, the
WSJ found that company forecasts seemed to be misleading.
"Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in America's four hottest drilling regions appear
to have been overly optimistic, according to the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins
in Texas and North Dakota," reporters for the
WSJ wrote . "Collectively, the companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast
for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm."
Schlumberger, for instance, has reported that secondary shale wells near older wells in West Texas have been 30 percent less
productive than the initial wells, the WSJ found. Also, many shale companies used data from their best wells and extrapolated forward,
projecting enormous growth numbers that have not panned out.
The upshot is that shale companies will have to step up spending in order to hit the promised production targets. However, so
many of them have struggled to turn a profit, and the recent downturn in oil prices has put even more pressure on them to rein in
costs.
That raises questions about the production potential not just from individual shale companies, but also from the U.S. as a whole.
The problem is that the lower average price of oil, the less capex are for the year. And that creates problems in two to three
years period.
As long as shale oil producers are capable to produce junk bond, they will continue extraction even in prize zone below $60,
where they can't recover the costs. Cheerleaders from IEA will continue to produced nice rising curves.
Rather than troubling you by disagreeing, Tom, may I request, instead, your
basis for selecting $70 as the point where the economy and oil producers meet? My method uses step-wise
accumulation of production, from lowest cost to highest cost, to reach the required 100 MMB/D of worldwide
total demand. The reputable numbers for that exercise suggest lower than $60/B. As Canadian Oil Sands producers
will confirm, the producer does not always cover his cost. So the $60 number is higher than the practical top.
(This explains why the actual average price over history is $40.)
The reality is that as long as you have spare
producing capacity, which we always do, that can produce oil at less than $10/B as your competition, you can
forget recovering your higher cost unless you can hoodwink the traders. Of course, the hoodwinked traders'
motto is "Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!
Nicely put, William.
The niggling thing about the $40 average price over history is that the bulk of the
easy, cheap oil appears to be extracted already. Low-hanging black oil fruit already harvested.
Which means that extraction costs will increase.
So... while $40 is historically accurate for oil, that number is not static, and
seems it must inevitably rise, as it becomes increasingly expensive to extract the black oil fruit from further up
the tree - easy pickings gone already.
U.S. Shale Oil pundits generally seem to agree that $50 or
so is the breakeven point for WTI region light tight oil. Removing existing and earlier compounded debts from the
equation, I reckon that sounds about correct. Add in debts though, and it's probably closer to $80.
If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments this
entire dang year about my
hope
for
$65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my
hope
for
$70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can
reiterate
yet again
.
Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly this
year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the harder the
eventual crash would likely be.
And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the pots
of coffee and
stop artificially panicking. Near as I can
tell,
$70
- ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance
between
the global economy and oil producers.
I hope
the current over-reaction on the
oil
price See Saw
will settle back to around $70 by end of
this year or early next year.
Just
my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
hellenicshippingnews.com said yesterday , that the average
price for WTI had been $65 and $72 for Brent in year 2018 , with a high at 3rd October and low at 24th December
.
Overall , I would predict a lower average for 2019 , than for 2018 ; average
prices like during years 2015 and 2016 ($50) .
Opec+ might throttle supply , but if Iran sanctions will screw further ,
Opec+ will be able to push more oil onto the markets .
Venezuela might get online again , since I can't believe , that China and
Russia will stay neutral in regards to their investments .
Brazil will deliver more , and Mexico probably could reduce domestic oil
theft .
Canada is only capable to throttle production , due to authoritie's measures
, if drillers are left to heir own devices , the production in Canada will rise again .
Without any governmental regulations worldwide (International Socialism) oil
could cost even $20 and less .
Nevertheless , WTI and Brent likely are worth more than many crudes , since
they have short ways to their markets : The lower the transportation costs , the higher the oil price .
Electric Vehicles are still not yet deployed much , but in 10 years may make
up to 10% of cars in use worldwide .
Power-To-Gas and -To-Gasoline will likely become deployed in the next 10
years to come , increasing the pressure on crude oil prices .
If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments
this entire dang year about my
hope
for
$65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my
hope
for
$70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can
reiterate
yet again
.
Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly
this year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the
harder the eventual crash would likely be.
And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the
pots of coffee and
stop artificially panicking. Near
as I can tell,
$70
- ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance
between
the global economy and oil producers.
I
hope the current over-reaction on the
oil
price See Saw
will settle back to around $70 by
end of this year or early next year.
Just
my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
What are your thoughts on the recent news regarding Shale wells drying fast
than they should...I read in WSJ.
Also, $70 doesn't looks that impossible too...yes.
Summer Driving Season and if and when a thaw between
U.S. and China's trade war....can certainly take oil to the said level.
Without any governmental regulations worldwide (International
Socialism) oil could cost even $20 and less
.
Oil could only cost $20, if Saudi Arabia decided to
supply the world with oil by itself - a large amount of our oil supply is from offshore Nigeria, Angola, Gulf
of Mexico (Mexico - USA), North Sea, Brazil, Oil sands, Oil shale, - these locations require $60 oil minimum.
Oil could only cost $20, if Saudi Arabia decided to supply the world
with oil by itself - a large amount of our oil supply is from offshore Nigeria, Angola, Gulf of Mexico
(Mexico - USA), North Sea, Brazil, Oil sands, Oil shale, - these locations require $60 oil minimum.
Well....Mr.
@William
Edwards
here have explained the pricing in a very cogent manner. I'd find the link of the discussion and
post it.here.
If you are buying oil indexes price of
oil is important. If you are buying stocks the question is, will prices go up or down on stocks. There are a
lot of companies that are making a profit at the lower prices. Furthermore there is a lot of companies with
significant cash on hand. They also have low P/E, some in single digits and others in low double digits.
Combine this with the fact that with a little research many of these stocks are rated sells or at best hold and
analysts are rating them as bearish or extremely bearish, there is a good opportunity for some significant
increase. Especially in a market that is still very high. Granted if the market tumbles again, it is hard to
go against the tide. Looks like there is a lot of money to be made in some of these stocks. Some of them will
assuredly be targets for bigger companies wanting to consolidate acreage, others wanting stronger positions in
the Permian, Eagle Ford and SCOOP/STACK plays. Over the next month and maybe 2 there will be a lot of money
made. There is also a lot of insider trading going on, such as the purchase of $4 million in CHK by an exec.
Not a fan of CHK but there are a lot of people who have made a lot of money on them in recent weeks. The
reality is oil prices probably won't plunge even if the stock market goes south in an ugly fashion again, and
with Saudis, Iran and reduction in rigs in the shale plays across America, market sentiment will probably carry
prices at least through mid-Feb. That is plenty of time for oil and gas stocks to claw back some gains based
on the big fall they have had. Just my thoughts after 40 years of working in and watching this industry.
If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments
this entire dang year about my
hope
for
$65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my
hope
for
$70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can
reiterate
yet again
.
Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly
this year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the
harder the eventual crash would likely be.
And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the
pots of coffee and
stop artificially panicking. Near
as I can tell,
$70
- ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance
between
the global economy and oil producers.
I
hope the current over-reaction on the
oil
price See Saw
will settle back to around $70 by
end of this year or early next year.
Just
my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
Rather than troubling you by disagreeing, Tom, may I
request, instead, your basis for selecting $70 as the point where the economy and oil producers meet? My method
uses step-wise accumulation of production, from lowest cost to highest cost, to reach the required 100 MMB/D of
worldwide total demand. The reputable numbers for that exercise suggest lower than $60/B. As Canadian Oil Sands
producers will confirm, the producer does not always cover his cost. So the $60 number is higher than the
practical top. (This explains why the actual average price over history is $40.) The reality is that as long as
you have spare producing capacity, which we always do, that can produce oil at less than $10/B as your
competition, you can forget recovering your higher cost unless you can hoodwink the traders. Of course, the
hoodwinked traders' motto is "Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!
Rather than troubling you by disagreeing, Tom, may I request, instead,
your basis for selecting $70 as the point where the economy and oil producers meet? My method uses
step-wise accumulation of production, from lowest cost to highest cost, to reach the required 100 MMB/D
of worldwide total demand. The reputable numbers for that exercise suggest lower than $60/B. As Canadian
Oil Sands producers will confirm, the producer does not always cover his cost. So the $60 number is
higher than the practical top. (This explains why the actual average price over history is $40.) The
reality is that as long as you have spare producing capacity, which we always do, that can produce oil at
less than $10/B as your competition, you can forget recovering your higher cost unless you can hoodwink
the traders. Of course, the hoodwinked traders' motto is "Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice,
shame on me!
Nicely put, William.
The niggling thing about the $40 average price over history is that the bulk
of the easy, cheap oil appears to be extracted already. Low-hanging black oil fruit already harvested.
Which means that extraction costs will increase.
So... while $40 is historically accurate for oil, that number is not static,
and seems it must inevitably rise, as it becomes increasingly expensive to extract the black oil fruit from
further up the tree - easy pickings gone already.
U.S. Shale Oil pundits generally seem to agree that $50
or so is the breakeven point for WTI region light tight oil. Removing existing and earlier compounded debts
from the equation, I reckon that sounds about correct. Add in debts though, and it's probably closer to $80.
The niggling thing about the $40 average price over history is that
the bulk of the easy, cheap oil appears to be extracted already. Low-hanging black oil fruit already
harvested.
Which means that extraction costs will increase.
So... while $40 is historically accurate for oil, that number is not
static, and seems it must inevitably rise, as it becomes increasingly expensive to extract the black oil
fruit from further up the tree - easy pickings gone already.
U.S. Shale Oil pundits generally seem to agree that $50 or so is the
breakeven point for WTI region light tight oil. Removing existing and earlier compounded debts from the
equation, I reckon that sounds about correct. Add in debts though, and it's probably closer to $80.
May I differ on one point? Low-hanging fruit is forever!
I do no know for sure, since my x-ray vision fails below 5000 ft, how much cheap oil lies below the Saudi (and
Iraq and Iranian) deserts. But I do know two things. 1) I have been told for forty years that the proven
reserves in Saudi Arabia are 300 Billion barrels. It has not changed even though 10,000,000 B/D are pumped out
continuously. But I do not have to know. I only need to know if it will ever run out. I am sure that it will
not. The oil under the desert will, someday, be worth no more than the sand that covers the desert. 2) Quantity
of reserves is like spare capacity. As long as there is enough, it matters not how much more than "enough"
exists. As long as the Middle East reserves are not running at full capacity and fully depleted, $10 oil will
be available. Must I remind you that the stone age did not run out of stones? Or the nuclear age run out of
uranium? Better replaces inferior.
Newly elected Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently
said that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) absolutely needed to be "a larger part of our
conversation." Her comment shines a spotlight on MMT. So what is it? According to Wikipedia , it is:
"a macroeconomic theory that describes the currency as a public monopoly and unemployment as
the evidence that a currency monopolist is restricting the supply of the financial assets
needed to pay taxes and satisfy savings desires."
It is uncontroversial to say that the Federal Reserve has a monopoly on the dollar. So let's
look at the second proposition. Unemployment, MMT holds, is evidence that the supply of dollars
is restricted.
In other words, more money causes more employment!
This does not sound very different from what the New Keynesians say. Keith analyzed former
Fed Chair Janet Yellen's seminal paper on the economics of labor for
Forbes :
"Here is their [Yellen and co-author Ackerloff] tenuous chain of logic:
Disgruntled employees don't work hard, and may even sabotage machinery.
So companies must overpay to keep them from slacking.
Higher pay per worker means fewer workers, because companies have a finite budget.
Yellen concludes -- you guessed it:
inflation provides corporations with more money to hire more people."
As a footnote, MMT is referred to as neo-Chartalism, and there is some evidence that Keynes
was influenced by Chartalism (which goes back to at least
1905).
On Thursday, Marketplace published a piece on
MMT . Things are heating up for this hot new (old) idea. Marketplace presented a "bathroom
sink" model of the economy (yes, really!)
To wrap your brain around this concept, picture a bathroom sink. Think of the government and
its ability to create more money whenever it needs to as the faucet and that bucket area of the
sink where the water goes as the economy.
The government controls how much money, or water, is flowing into the economy. It spends
money into the economy by building interstates or paying farm subsidies or funding
programs.
"And so as those dollars reach the economy, they begin to fill up that bucket, and what you
want to do is be very mindful about how full that bucket is getting or you're going to get an
inflation problem," [Bernie Sanders economic advisor Stephanie] Kelton said.
Inflation is where the sink overflows. If that happens, Kelton said there are two ways to
fix it: "You can slow the flow of dollars coming into that bucket. That means the government
then has to start slowing it's [sic] rate of spending, or you can open up the drain and let
some of those dollars out of the economy. And that's what we do when we collect taxes."
This sounds a lot like the Quantity Theory of Money (QTM). This view often paints a picture
of pouring water into a container. The higher the water level, the higher the general price
level.
QTM by itself does not promote the idea that more money causes more employment. Only that
more money causes more rising prices. But Keynes did. And the New Keynesians like Yellen
do.
So what makes MMT unique?
According to Stephanie Kelton, in the Marketplace article:
"If you control your own currency and you have bills that are coming due, it means you can
always afford to pay the bills on time," Kelton said. "You can never go broke, you can never be
forced into bankruptcy. You're nothing like a household."
Keynes taught us about government deficits to bolster employment and government deficits to
respond to a crisis. MMT teaches us how to get to the next level. The voters want free goodies.
Traditional economics says "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
MMT says "oh yes there is!"
At least until you get to too much inflation . The Monetarists would agree, don't print too
much money or you get too much inflation . Much of the gold community also agrees. If you print
too much money, then you get skyrocketing inflation .
Never mind that this prediction was proven wrong in the post-2008 policy response. We want
to highlight that the Keyesians, the Monetarists, the MMTers, and even many Austrians largely
agree. The problem with too much money printing is too much inflation . They quibble about what
is too much, but they agree on the "bathroom sink" model of the economy.
In the words of early 20 th century physicist Wolfgang Pauli, QTM "is not even
wrong ."
We define inflation as the counterfeiting of credit. That is, fraudulently taking money from
a saver. It is called borrowing , but the borrower hasn't got the means or intent to repay.
Additionally, when everyone thinks that the government's debt paper is money , the saver
doesn't even know or consent to the borrowing.
There are lies, damnlies, and statistics. Then there are a few pugnacious, in your face,
gaslighting make-you-believe-in-unreality cargo cults. We will explore this in full, below.
During World War II, the US military set up operations on certain Pacific islands. They
built landing strips, where they landed planes bringing in supplies and men. They hired the
local tribesmen as labor, and paid them stuff that was ordinary to Americans, but wondrous to
the islanders. Like canned food. The islanders really looked forward to when a plane would
land, and they would get some cargo.
After the war, the US military pulled up stakes and left. But the islanders still wanted the
cargos. So they set up these elaborate charades, with tiki torches instead of flashlights, and
coconut shell mockup headphones. They went through the motions that they thought the Americans
did. To try to bring back the cargos.
Huh. What does that remind you of? An elaborate charade, with bogus props, going through the
motions of a civilization they don't understand to try to produce desired results -- free
goodies?
Modern Monetary Theory is a cargo cult.
It's ironic that the name includes the word modern . If we said that a pile of greasy rags
sealed in a dark closet would spontaneously generate rats, would you call that a modern theory?
If we said that sickness is caused by bad humors, and the cure is bloodletting by leaches,
would you say this is modern ? How about the idea that the Sun and the planets orbit the Earth.
Is this modern , too?
Not only are these not modern -- they are, in fact, old ideas that were tossed into the
garbage heap -- they are not theories either. A theory is an explanation of reality, which
integrates many observed facts and contradicts none. Modern Monetary Theory is neither modern
nor a theory .
MMT is not an attempt to explain reality, but to deny it.
Even a child understands something. Even people in the ancient world understood it, too. If
you lend a bushel of wheat to your neighbor, and he does not repay it, you suffer a loss. You
are worse off, compared to before. And so is the borrower (who at the least ruins his
credit).
MMT is based on denying this universal truth. Common sense says that if Peter lends to Paul,
and Paul does not repay, then Peter is impoverished. Common sense says that Peter would not
lend to Paul if he knew that Paul would renege on his obligation.
MMT says that a modern economy has a modern currency, which is just the state's paper. And
in a modern economy, the modern state can print more with no concerns other than "overflowing
the bathroom sink". Get that, the only concern is prices could rise too fast. And so long as
this does not occur, then the state can get away with it. Only, there is nothing to get away
with. It's perfectly fine.
In a cargo cult, the people did not recognize the difference between fake coconut shell
headphones, and real headphones. Or flashlights and tiki torches. So they made crude copies as
best they could. They went through the motions to summon the sky gods to come down to earth,
with cargo.
Let's look at the mental gymnastics. They imbued magical -- that is outside the principle of
cause and effect -- characteristics to their props. Failing to understand that airplanes are
created by men, and that it takes a great deal of planning (not to mention wealth) to fly a
plane full of cargo from America to the middle of the Pacific, they imagined that, somehow, the
act of using the headphones and the flashlights caused the plane and its cargo to come. The
headset is tokenized, viewed as a magical talisman.
What a cargo cult does to headphones, MMT does to money. First, the cargo cult substitutes
coconut shells held together with twisted vine for headphones. What they wear when attempting
to summon the sky gods is not a headset, but a surrogate. MMT (as does Keynesianism and
Monetarism) substitutes government debt paper for money.
As an aside, even a gold-redeemable certificate is not money. Think about it. You can bring
this piece of paper to the teller window. You push it across the counter. The teller pushes
back the gold coin. If the word for the paper is money, then what is the word for the gold for
which it redeems?
Anyways, modern monetary systems use irredeemable paper. It's not gold-redeemable, but even
worse. And they treat this paper as if it were money .
And it goes even farther. Previous theories felt the need to at least pay lip service to
repaying debt. They couldn't quite get to the point of openly admitting that the debt is never
to be repaid. Keynes famously quipped that, "in the long run, we are all dead," creating
ambiguity about the intention to repay. Monetarists generally promote the idea that if the
economy grows fast enough, the debt will shrink as a proportion of GDP.
The Keynesians don't have the intention to repay. And the Monetarists don't look at
Marginal
Productivity of Debt , which would show them that their idea isn't working. But they don't
go as far as the MMT'ers.
MMT says that the government is unlike deadbeat-debtor Paul. There is no need for the
government to repay. It's the same as the cargo cult. The cargo cult has no concept for
capital. The islanders do not produce in excess of what they consume, accumulating tools and
technology to increase their productivity. They subsist, and assume that this is how the world
works.
MMT has no concept for capital either. It puts blinders on, declaring that consumer prices
are the only thing to measure. The only risk is if they rise too fast. And the MMT'ers refuse
to see anything else.
In our discussion of Yield Purchasing Power , we
introduced a farmer who sells off the back 40 (acres), chops down the apple orchard to sell the
fruitwood, tears down the old barn to sell the planks, and even dismantles the tractor. And why
does he do this? He gets cash in exchange. And the cash is far in excess of his crop yield. Why
struggle and sweat to produce $20,000 a year by growing food, when you can sell off the piece
of the farm for $20,000,000.
The monetary system incentivizes the farmer to trade productive capital for paper credit
slips. The incentive is that this paper has a greater purchasing power than what he can earn by
operating the farm. He can trade his farm for far more groceries, than the food he could grow
on it.
This is the same old game. But MMT gives it a new name -- and asserts a bolder defense.
MMT'ers don't want to see, and they want you not to see, that the lender gives up good capital
but the borrower is just consuming it.
MMT justifies the naked consumption of capital.
Supply and Demand Fundamentals
The prices of the metals rose this week, especially on Friday. The exchange rate of gold
went up twenty two US dollars, and that of silver 41 US cents.
As we will discuss below, we think that there is a rethinking of gold occurring in the
market. And we don't just mean celebrities like Sam Zell buying gold for the first time.
There is a sense of déjà vu. Starting in mid-2004, the Fed went on one of its
rate-hiking sprees. It did not manage to get as high as the previous peak of 6.5%, set prior to
the previous crisis. In 2006, this rate topped out at 5.25%. In both the crisis of 2001, and
the crisis of 2008, the Fed had begun cutting rates before the official indication of recession
, and the cuts occurred more rapidly than the preceding hikes.
The cuts were too little and/or too late to avert disaster.
The problem is that during the period of low rates, firms are incentivized to borrow. They
finance projects which generate a low rate of return. These projects would not be financed, but
for the even-lower cost of borrowing. When rates rise, it does not increase the rate of return
produced by marginal projects (likely the opposite). So borrowers are squeezed.
The Fed eventually comes along with its fix -- even lower rates. While this is too late to
save firms that are teetering into default, it does enable the next wave of borrowing for
even-poorer-projects.
And now, here we are. Since its first tepid hike in December 2005, the Fed has been hiking
for just over three years so far. It has hit a rate well under half of the peak of 2006-2007.
The president has publicly urged the Fed to reverse policy course. And the Fed said it is
listening to the market, and may have paused hiking for now.
Meanwhile, the Fed Funds rate may be lower than the previous peak but it is much higher than
it was from the end of 2008 through the end of 2015. For seven years, it was basically zero.
Nobody knows how many dollars' worth of projects were financed that were only justified, only
possible, due to this zero interest-rate policy. But it was surely a lot (we would guess at
least trillions).
And now the rate is up to 2.25%. Many of those projects are no longer justified, and can no
longer service the debt that finances them.
And none of this is a secret. It is well known to the borrowers, of course. And their
creditors. And the Fed. And hedge funds and other sophisticated speculators. And not just in
general theory, but lists of specific companies and the rollover dates of their bond
issues.
Rollover is key to this. After decades of falling interest, everyone has learned the game of
using short-term financing. But the risk is that it must be rolled over. And when it is rolled,
the previous low-rate is replaced with the higher, current rate. And that's when we find out
which businesses can still pay.
So what will the Fed do? The next programs will have a new name, but the Fed must lower the
cost of capital if it wants to keep the game going.
Is this time going to be the total collapse of the dollar? We don't believe so, as there is
still a lot of capital remaining and more is flooding in as people abandon the
dollar-derivative currencies. So we think of it as déjà vu, the Fed is likely to
do something similar to last time.
And that is an environment where even the non-goldbugs see clear and compelling arguments
for owning gold.
It could be that the timing is not now. It could be that it will take months or years to
arrive at this point. We make no predictions of timing. However, we note that the Monetary
Metals Gold Fundamental Price has been in a rising trend since mid-October. Its low was on
October 9 ($1,266).
Silver is similar, but a bit different. The low in its fundamental occurred in late November
($14.37). But it's up like a rocket since then, now about two bucks higher.
We are at an interesting point.
Let's take a look at the only true picture of the supply and demand fundamentals of gold and
silver. But, first, here is the chart of the prices of gold and silver.
March 20, 2018, marks the 15th anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq. While the American footprint in Iraq has drastically
changed over 15 years, a significant number of the original cheerleaders for the invasion still hold prominent roles in the media
today:
John Bolton, Fox News contributor
Bolton was President George W. Bush's
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control when the Iraq War began.
Bolton backed an Iraq invasion as early as 1998, when he signed a letter from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC),
a neoconservative group led by William Kristol, urging then-President Bill Clinton to attack Saddam Hussein. As the State Department's
top arms-control official during President Bush's first term, Bolton played a role in pushing the allegation that Saddam Hussein
sought uranium in Africa.
"We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq." [BBC,
11/20/02
]
"I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct." [Talking Points Memo,
5/14/15 ]
Larry Kudlow, CNBC senior contributor
Kudlow was economics editor of
National Review and a co-host of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer when the Iraq War began.
"Could it be that a lack of decisive follow-through in the global war on terrorism is the single biggest problem facing the stock
market and the nation today? I believe it is. The shock therapy of decisive war will elevate the stock market by a couple-thousand
points." [ National Review ,
6/26/02 ]
"Every day we wait for the impending invasion of Iraq is a day Saddam Hussein grows stronger, a day our national security is threatened,
and a day our economic security is jeopardized." [ National Review ,
2/6/03 ]
Boot's bloodthirstiness is united with a peculiar naďveté about America; it must be said that in this respect he is not unlike
Lansdale. Could it really have been, as Boot wrote in 2017, that only Trump opened his eyes to the fact that it's a bit easier
to be a white guy in America, that "I benefitted from my skin color and my gender -- and those of a different gender or sexuality
or skin color have suffered because of it"? Good for Max if he's had a change of heart and seen the world through more empathetic
eyes; one only wishes he could've had those moments of reflection, which seem so modest and so reasonable, circa 2001. But that
might not have changed anything. He wrote as recently as 2013 that he feels "No Need to Repent for Support of the Iraq War." He
declares, "I feel no shame being part of the 75 percent of Americans who believed at the beginning that this was a war worth waging."
This move is not quite honest: Boot wants to submerge himself into the center of a crowd, one of the democratic mass, when in
fact he was at its vanguard, pushing for the Iraq War early and often.
"Once Afghanistan has been dealt with, America should turn its attention to Iraq." [ The Weekly Standard ,
10/15/01 ]
"In places like Kosovo, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and very shortly Iraq, ordinary people clamor for American intervention, and welcome
U.S. troops as liberators." [Nimitz Memorial Lecture at University of California, Berkeley,
3/12/03 ]
"No need to repent for support of [the] Iraq war." [ Commentary ,
3/18/13 ]
"But how exactly does the Iraq War differ from previous wars? From World War I, when the Great Powers were said to have 'sleepwalked'
into a conflict that no one really wanted?" [ Commentary ,
7/6/16 ]
Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist
Cohen
was a Washington Post columnist when the Iraq War began.
"Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or
possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." [ The Washington Post ,
2/6/03 ]
"Initially, I thought bringing down Saddam Hussein was a good cause. I was wrong -- not about the cause, but about its practicality."
[ The Washington Post ,
4/1/08 ]
Ari Fleischer, Fox News contributor
Flesicher served as President Bush's
press secretary as the Iraq War began.
"My point is, the likelihood is much more like Afghanistan, where the people who live right now under a brutal dictator will view
America as liberators, not conquerors." [ The New York Times ,
10/12/02 ]
"There's no question that if force is used, it will achieve the objective of preserving the peace far faster than the current
path that we're on." [White House press briefing, 2/14/03
]
"Given the chance to throw off a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein, people will rejoice." [White House press briefing,
3/21/03 ]
"I think that if you look at the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people are overwhelmingly pleased with the fact the United States has
helped them to get rid of the Saddam Hussein regime. That was clear from their dancing in the streets, from the way they tore down
the statues. And I think that is the viewpoint of the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people." [White House press briefing,
7/1/03 ]
Sean Hannity, Fox News host
Hannity was also a syndicated talk radio host
and a Fox News host when the Iraq War began.
"We're going to find all the weapons of mass destruction." [Fox News, Hannity & Colmes , 2/19/03, via Nexis]
"I was a real believer in the Iraq War. I still am to this day. I still feel that there were probably weapons of mass destruction.
I do believe they were likely moved to Syria in the long lead-up to the war." [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show
,
9/7/16 ]
Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard editor-in-chief
Hayes was a senior writer at The
Weekly Standard when the Iraq War began.
"Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives
and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi
financial support for al Qaeda." [ The Weekly Standard ,
11/24/03 ]
Hayes' 2004 book was titled The Connection: How Al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America .
[ Media Matters ,
6/30/04 ]
Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial director
Hiatt has been
editorial page director of The Washington Post since 1999.
As Media Matters has
documented , the Washington Post editorial page -- headed by Hiatt since 1999 -- repeatedly echoed the Bush administration's
claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. A February 6, 2003,
editorial began, "After Secretary Of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it
is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction."
The Post 's editorial page also
linked the need to invade Iraq to the 9/11 attacks:
During the past decade the United States vowed many times to disarm Saddam Hussein, who made no secret of his hatred and enmity
toward the United States; but when the Iraqi dictator resisted, the United States chose to abandon its vows rather than use the
force that would have been needed to enforce them. In every case, the calculation, stated or unstated, was the same: Pay tribute,
don't make trouble, and maybe nothing worse will happen.
In the ruins of Lower Manhattan in September 2001, most Americans saw evidence that this calculation was incorrect as well
as craven. The nation's enemies would not be deterred or mollified by a gentle response; they would be emboldened. President Bush
rightly concluded that the nation had to defend itself more vigilantly but also that no defense could succeed unless accompanied
by an offensive against the terrorists and the states that sheltered them.
Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor-at-large
Kristol was a co-founder of
Project for a New American Century, a neo-conservative think-tank Kristol used to crusade for the Iraq War.
Saddam Hussein "will not disarm peacefully. And he must be disarmed. So war will come. The war itself will clarify who was right
and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about
Saddam's regime." [ The Weekly Standard ,
3/17/03 ]
Kristol bragged that the war would last just two months:
In 2015, Kristol
defended
the decision to invade Iraq:
Even with the absence of caches of weapons of mass destruction, and the mistakes we made in failing to send enough troops at
first and to provide security from the beginning for the Iraqi people, we were right to persevere through several difficult years.
We were able to bring the war to a reasonably successful conclusion in 2008.
Paul Gigot, Wall Street Journal editorial page editor
Gigot has been the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal since 2001.
Under Gigot, the editorial page
frequently hyped the likelihood that Saddam Hussein was close to producing or obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Journal
forwarded alarmist claims about Iraq's nuclear capabilities on numerous occasions:
August 2, 2002: "Above all, a debate would let Mr. Bush demonstrate that he has by far the stronger case. Even the critics
concede that Saddam is a threat, after all, a tyrant who has gassed his own people, tried to kill a U.S. President and whose military
routinely fires at American pilots patrolling no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
said Monday that before the Gulf War Saddam was 'within a year or two' of having nuclear weapons. And at Wednesday's Senate hearings,
former Iraqi nuclear engineer Khidir Hamza said Saddam will have enough weapons-grade uranium for three nuclear bombs by 2005."
August 29, 2002: "There is always the chance that Congress could refuse the President. But this must be measured against the
strong case the Administration has, a case Vice President Dick Cheney pressed earlier this week in Nashville. Mr. Cheney flatly
declared that when it comes to a nuclear-armed Saddam, 'the risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action.'"
September 25, 2002: "And then there is the redoubtable Mr. Blair, an ally who continues to risk dissent in his party and country
for a cause in which he believes. Yesterday Mr. Blair released a dossier of intelligence on Iraq. The 50-page report describes
how Saddam has tried to buy uranium from Africa for use in nuclear weapons, has 20 missiles that could reach British military
bases in Cyprus as well as Israel and NATO members Greece and Turkey, and stating that Iraq's chemical weapons are on standby
for use within 45 minutes. 'The policy of containment is not working. The WMD program is not shut down. It is up and running,'
Mr. Blair told Parliament."
September 9, 2002: "Democrats hardly need two more months now to deliberate over this evidence, most of which they already
know. They merely want to push any decision past Election Day so their votes won't put their Senate majority at risk. They can
then posture as statesmen for two months but only declare themselves after the day when voters would be able to hold them immediately
responsible. Let's hope Saddam's nuclear weapons program is operating on the same wait-until-the-election timetable."
A January 27, 2003, editorial was titled "If Saddam Survives."
Judith Miller, Fox News contributor
Miller was a New York Times reporter
when the Iraq War began.
Miller produced a series of now-debunked reports that the Bush administration used to buttress its claim that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction. As Franklin Foer wrote for New York magazine:
During the winter of 2001 and throughout 2002, Miller produced a series of stunning stories about Saddam Hussein's ambition
and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, based largely on information provided by [Ahmad] Chalabi and his allies --
almost all of which have turned out to be stunningly inaccurate.
For the past year, the Times has done much to correct that coverage, publishing a series of stories calling Chalabi's
credibility into question. [ New York magazine, 6
/7/04 ]
In a 2004 interview, she told The New
York Review of Books: "My job isn't to assess the government's information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My
job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq's arsenal."
Former New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller
discussed
Miller's Iraq War reporting with Media Matters in 2011:
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller says one of his biggest mistakes as editor was not addressing the paper's
misleading pre-Iraq War coverage sooner, including the reporting of former Times writer Judy Miller.
Keller tells Media Matters that he is "not at all" surprised that Miller ended up at the "conservative" Fox News Channel
after she left the Times under a cloud of controversy related to her Iraq reporting.
Keller, who announced Thursday that in September he will leave the post he has held since July 2003, said: "Judy was the author
of a lot of those stories, and I should have dealt with the stories and with her I think as the sort of first order of business
when I took the job rather than waiting until the following year."
Keller was referring to the unusual
editor's note the
Times published on May 26, 2004, in which it admitted many of its pre-war stories about weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq -- a number of which were reported by Miller -- misrepresented the situation before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"The whole Judy Miller WMD experience was ... one of the low points of the last eight years," Keller said.
Joe Scarborough, MSNBC host
Scarborough
was hired by MSNBC as the Iraq War began.
Joe Scarborough repeatedly cheered on the Iraq War and attacked people who criticized it.
"Congressman [Jack] Kingston [R-GA], give me a quick response. How could there be anyone left on the planet today that doesn't
believe that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?" [MSNBC, MSNBC Reports , 3/5/03, via Nexis]
Toppling Saddam Hussein "will mean the end of his weapons of mass destruction." [MSNBC, MSNBC Reports , 3/11/03, via
Nexis]
"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types
. I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe
the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war
.
"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief UN weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein?
Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between
its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.
"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step
forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions
were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their
mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing." [MSNBC 4/10/03 via
FAIR ]
Bret Stephens, New York Times columnist and MSNBC contributor
Stephens
was editor of The Jerusalem Post when the Iraq War began.
As The New Yorker
noted , in 2003 Stephens' Jerusalem Post "named one of the Iraq War's chief architects, Paul Wolfowitz, its 'man of
the year.'"
"Saddam may unveil, to an astonished world, the Arab world's first nuclear bomb." [ The Jerusalem Post ,
11/15/02 ]
Stephens criticized the Obama administration's case for military intervention in Syria by contrasting it with Bush's decision
to invade Iraq, which he claimed was made based on "highly detailed" intelligence revealing weapons of mass destruction. Stephens
claimed that the "testimony of U.N. inspectors like Hans Blix" supported the Bush administration's case for war, and accusations
that the Bush administration lied were "libel" and "cheap slander." In fact, Blix told CNN in 2004 that the Bush administration "chose
to ignore" his team's concerns about the lack of solid evidence in favor of war, and that prior to the invasion the evidence of WMDs
in Iraq was revealed to be "shaky." [ Media Matters ,
4/13/17 ]
David Frum, Atlantic senior editor
Frum was a speechwriter for President
Bush when the Iraq War began.
Frum is renowned for writing George W. Bush's
"Axis of Evil" speech. Alex Nichols
described
Frum's Iraq boosterism in 2017:
Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson, a fellow fanatical interventionist and veteran of the neoconservative underworld, tapped
Frum for the speechwriting team in 2000. His greatest accomplishment was the authorship of Bush's 2002 State of the Union speech,
now known for its most famous phrase, "axis of evil." The axis was a grouping of three countries -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea
-- that were implicit allies in a plot to destroy America. The supposed ties between the three mostly came down to their mutual
love for imaginary "weapons of mass destruction" and non-existent collaboration with al-Qaeda. As Trump threatens war crimes against
civilians in Iraq and Syria, sanctions Iran despite its compliance with our nuclear agreement and threatens "fire and fury" for
North Korea, Frum must be held accountable for cementing them as boogeymen in the public imagination.
Frum resigned his post in February 2002 in order to join the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank then
working in close association with the Bush administration. With them, he emerged as one of the most enthusiastic supporters of
the War on Terror. In 2004, Frum and former adviser to the Bush Department of Defense Richard Perle published a book titled An
End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. Its text was as audacious as its title. "An End to Evil will define the conservative
point of view on foreign policy for a new generation -- and shape the agenda for the 2004 presidential-election year and beyond,"
a description of it reads. By this time, the Iraq War was in full swing, and Frum and Perle offered full-throated apologia. Under
the assumptions that the war would bring stable democracy to Iraq and that the imaginary WMDs would be located soon enough, they
called for similar action against North Korea and Iran.
Eli Lake, Bloomberg View columnist
Lake was a State Department
correspondent for United Press International (UPI) when the Iraq War began.
As
noted
by Adam Weinstein for Gawker, Lake
argued
for the legality of the Iraq War in a 2003
column for UPI:
"On the facts of the case, it is hard to argue that Iraq has given up its weapons of mass destruction. ... With this kind of
evidence, far from being an international outlaw, the United States would be a the (sic) defender of the entire institution of
international (sic) should it lead a war to disarm Iraq."
Eliot Cohen, Atlantic contributing editor
Cohen was a co-founder
of Project for the New American Century.
MSNBC's Zachary Roth described
Cohen's role in boosting the Iraq War in 2013:
[Cohen] was a key agitator for an Iraq invasion and for a maximalist response to the 9/11 attacks. In a November 2001 op-ed
in which he called the War on Terror "World War IV," Cohen argued that the US. should "target" Iraq because it had "helped al
Qaeda" and "developed weapons of destruction." Not long after, he touted a spurious connection between Muhammed Atta, the chief
9/11 hijacker, and Saddam's regime. In Congressional testimony in 2002, Cohen framed a stark choice for policymakers: Allow Saddam
"to acquire weapons of mass destruction or to take action to overthrow him." In 2007, Cohen became a top adviser to Condoleezza
Rice at the State Department.
Ann Coulter
Coulter was a prominent conservative author and
commentator when the Iraq War began.
Coulter, alongside Sean Hannity,
pushed lies about Army Ranger Pat Tillman's opposition to the Iraq War. Asawin Suebsaeng
wrote in 2017 for The Daily Beast about Coulter's Iraq War boosterism and how she has pivoted away from it under Trump:
"I think Iraq was a crucial part of the war on terrorism -- if you had to choose between Iraq and Afghanistan, I'd take Iraq
over Afghanistan," Coulter said on a Fox Business panel, debating anti-war libertarians, in late 2011. "PATRIOT Act, fantastic,
Gitmo, fantastic, waterboarding, not bad, though [even harsher] torture would've been better."
Coulter went on to tell a bewildered John Stossel and Matt Welch that "[Iraq] is a fantastic country for regime change," that
"torture works beautifully," and that position regarding potential blowback or unintended negative consequences to the war were
merely a "crazy ACLU argument."
Rush Limbaugh
Limbaugh was also host of his own radio show when the Iraq War began.
On April 7, 2003, Rush Limbaugh said
, "We're discovering WMDs all over Iraq." On September 26, 2007, Limbaugh
called soldiers who advocated withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." Limbaugh has
subsequently tried to justify the Iraq War, even declaring that President Bush should be
added
to Mount Rushmore . In January 2018, Limbaugh
accused the "deep state" of faking weapons of mass destruction evidence in Iraq to damage Bush.
Nicole Wallace, MSNBC host
Wallace
was George W. Bush's communications director as the Iraq War began.
"[Obama's] legacy on foreign policy is going to be that he didn't start a war in Iraq. He wasn't the president, thank God, in
the years after 9/11." [MSNBC, 5/30/14 ]
China, India, Russia seen likely to take more Venezuelan oil
Tight market for heavy crude already a burden to some refiners
Source: Bloomberg
Source: Bloomberg
Refiners in Texas and Louisiana would be hard hit by sanctions on Venezuelan crude under consideration at the
White House, a move that would leave U.S. oil companies struggling to find alternative supplies.
President Donald Trump recognized Juan Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela on Wednesday in the most
provocative move yet against the leftist regime of Nicolas Maduro. Maduro responded by breaking diplomatic
relations with the U.S., giving American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country.
The Trump administration has drafted a slate of sanctions but hasn't decided whether to deploy them, said people
familiar with the matter. Earlier this month, White House officials warned U.S. refiners that sanctions were being
considered, and advised them to seek alternative sources of heavy crude. Some U.S. refiners worried about
sanctions experimented with alternatives last year before ultimately returning to Venezuelan crude.
The hardest-hit would be Citgo Petroleum Corp., the refining arm of
Petroleos de Venezuela SA
, or PDVSA, the state-run oil company. Citgo imported the most Venezuelan crude in
the first 10 months of 2018, followed by Valero Energy Corp.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc
and
Phillips 66
haven't processed Venezuelan crude in their U.S. refineries since the U.S. imposed financial sanctions against
the country and PDVSA in August 2017. Marathon Petroleum Corp.,
Total SA
and
Motiva Enterprises LLC
cut intake by more than a half during that period, and as Venezuelan oil production slumped to the
lowest levels seen since the 1940s.
Oil companies have urged the Trump administration not to limit imports of Venezuelan oil, warning the action could
disadvantage Gulf and East Coast refiners designed to handle the country's heavy crude, while also causing gasoline prices to
rise.
"... That works out to be 320,000 barrels per day. Saudi production increased by 384,000 barrels per day during November. So Saudi's November increase was mostly just emptying their storage tanks. ..."
That works out to be 320,000 barrels per day. Saudi production increased by 384,000 barrels per day during November. So
Saudi's November increase was mostly just emptying their storage tanks.
And from looking at your chart, it looks like the 135,000 barrel per day increase in October was from the same source.
Saudi cuts start from a base of 10,633,000 barrels per day. That is almost their exact production in October. And your chart
shows Saudi inventories had been dropping for months. Saudi had obviously been preparing to "cut" production from a level of production
they reached by emptying their storage tanks.
Sovereign Wealth Funds aren't immune to losses. They load up on assets in volume. Don't
forget they have to exchange their currency for dollars or whatever currency is needed to buy
whatever they are buying. Currency moves against their position. They are forced to sell or
just eat the losses. But can't unload a large position in an illiquid market unless CB's
start bailing out SWF by buying their assets at any price. Stock market crash wouldn't be the
death of civilization and that's exactly why we will get another crash and soon. Might be the
death of a few SWF's but not civilization. Might be the death of 2/3 of shale oil yet not the
end of civilization. But you can only load up so much debt on a economy that is reaching
energy limits. There will be a debt cleansing and soon. A lot of stuff we have now will be
going away. Peoples current level of living standards are going to change and change in a big
way. Not the end of civilization even though for some it will seem like it is.
They don't sell. The oil flows, they buy more, the loss is erased by added oil money.
Besides which, how can there be intolerable selling pressure if the owners of 23% of all
shares in the world keep buying?
Numbers on a screen are never going to kill billions of people. The numbers will just be
changed by decree, and systemically in cooperation with all CBs.
Only oil can't be addressed. Oil scarcity eliminates food from shelves and stomachs, no
matter what money is created to pay truckers. The truckers can have all the money in the
world and if there is no diesel available for the tank, the food doesn't move.
watcher, your general theory has been shown correct for a number of years.
But it also requires a certain amount of global consensus between CB's, nations, et al
taking coordinated actions to keep a global corpse-economy rolling. This is not an assumption
that can be made under all circumstances.
the theory also doesn't entire hold true for countries that are being exiled from this
consensus, or otherwise aren't being allowed to participate (for whatever reason) in the
forever-money you are referring to – essentially stranded on the rocks of collapse
– Venezuela; Brazil; Iran; Syria – and innumerable small countries. Yes those
countries with SWF and the Big Economies are still doing fine – but if their satellite
countries raise enough of a stink, it could unravel the consensus.
the rise of right-wing nationalist governments around the world is a strong indicator of
this new trend.
Well, there is certainly danger in absolutism as to . . . in all circumstances and at all
times this theory must apply blah blah.
The central reality is that oil is everything. Has been since 1925 or so as its relentless
power widened (widened, rather than "grew"). Caused Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor. Determined
victory in Europe. Stressed the Soviet Union to its end. Has defined for 60ish years the
Middle East as the flashpoint for global nuclear war.
CBs will probably communicate and cooperate from now on, since the systemic risk to their
power unfolded in 2008. They kept the wheels turning the past 10 years. They don't have
control of the SWFs, the new force in the universe that has appeared as a consequence of
simply them getting bigger. They started in the 1990s, but it took until now for them to grow
as oil money flowed to them. Now . . . 23% of all common stock shares on the planet. But
though CBs don't have control of SWFs, they share the common goal of status quo
maintenance.
As for the rise of nationalism (of any sort, Italy's nationalism is hardly right wing, nor
was/is Greece's), this is something that for some reason instantly captured the disapproval
of the left wing. It has not been thought through. Nationalism is the only possible mechanism
for STOPPING the CBs from cooperating and instead actually acting in their own country's best
interests, rather than imposing their orchestrated global control on society.
Nationalism is the force that threatens Deep States. This is not a bad thing. Unless you
want perpetual slavery to the power of CBs.
Limits to growth and or oil scarcity creates the environment for Nationalism. Oil scarcity is
a direct threat to debt money. CB's are ultimately playing a losing hand of extend and
pretend. Ultimately debt money is going bye-bye. Debt money doesn't work in an energy
contracting environment. Interest on debt will be outlawed by government decree. Bond markets
will disappear. Things will be funded without interest payments for awhile until that too
doesn't work. But until then there will most certainly be a lot of can kicking.
all I'm saying is that you've stated repeatedly that only "natural scarcity" will cause any
sort of decline – and in your own response to that statement you actually agree with
and confirm an opposing view – that a breakdown of global consensus between SWF, CBs,
and powerful Nationalist Govt's could and probably will unravel the "oil must flow at all
costs" dictum that has prevailed for the past 10 years. And this will happen BEFORE the gas
lines. Many groups are already not getting what they want – yet no gas lines –
except maybe South Sudan – and once they've been trimmed and skimmed enough –
they'll begin to crack. and if those groups hold state power – they will use the power
of the state to try and impose their will. good, bad, indifferent, left right, whatever.
OPEC released its Oil Market Report in recent days, which showed that the cartel slashed
output by 750,000 bpd in December – sharp reductions that came before the deal even went
into effect. Saudi Arabia led the way with 468,000 bpd in reductions, but its efforts were
aided by the involuntary losses from Iran (-159,000 bpd), Libya (-172,000 bpd) and Venezuela
(-33,000) bpd.
In fact, those three countries have accounted for massive output reductions over the past
two months. The OPEC+ deal is using October as a baseline, calling for 1.2 million barrels per
day (mb/d) in reductions, and the group is well on their way thanks to turmoil in just a few
countries. Over the course of November and December, Iran has lost 561,000 bpd, Libya has lost
190,000 bpd, and Venezuela's output fell by 58,000 bpd. Taken together, the involuntary outages
exceed 800,000 bpd.
If you believe (like Arthur Berman, James Howard Kunstler, Steve Angelo and Gail Tverberg)
that cheap energy is a thing of the past, Russia has much more leverage than the West. It has
the oil and natural gas and we don't. The U.S. imports about 40% of its energy needs. Europe
needs Russian natural gas to stay warm. Who is going to be better positioned in an energy
starved future? John Michael Greer believes that the two centers of civilization hundreds of
years from now will be centered in Western Russia and the Ohio River Valley.
One week ago, when we discussed why the Fed now finds itself trapped by the slowing economy
on one hand, and the market's response to the Fed's reaction to the slowing economy (namely the
market's subsequent sharp rebound, only the third time since 1938 that we've seen a V-shape
recovery of this magnitude when the market dropped down more than ~10% and spiked +10% in the
subsequent period), we said that the "obvious problem" is that the Fed is cutting because the
economy is indeed entering a recession, even as market have already rebounded by over 10% from
the recent "bear market" low factoring in a the economic response to an easier Fed, effectively
cutting the drop in half expecting the Fed to react precisely to this drop, while ignoring the
potential underlying economic reality (the one confirmed by the bizarrely low neutral rate,
suggesting that the US economy is far weaker than most expect).
Ultimately, what this all boils down to as
Bank of America explained yesterday , is whether the economy is entering a recession, or -
somewhat reflexively - whether the suddenly dovish Fed, trapped by the market, has started a
chain of events that inevitably ends with a recession. The historical record is ambivalent: as
Bloomberg notes, similar to 1998 and 1987, the S&P fell into a bear market last month (from
which it immediately rebounded) following a Fed rate hike. The difference is that in the
previous two periods, the Fed cut rates in response to market crises - the collapse of
Long-Term Capital Management in 1998 and the Black Monday stock crash in 1987 - without the
economy slipping into a recession. In comparison, the meltdown in December occurred without a
similar market event.
And yet, a meltdown did occur, and it has a lot to do with confusing messaging by the Fed,
which did a 180-degree U-Turn when in the span of just two weeks, the Fed chair went from
unexpectedly hawkish during the December FOMC press conference (which unleashed fire and
brimstone in the market), to blissfully dovish when he conceded at the start of January that
the Fed will be "patient" and the balance sheet unwind is not on "autopilot."
But it wasn't just the Fed's messaging in a vacuum that prompted the sharp December drop: it
is also the fact that the Fed and the market continue to co-exist in a world of perilous
reflexivity, a point made - in his typical post-modernist, James Joyceian, Jacque Lacanian
fashion - by Deutsche Bank's credit strategist Aleksandar Kocic, who writes that
"the underlying ambiguities of the market's interpretation of economic conditions are an
example of financial parallax – the apparent disorientation due to displacement caused
by the change in point of view that provides a new line of sight" (or, said much more simply,
the Market reacts to the Fed, and the Fed reacts to the market in circular, co-dependant
fashion).
Yet while there is nothing new in the reflexive nature of the coexistence between the Fed
and market, this process appeared to short-circuit in Q4. So "where is the problem and what are
the sources of misunderstanding" asks Kocic, and answer by taking "the timeline from November
of last year as the onset of the subverted perspective and the beginning of the
self-referential circularity" (as we have said before, Kocic takes a certain delight in using
just a few extra words than is necessary for the attention spans of most traders, even if
liberal majors find a particular delight in his narrative). Anyway, continuing the Kocic
narrative of where the reflexivity between the Fed and market broke down, in the chart below
the Deutsche Bank strategist shows two snapshots of the swaps curve from November and
January.
As we noted repeatedly over the past 4 weeks, while the long end has largely experienced a
parallel shift lower, Kocic correctly points out that "the biggest drama has occurred in the
belly of the curve which has inverted through the five-year horizon", yet where Kocic's view
differs is that according to him, this is not indicative of a risk off trade but is instead "a
radical repricing of the Fed." Meanwhile, according to the DB strategist, the inversion of the
front end is the main source of the reinforcing loop "as it brings in the uncomfortable mode of
what we think is a misidentified alarm and incorrect interpretation of its economic
significance."
To make his point, Kocic looks at the previous episodes of curve flattening during the past
two tightening cycles.
As DB notes, unlike the past two episodes of Fed tightening, when rate hikes were
responsible for bear inversions, the last three months represent a bull inversion. In other
words, "the recent flattening and inversion of some sectors of the curve has been driven by a
decline in long rates that outpaced the decline in short rates."
As others have observed, this departure from history highlights a potential flaw in the
logic behind the connection between inversion and recession, Kocic writes, and explains:
If excessive Fed tightening is the likely trigger of the next recession, then the
underlying logic and causality must go as follows. The Fed continues to hike until it becomes
restrictive and the economy begins to contract which eventually forces the Fed to reverse its
direction. The former causes curve inversion and a tightening of financial conditions through
a decline in the stock market and wider credit spreads together with an economic slowdown.
The Fed then begins to cut rates in order to counter the effect of excessive tightening and
the curve re-steepens.
Simple enough, and also extremely problematic, because as we explained
last weekend , it's not the Fed tightening that is the recession catalyst: it is when the
Fed begins cutting rates that one should be worried as all three prior recessions followed
within 3 months of the first rate cut after a hiking cycle:
... while many analysts will caution that it is the Fed's rate hikes that ultimately
catalyze the next recession and the every Fed tightening ends with a financial "event", the
truth is that there is one step missing from this analysis, and it may come as a surprise to
many that the last three recessions all took place with 3 months of the first rate cut after
a hiking cycle !
If that wasn't bad enough, Kocic notes that if " this were how things work, the recent
market dynamics would be consistent with the US economy already being in a recession" and
explains that "with rates already rallying, the implication is that the Fed deliberately and
mistakenly continued to hike. This is the territory of a serious policy mistake."
In other words, bull inversion and rate hikes would indicate that the Fed was totally
detached from the realities of the market.
Yet after laying out this scenario, one which the market was obsessed with for much of
December, Kocic counters that a closer look at the recent repricing "suggests that this
narrative of a policy mistake may be misleading and market dynamics reveal something very
different from a recessionary market mode" and further claims that what happened fits with the
Fed sticking to the script of market normalization as a priority to wit:
this interpretation runs contrary to the recent response from the Fed, in which they have
shown an unmistakable attention to detail with a thorough understanding of the complexity of
the situation with all the risks associated with the stimulus unwind. The Fed has also gone
to great lengths throughout this normalization process to prepare the markets for its exit
and take care not to generate additional problems along the way. The well-telegraphed unwind
of the balance sheet, which has come under increasing scrutiny over the past month is just
one example of the Fed understanding the potential pitfalls of providing too little
guidance.
Kocic then goes on to further claim that the market reaction is "a clear demonstration that
the Fed is on track with the normalization of the rates market", and thatr "by sticking to its
script, the Fed has forced another leg of normalization. The two aspects of this are shown both
in the decline of the correlations back into negative territory as well as the migration of
volatility to the front end of the curve, both corresponding to the pre-2008 curve
functioning."
Why does Kocic take such a contrarian view, at least relative to the broader market?
Because, as he explains, "if bear steepeners and bull flatteners were to continue to be the
dominant curve modes, monetary policy shocks are at risk of being amplified, and the potential
for a disruptive unanchoring of the back end of the curve, with its hazardous ramifications for
risk assets and credit in particular, is heightened."
This is why normalization requires front-loading monetary policy shocks and focusing on
the front end with the fed funds rate remaining the primary policy tool, while –
despite some calls to the contrary – the balance sheet unwind should remain predictable
and controlled.
Whether Kocic is correct or not we will know shortly, perhaps as soon as March, when the Fed
- which as we discussed previously remains a hostage
to markets - will be pressed to halt its balance sheet reduction, and which would
immediately crush Kocic's theory that the Fed is purposefully normalizing instead of simply
being forced to react to the market's every whim.
In any case - accuracy of the DB strategist notwithstanding - the bigger problem, and this
goes back to our point from last week, is that no matter what the Fed does at this point, its
actions will almost certainly precipitate the very recession it hopes to avoid.
Why? The following chart from SocGen answers that question in grandiose simplicity: because
it is not the curve flattening that is the recession catalyst - it is sharp curve steepening,
whether bull or bear-driven, that precedes the immediate onset of the recession.
And once the steepener trade finally takes off, Kocic's variant perception that " recent
market dynamics would be consistent with the US economy already being in a recession" would be
spot on: at that point, the bond market would finally admit that everything that happened ever
since the Fed though it could normalize has been one massive mistake.... just as Ben Bernanke
predicted admitted in May 2014, when he said that there would be "
no rate normalization during my lifetime ." Tags Business Finance
it is not a problem to raise rate and shrink sheet. they pumped trillons of dollar into
market is the problem. they pumped the biggest bubble in human history. they are evils
But that probably does not not including possible "back channel" from the US government to
major banks which allow them to finance unprofitable oil extraction.
Notable quotes:
"... $70/b by the end of 2019 is very reasonable [estimate] and actually similar to many of the major banks. The $55/b average expectation of oil executives according to Dallas Fed is too low in my opinion. ..."
Agree, Rapier is very good. $70/b by the end of 2019 is very reasonable [estimate] and actually
similar to many of the major banks. The $55/b average expectation of oil executives according
to Dallas Fed is too low in my opinion. Rapier is spot on (within $5/b of being correct) imo.
Much depends on what ROI is acceptable for an oil company, if they require a 15% ROI, then
the average 2017 Permian Basin well (average cost full cycle assumed to be $9.5 million)
needs $66/b at refinery gate ($62/b at wellhead) to meet that hurdle, EUR is about 411
kb.
"... The news that the Saudis will cut even more production than specified in their recent pledge in hopes of raising world prices to $80 a barrel was an important part of last week's price jump. Hopes that the US and China would settle their trade dispute during on-going talks was also an important factor in the recent price jump. ..."
"... While the US economy has been bumping along nicely in recent months, the same is not true for the other major centers of economic power – China and Europe. ..."
Oil prices continued to climb last week and are now some $10 a barrel higher than they were
just before Christmas when recent lows were set. Prices now have retraced about 30 percent of
the $35 a barrel drop that took place between late September and late December. Part of the
recent price correction likely is due to technical factors such as closing out long positions
in the futures markets. The news that the Saudis will cut even more production than specified
in their recent pledge in hopes of raising world prices to $80 a barrel was an important part
of last week's price jump. Hopes that the US and China would settle their trade dispute during
on-going talks was also an important factor in the recent price jump.
Looming over the talk about OPEC+ production cuts and how fast US shale oil production might
grow are the prospects for the global economy. A major recession could drive the demand for oil
so low that even current prices would be difficult to maintain. While there have always been
people convinced that a major economic crash is in the offing, in recent weeks there has been a
noticeable increase in the number and stridency of these predictions.
While the US economy has been bumping along nicely in recent months, the same is not true
for the other major centers of economic power – China and Europe. The Washington Post
headlines that "Economic growth is slowing all around the world," citing declines in the equity
markets; sputtering German factories, and Chinese retail sales growing at their slowest pace in
15 years. Even Beijing is looking for its GDP to grow by 6-6.5 percent this year which is way
off from the heady days of double digits ten years ago.
Eurozone economic forecasts fell last Monday again after a survey of economists found that
GDP is expected to grow just below 1.6 percent this year, 0.4 percentage points lower than an
already conservative estimate from March. A new report from the World Bank, citing a variety of
data, including softening international trade and investment, ongoing trade tensions, and
financial turmoil concludes that "the outlook for the global economy in 2019 has darkened."
Among the darker forecasts for the future are those that speculate on a global depression on
the scale of the 1930s where GDPs fall by 10 to 25 percent. Others are saying that the global
economy may be approaching " The Limits to Growth " as discussed in the famous 1972
book.
... ... ...
Virendra Chauhan of Energy Aspects told CNBC last week that "$50 oil is not a level at which
US producers can generate cash flow and production growth, so we do expect a slowdown." In a
Bloomberg radio interview John Kilduff, founding partner of Again Capital Management, said "we
were getting into the zone where U.S. shale producers stop making money particularly when you
sort of add in all the costs, not just the pure say drilling and extraction. It's going to
start to get tough for them right now."
... ... ...
Iran : Iran's crude exports dropped to 1 million b/d in November from 2.5 million b/d
in April, taking exports back to where they stood during the 2012-2016 sanctions. According to
three companies that track Iranian exports, Tehran's crude shipments remained below 1 million
b/d in December and are unlikely to exceed that level in January. Tracking
... ... ...
Iraq : Baghdad posted its highest monthly export total to date in December and,
combined with Kurdistan, set a nationwide annual record of 4.15 million b/d -- more than
100,000 b/d above the previous record, set in December 2016. The government said on Friday it
is committed to the OPEC+ output-cutting deal and would keep its oil production at 4.513
million b/d for the first half of 2019
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia : According to OPEC officials, Saudi Arabia is planning to cut crude
exports to around 7.1 million b/d by the end of January in hopes of lifting oil prices above
$80 a barrel.
... ... ...
Libya: Tripoli plans to pump 2.1 million b/d of crude oil by 2021 if the security
situation improves, the chairman of the National Oil Corporation said last week. The plan would
represent a doubling of the current rate of production, which currently stands at 953,000
b/d.
... ... ....
4. Russia
Moscow has already lowered its oil output by around 30,000 b/d compared with October
volumes, which is used as the baseline under the latest OPEC/non-OPEC crude production
agreement. Russian energy minister Novak said Friday: "We are gradually lowering output; our
plan is that overall production in January will be 50,000 b/d less than in October."
"... Last year, oil production in Norway fell to 1.49 million barrels per day (bpd), down by 6.3 percent compared to the 1.59 million bpd production in 2017, the oil industry regulator, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), said in its annual report this week. Oil production this year is forecast to drop by another 4.7 percent from last year to reach in 2019 its lowest level in thirty years -- 1.42 million bpd, the NPD estimates show. ..."
"... However, the Norwegian oil regulator warned that "resource growth at this level is not sufficient to maintain production of oil and gas at a high level after 2025. Therefore, it is essential that more profitable resources are proven in the next few years." ..."
"... The industry's problem is that after Johan Sverdrup and Johan Castberg there haven't been major discoveries. ..."
Despite cost controls, increased efficiency, and higher activity offshore Norway, oil
production at Western Europe's largest oil producer fell in 2018 compared to 2017 and is
further expected to drop this year to its lowest level since 1988.
Last year, oil production in Norway fell to 1.49 million barrels per day (bpd), down by 6.3
percent compared to the 1.59 million bpd production in 2017, the oil industry regulator, the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), said in its annual report this week. Oil
production this year is forecast to drop by another 4.7 percent from last year to reach in 2019
its lowest level in thirty years -- 1.42 million bpd, the NPD estimates show.
As bad as it sounds, this year's expected low production is not the worst news for the
Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) going forward.
Oil production is expected to jump in 2020 through 2023, thanks to the start up in late 2019
of Johan
Sverdrup -- the North Sea giant, as operator Equinor calls it. With expected resources of
2.1 billion -- 3.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Johan Sverdrup is one of the largest
discoveries on the NCS ever made. It will be one of the most important industrial projects in
Norway in the next 50 years, and at its peak, the project's production will account for 25
percent of Norway's total oil production, Equinor says.
The worst news for Norway's oil production, as things stand now, is that after Johan
Sverdrup and after Johan Castberg
in the Barents Sea scheduled for first oil in 2022, Norway doesn't have major oil discoveries
and projects to sustain its oil production after the middle of the 2020s.
The NPD
started warning last year that from the mid-2020s onward, production offshore Norway will
start to decline "so making new and large discoveries quickly is necessary for maintaining
production at the same level from the mid-2020s."
In the report this week, NPD Director General Bente Nyland said:
"The high level of exploration activity proves that the Norwegian Shelf is attractive.
That is good news! However, resource growth at this level is not sufficient to maintain a
high level of production after 2025. Therefore, more profitable resources must be proven, and
the clock is ticking".
Norwegian oil production in 2018 was expected to drop compared to the previous year, but the
decline "proved to be greater than expected," the NPD said, attributing part of the production
fall to the fact that some of the newer fields are more complex than previously assumed, and
certain other fields delivered below forecast, mainly because fewer wells were drilled than
expected.
In October 2018, Germany's Wintershall
warned that its Maria oil and gas field off Norway was not fully meeting expectations due
to issues with water injection. Those issues haven't been solved yet, NPD's Nyland told
Reuters this week.
Exploration activity in Norway considerably increased in 2018 compared to 2017, with 53
exploration wells spud, up by 17 wells compared to the previous year. Based on company plans,
this year's exploration activity is expected to remain high and around the 2018 number of wells
spud, the NPD says.
The key reasons for higher exploration activity have been reduced costs, higher oil prices
lifting exploration profitability, and new and improved seismic data on large parts of the
Shelf, the NPD noted.
However, the Norwegian oil regulator warned that "resource growth at this level is not
sufficient to maintain production of oil and gas at a high level after 2025. Therefore, it is
essential that more profitable resources are proven in the next few years."
Norway still holds a lot of oil under its Shelf, and those remaining resources could sustain
its oil and gas production for decades to come. The industry's problem is that after Johan
Sverdrup and Johan Castberg there haven't been major discoveries.
According to the NPD's resource estimate, nearly two-thirds of the undiscovered resources
lie in the Barents Sea.
"Therefore, this area will be important for maintaining production over the longer term,"
the regulator said.
Operators on the NCS have made great efforts to try to make even smaller discoveries
profitable by hooking them to existing platforms and production hubs. However, these smaller
finds alone can't offset maturing production -- Norway needs major oil discoveries, and it
needs them soon , considering that the lead time from discovery to production is several
years.
Chinese crude oil imports up +9.9% higher in full year 2018 compared to FY 2017.
The month of December up +29.9% higher than Dec 2017
2019-01-14 OilyticsData
Another big crude import number from China (2nd consecutive month of imports above 10 MMB/D).
Low oil prices and startup of mega refineries such as RongSheng and Hengli is helping to keep
these numbers near record levels.(Source; GAC China)
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw3fk2GXcAUZ_Vu.jpg
Oilytics https://twitter.com/OilyticsData
In support of RRC, I looked up their agency expenses, and found they are less than $50
million. That's to pay for keeping up with almost a half million oil and gas wells, thousands
of operators, and multiple other duties, including taking care of a significant amount of
State income. There is a grand total of about 725 employees. Hats off!
"... Good article. It accurately spells it out about the contempt and disrespect that America has of other countries, and the coercive tactics that America often applies to them. ..."
"... It really goes back to what Marine corps Major General Smedley Butler once reflected on, in 1933, about the U.S.,. He said: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism". Apparently, that is how other countries see us operating as too. ..."
For another example I turn to U.S. Ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who just sent a
letter to both Uniper and BASF to stop work on the Nordstream 2 pipeline or else face
further U.S. sanctions.
The Bild report raised the ire of some German politicians in Berlin. Fabio De Masi, a top
Left Party MP, demanded that the government reprimand Grenell, saying
: "The US Ambassador seems to make an impression that he is a viceroy of the Washington
emperor.
This is the real face of Trumpian diplomacy. Stop acting in your own best interest or we'll
bankrupt you.
The situation at this point is pretty clear. While our military strength is formidable it is
not, however, a blank check to enforce political edicts anymore.
In a world where U.S. prosperity is dependent on the prosperity of the entire world,
threatening financial ruin is just as much of a bluff as threatening physical ruin.
And we're seeing that bluff being called a lot. Country after country are now simply showing
U.S. strongmen like Pompeo, Bolton, Mattis and even Trump himself, the door and there is little
to no real response from them.
Trump tried to scare Erdogan into submission with sanctions and a collapse of the lira
last year. When it didn't work, Erdogan knew where his allies were. He acted accordingly,
siding with Putin's energy security for Turkey rather than a mercurial U.S.
India did the same thing over the purchase of Russian S-400 missile defense systems. They
said some nice things, invited us to talks and then sent us packing without a deal.
Germany refuses to yield on Nordstream 2.
Qatar was the first to pull out of the Syrian conflict and then turned around and
negotiated a major exploration and development deal with Iran in the North Pars gas
field.
Even Japan is in constant talks with Russia about working out their differences
officially (again, against U.S. wishes) and sign a peace treaty. Japan needs Russian energy
badly and Putin is patient enough to wait Prime Minister Shinzo Abe out while calling out his
hypocrisy.
Good article. It accurately spells it out about the contempt and disrespect that America
has of other countries, and the coercive tactics that America often applies to them.
It
really goes back to what Marine corps Major General Smedley Butler once reflected on, in
1933, about the U.S.,. He said: "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active
military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I
served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that
period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism".
Apparently, that is how other countries see us operating as too.
"... All of these oil-weighted stocks are part of the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF ( XOP ). They have production mixes of at least 60.0% in liquids based on their latest quarterly production data. Liquids include crude oil, condensates, and natural gas liquids. ..."
The following oil-weighted stocks could be the most sensitive to US crude oil's movements. They might be impacted the most by
oil's price movement based on their correlations with US crude oil active futures in the trailing week:
In the trailing week, US crude oil active futures rose 12.5%. Occidental Petroleum was the third-largest gainer on our list of
oil-weighted stocks. The top gainers, Callon Petroleum ( CPE
) and Whiting Petroleum ( WLL ) rose 30.5% and 20.6%,
respectively, in the trailing week despite having a mild negative correlation with oil prices. The trade talks between the US and
China might have caused these stocks to increase. In the previous part, we discussed that easing trade war concerns might be behind
the rise in oil prices. ConocoPhillips had the highest correlation with oil. ConocoPhillips has risen 4.8% -- the lowest among our
selected oil-weighted stocks.
All of these oil-weighted stocks are part of the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (
XOP ). They have production mixes of at least 60.0% in liquids
based on their latest quarterly production data. Liquids include crude oil, condensates, and natural gas liquids.
Questionable, but still interesting perspective. Ignore marketing crap -- clearly there is marketing push within this presentation
-- she wants your subscriptions. "This is Main Street vs Wall Street" dichotomy sounds plausible. Neoliberalism is, in essence, is the
restoration of power of financial oligarchy.
But the idea of secret open bailout might explain why shale oil became so prominent despite high cost of producing it: Wall Street
was subsidised via backchannels for bringing price downand supporting shale companies by the US goverment
$21 trillion in "missing money" at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017
has now become a national security issue. The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently
failed its first ever audit.
Fitts says, "This is basically an open running bailout. Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government
into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can't even know who is
doing it. I'm telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy
to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don't know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do. . .
. If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls
you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related
entities."
In closing, Fitts says, "We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President. The President cannot fix this.
We need to fix this. . . . This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United
States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else
who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of "The Solari Report." Donations:
https://usawatchdog.com/donations/
Greg, with all due respect I don't you understand what CAF is saying. Forget about a dollar reset. The fascists, using
the Treasury, Exchange Stabilization Fund, HUD, DOD and any agency they choose, have turned the US government into a gigantic
money laundering operation. And they maintain two sets of books - the public numbers are a complete sham. Any paper assets held
by private citizens are not secure, are likely rehypothecated, and when convenient can be frozen or siezed by these fascists in
Washington. There is no limit to how many dollars the FED can create secretly and funnel out through the ESF/Treasury to prop
up and bail out any bank, black ops, pet project, mercenary army or paper assets they choose. The missing $21 trillion is probably
a drop in the bucket as there is no audit and no honest books for us to examine. In sum, all paper asset pricing in dollars is
a fraud and a sham. Any paper assets you think you own, whether it be stocks, bonds, or real estate are pure illusion: they can
be repriced or stolen at any time; in reality, you own nothing. To the man and woman on the street I say this: get out of paper,
get out of these markets and convert to tangibles in your physical possession - and do it secretly and privately, avoid insurances,
records, paper trails. This mass defrauding of the American people by this corrupt government in Washington will come crashing
down when the US dollar is displaced from reserve status; this is what China and Russia and the BRICS are setting the stage for:
world trade without the US dollar. When this happens, your dollars will become virtual toilet paper and all of your paper assets
will go poof.
"We have to fix this". Ok how does the individual fix this? Private armies are running around doing whatever private armies
do and I, the one man, is suppose to fix this. Please, will someone tell us what we are suppose to do, specific instructions not
a mix of large words that say " we must fix this", damn, we need a leader. Greg you ask almost every person you interview what
the middle class should be doing to protect themselves and you never get a "real" answer, just a dance around. Also you ask numerous
people what this coming change is going to look like and again, just silence or dance music, no answers. Damn we need a leader.
Your trying very hard to give us information that will help us weather the coming storm, so thank you for all you do, and you
do more than anyone else out there.
Question, why in part do I feel I am being lied to? Is it subscription hustle or is it, don't you believe your lying eyes!
Without knowing exactly what is what, anyone who would've watched Herbert Walker Bush's funeral with reactions from those who
received cards, whether they be Bush family, the Clintons, the Obamas and entourage. Jeb Bush went from being proud and patriotic
to panic like the funeral that he was at was for the whole family.
Joe Biden looked like he had a major personal accident and no way to get to the bathroom for cleanup.
George W. Bush after being asked a question, of which the answer was, "Yep" then proceeded to appear resigned and stoic! What
ever was on those cards essentially amounted to, for all those receiving a card, "the gig is up" and it appears they all damn
well knew it.
So, Catherine Austin Fitts, explain your, "Trump is colluding with the Bushies," I would say, that Canary in this mine of inquiry
is dead. I'm just an old disabled Vietnam vet of plebeian background and certainly not a revolving door Washington DC Beltway
patrician, so any explanation needs to be delivered in slow, logical step-by-step progression for I have not mastered the art
of selling the sizzle in hopes that the dupes will later pay for the steak. I prefer, Greg, when you actually get more combative
with Ms. Fitts. Make America, great again and do so, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
35 min: Fitts gives a great synopsis of the problem. She never deviates in all of her interviews. greg doesn't seem to understand
at all. She repeats herself MULTIPLE TIMES and greg is still asking the same irrelevant PREPPER questions. IT DOES NOT MATTER
WHAT ASSETS YOU HOLD GREG, AND THAT INCLUDES GOLD!!!! WHEN YOU'RE EXISTING IN A TYRANNICAL SYSTEM THAT STEALS AT WILL FROM ITS'
CONSTITUENCY YOU CAN'T actually OWN ANYTHING!!!! lord! only so many ways to say
She lost credibility when she said Trump has "made a deal with the Bushes." That defies logic. The Bushes made a deal with
Trump! Trump has gained full control of the military with a $ 1 1/2 trillion war chest. Trump and Putin are putting the China
toothpaste back in the tube.
This woman clearly knows nothing about the plan..she has not even mentioned that the world bank president has resigned who
was appointed by obumma. And that is HUGE. She was in government in the corruption, but she doesn't know how things will be fixed..she's
not in that loop of current things in the new reset..shes coming from her own perceptions
This woman always make me sick to my stomach. She comes out and says a bunch of scary stuff and offers no solution. If it's
too much for just one person, then we the people need to take control. We don't need a central bank. We need local and state banks
like the Bank of North Dakota then we can migrate over to them and then shut down the Fed.
2019-01-11 (Bloomberg) Saudi and Canadian cuts are leaving world hungry for heavy crude
Refiners along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest invested billions of dollars in cokers and
other heavy-oil processing units over the past three decades anticipating supplies of light
oil would become scarce while heavy crude from Canada's oil sands, Venezuela and Mexico would
grow. Instead, the opposite occurred.
The shale revolution, as well as new offshore supplies form Brazil and West Africa, caused a
surge of light oil, while supplies from Venezuela to Mexico declined. Canada's growth has
been stymied by delays in getting new pipelines built.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/saudi-and-canadian-cuts-are-leaving-world-hungry-for-heavy-crude-1.1197259
India – Consumption of Petroleum Products (Without LPG or PetCoke)(kt/day)
December 2018 up +7.01% higher than December 2017
Average full year 2018 up +6.80% higher than full year 2017
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwoYp5xWsAA_vRh.jpg
India Light Distillates Consumption (shown in chart)
Average full year 2018 up +9.74% higher than full year 2017
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwoY_yjX4AA-S9K.jpg
India Middle Distillates Consumption
Average full year 2018 up +3.92% higher than full year 2017
ABU DHABI (Reuters) - United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei said on
Saturday the average oil price in 2018 was $70 a barrel.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other leading global oil producers
led by Russia agreed in December to cut their combined oil output by 1.2 million barrels per
day to balance the oil market starting from January.
"Today we look at an average year of around $70 for Brent," Mazrouei told an industry news
conference in Abu Dhabi, adding that this level would help encourage global oil investments. An
energy ministry spokesman said the minister was referring to the average oil price in 2018.
Same source of info which is the Dallas Fed. Only, this one discusses costs more. As, was
discussed here, previously, WTI needs to be closer to $70 barrel to induce interest.
I especially like the phase "This directive was particularly surprising in the context of
Canada's free market economy" That's really deep understanding of the situation ;-) . It is so
difficult to understand that Canada as a large oil producer, needs higher oil prices and it does
not make sense from the point of market economy to pollute the environment and at the same time
lose money in the process ?
Notable quotes:
"... Alberta's oil production has been cut 8.7 percent according to the mandate set by the province's government under Rachel Notley with the objective of cutting out around 325,000 barrels per day from the Canadian market. ..."
"... So far, the government-imposed productive caps have been extremely successful. In October Canadian oil prices were so depressed that the Canadian benchmark oil Western Canadian Select (WCS) was trading at a whopping $50 per barrel less than United States benchmark oil West Texas Intermediate (WTI). now, in the wake of production cuts, the price gap between WCS and WTI has diminished by a dramatic margin to a difference of just under $13 per barrel. ..."
"... The current production caps in Canada are only intended to last through the middle of this year, at which point Canadian oil companies will be permitted to decrease their cutbacks to just 95,000 barrels per day fewer than the numbers from November 2018's production rates. ..."
In an attempt to combat a ballooning oil glut and dramatically plummeting prices, the
premier of Alberta Rachel Notley introduced an unprecedented measure at the beginning of
December when she is mandating that oil companies in her province cut production. This
directive was particularly surprising in the context of Canada's free market economy, where oil
production is rarely so directly regulated.
Canada's recent oil glut woes are not due to a lack of demand, but rather a severe lack of
pipeline infrastructure. There is plenty of demand, and more than enough supply, but no way to
get the oil flowing where it needs to go. Canada's pipelines are running at maximum capacity,
storage facilities are filled to bursting, and the pipeline bottleneck has only continued to
worsen .
Now, in an effort to alleviate the struggling industry, Alberta's oil production has been
cut 8.7 percent according to the mandate set by the province's government under Rachel Notley
with the objective of cutting out around 325,000 barrels per day from the Canadian
market.
Even before the government stepped in, some private oil companies had already self-imposed
production caps in order to combat the ever-expanding glut and bottomed-out oil prices. Cenovus
Energy, Canadian Natural Resource, Devon Energy, Athabasca Oil, and others announced
curtailments that totaled around 140,000 barrels a day and Cenovus Energy, one of Canada's
major producers, even went so far as to plead with the government to impose production caps
late last year.
So far, the government-imposed productive caps have been extremely successful. In
October Canadian oil prices were so depressed that the Canadian benchmark oil Western Canadian
Select (WCS)
was trading at a whopping $50 per barrel less than United States benchmark oil West Texas
Intermediate (WTI). now, in the wake of production cuts, the price gap between WCS and WTI has
diminished by a dramatic margin to a difference of just under $13 per barrel.
While on the surface this would seem to be a roundly glowing review of the production caps
in Alberta, production cuts are not a long-term solution for Canada's oil glut woes. The
current production caps in Canada are only intended to last through the middle of this year, at
which point Canadian oil companies will be permitted to decrease their cutbacks to just 95,000
barrels per day fewer than the numbers from November 2018's production rates. The cuts are
a just a treatment, not a cure, for oversupply in Alberta. The problem needs to be addressed at
its source--the pipelines.
Unfortunately, the pipeline shortage in Alberta has no quick and easy fix. While there are
multiple major pipeline projects underway, the two largest, the Keystone XL pipeline and the
Trans Mountain pipeline, are stalled indefinitely thanks to legal woes and seemingly endless
litigation. The Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, intended to replace one of the region's already
existing pipelines, is currently under construction and
projected to be up and running by the end of the year, but will not go a long way toward
fixing the bottleneck.
Even if the Albertan government re-evaluates the present mid-2019 expiration date for the
current stricter production cuts, extending the production caps could have enduring negative
consequences in the region's oil industry. Keeping a long-term cap on production in Alberta
would potentially discourage investment in future production as well as in the infrastructure
the local industry so sorely needs. According to some
reporting , the cuts will not be able to control the gap between Canadian and U.S. oil for
much longer anyway, just another downside to drawing out what should be a short-term solution.
The government will need to weigh the possible outcomes very carefully as the expiration date
approaches, when the and the pipeline shortage is still a long way from being solved and the
price of oil remains dangerously variable.
"... By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, an editor at Automatic Earth. Originally published at Automatic Earth ..."
"... I have long said that in reality Belt&Road is China's ingenious scheme to export its industrial overcapacity and force other countries to pay for it. It's like the model Rome had, and the US still do, just all in one single project. And this one has a name, and it can be expanded to Africa. ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, an editor at Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic
Earth
In the New Year, after a close to the old one that was sort of terrible for our zombie
markets, do prepare for a whole lot of stories about China (on top of Brexit and Yellow Vests
and many more windmills fighting the Donald). And don't count on too many positive ones that
don't originate in the country itself. Beijing will especially be full of feel-good tales about
a month from now, around Chinese New Year 2019, which is February 5.
And we won't get an easy and coherent true story, it'll be bits and pieces stitched
together. What will remain is that China did the same we did, just on steroids. It took us 100
years to build our manufacturing capacity, they did it in under 20 (and made ours obsolete). It
took us 100 years to borrow enough to get a debt-to-GDP ratio of 300%, they did it in 10.
In the process they also accumulated 10 times more non-productive assets than us, idle
factories, bridges to nowhere and empty cities, but they thought that would be alright, that
demand would catch up with supply. And if you look at how much unproductive stuff we ourselves
have gathered around us, who can blame them for thinking that? Perhaps their biggest mistake
has been misreading our actual wealth situation; they didn't see how poorly off we really
are.
Xiang Songzuo, "a relatively obscure economics professor at Renmin University in Beijing",
expressed some dire warnings about the Chinese economy in a December 15 speech. He didn't get
much attention, not even in the West. Not overly surprising, since both Beijing and Wall Street
have a vested interest in the continuing China growth story.
But with the arrival of 2019, that attention started slowly seeping through. Former
associate professor of business and economics at the Peking University HSBC Business School in
Shenzhen, Christopher Balding , left China 6 months ago after losing his job. At the
time, he wrote: "China has reached a point where I do not feel safe being a professor and
discussing even the economy, business and financial markets.." . And, noting a change that
very much seems related to what is coming down the road:
"One of my biggest fears living in China has always been that I would be detained. Though
I happily pointed out the absurdity of the rapidly encroaching authoritarianism, a fact which
continues to elude so many experts not living in China, I tried to make sure I knew where the
line was and did not cross it. There is a profound sense of relief to be leaving safely knowing
others, Chinese or foreigners, who have had significantly greater difficulties than myself.
There are many cases which resulted in significantly more problems for them. I know I am
blessed to make it out."
A few days ago, Balding wrote this on Twitter:
"Most experts dismissed the speech by Xiang Songzuo (claiming Chinese GDP growth could
be as low as 1.67%) as implausible ". No, we didn't. The GS PE guy and the PKU dean have
every reason to deny it. Car and mobile phone shipment down 2% and 16% are not a 6.5% growth
economy."
That certainly sets the tone of the discussion. GDP growth of 1.67% vs the official 6.5%;
smartphone shipments down 16%, car sales slumping. Not the kind of numbers you'll hear from
Beijing. And Balding does know China, whether they like it or not. On Monday, Bloomberg, where
he was/is a regular contributor, published this from his hand:
Officially, China lists its outstanding external debt at $1.9 trillion . For a
$13 trillion economy, that's not a major amount. But focusing on the headline number
significantly understates the underlying risks. Short-term debt accounted for 62% of
the total as of September, according to official data, meaning that $1.2 trillion will
have to be rolled over this year .
Just as worrying is the speed of increase: Total external debt has increased 14% in
the past year and 35% since the beginning of 2017 . External debt is no longer a trivial
slice of China's foreign-exchange reserves, which stood at just over $3 trillion at the end
of November, little changed from two years earlier. Short-term foreign debt increased to
39% of reserves in September, from 26% in March 2016.
The true picture may be more precarious. China's external debt was estimated at
between $3 trillion and $3.5 trillion by Daiwa Capital Markets in an August report. In
other words, total foreign liabilities could be understated by as much as $1.5
trillion after accounting for borrowing in financial centers such as Hong Kong, New York
and the Caribbean islands that isn't included in the official tally. Circumstances aren't
moving in China's favor.
The nation's companies rushed to borrow in dollars when there was a 3% to 5% spread
between Chinese and U.S. interest rates and the yuan was expected to strengthen. Borrowing
offshore was cheaper and offered the additional bonus of likely currency gains. Now, the
spread in official short-term yields has shrunk to near zero and the yuan has been
depreciating for most of the past year. Refinancing debt in dollars has become harder, and
more risky.
Beijing's policies have exacerbated the buildup of foreign debt. To promote Xi
Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative, the president's landmark foreign policy endeavor, China
has been borrowing dollars on international markets and lending around the world for
everything from Kenyan railways to Pakistani business parks. With this year and 2020 being
the peak years for repayments, China faces dollar funding pressure.
To repay their dollar debts, Chinese firms will either have to draw from the central
bank's foreign-exchange reserves (a prospect Beijing is unlikely to allow) or buy dollars on
international markets. This creates a new set of problems. There are only 617 billion yuan
($90 billion) of offshore renminbi deposits in Hong Kong available to buy dollars . If
China was to push firms to bring debt back onshore, this would necessitate significant
outflows that would push down the yuan's value against the dollar
The Xiang Songzuo speech was also noted by the Financial Times this week. Their conclusions
are not much rosier. Recent US imports from China look good only because both buyers and
sellers try to stay ahead of tariffs. And whole some truce or another there may smoothen things
a little, China must launch a massive stimulus against the background of twice as much
investment being needed for a unit of GDP growth.
A relatively obscure economics professor at Renmin University in Beijing sparked a
minor furore last month when he claimed a secret government research group had estimated
China's growth in GDP could be as low as 1.67% in 2018 -- far below the officially
published rate of 6.7% for the year up to September.
Most experts dismissed the speech by Xiang Songzuo as implausible, despite longstanding
doubts about the reliability of China's official GDP data. Yet although discussion of his
claims was quickly scrubbed from the Chinese internet, the presentation has been viewed more
than 1.2m times on YouTube -- an indication of the raw nerve Mr Xiang touched with his
doom-laden warnings.
[..] the question that is hanging over global markets is just how vulnerable is China to a
much sharper slowdown? Ominously, the recent downturn has occurred even though the expected
hit to Chinese exports from the trade war has not yet materialised. In fact, analysts say
exports probably received a one-off boost in recent months as traders front-loaded
shipments to beat the expected tariff rise from 10% to 25% that US president Donald Trump
threatened would take effect in January. That rise is now on hold due to the 90-day truce
that Mr Trump agreed with Chinese president Xi Jinping at the G20 meeting in Argentina last
month.
[..] The amount of new capital investment required to generate a given unit of GDP
growth has more than doubled since 2007 , according to Moody's Analytics. In other words,
investment stimulus produces little bang for Beijing's buck, even as it adds to the debt
levels.
[..] "They [Beijing] will soon have no choice but to launch massive stimulus,"
says Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia Pacific economist at Natixis in Hong Kong. "They do
not want to give away their credibility because they said they wouldn't do it, but there
is no time to be cautious any more. Not having growth is ultimately the worst outcome of
all."
Christopher Whalen picks up on Xiang Songzuo's speech as well, and quotes him saying that
"Chinese stock market conditions resemble those during the 1929 Wall Street Crash". Whereas the
China Beige Book states that sales volumes, output, domestic and export orders, investment, and
hiring fell on a year-over-year and quarter-over-quarter basis. Which leads to the conclusion
that deflation is, or should be, Beijing's main worry.
Oh, and Chinese consumer demand has weakened, something we've seen more off recently.
Reuters headlines "China To Introduce Policies To Strengthen Domestic Consumption" today, but
that headline could have come from any of the past 5 years or so. Domestic consumption is
precisely China's problem, and they can't achieve nearly enough growth there.
Foreign investors have convinced themselves that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is
superior in terms of economic management, this despite ample evidence to the contrary, thus
accepting the official view is easy but also increasingly risky. In a December 15 speech ,
Renmin University's Xiang Songzuo warned that Chinese stock market conditions resemble those
during the 1929 Wall Street Crash. He also suggested that the Chinese economy is actually
shrinking.
China growth, Tesla profitability, or the mystical blockchain all require more credulity
than ever before. For example, in the first half of 2016 global capital markets stopped due
to fear of a Chinese recession. Credit spreads soared and deal flows disappeared. But was
this really a surprise? In fact, the Chinese government had accelerated official stimulus in
2015 and 2016 to counter a possible slowdown and, particularly, ensure a quiet domestic scene
as paramount leader Xi Jinping was enshrined into the Chinese constitution.
Today western audiences are again said to be concerned about China's economy and this
concern is justified, but perhaps not for the reasons touted in the financial media. The
China Beige Book (CBB) fourth-quarter preview, released December 27, reports that sales
volumes, output, domestic and export orders, investment, and hiring fell on a year-over-year
and quarter-over-quarter basis. CBB is a research service that surveys thousands of
companies and bankers on the ground in China every quarter.
Contrary to the positive foreign narrative about "growth" in China, CBB contends
that deflation is the bigger threat compared to inflation. "Because of China's structural
problems, deflation has very clearly emerged as the bigger threat in a slowing economy than
inflation. Consumer demand has weakened, and you see that reflected in retail and services
prices," CBB Managing Director Shehzad Qazi said in an interview.
So, China phone shipments are down 16%, as per Balding. But Tim Cook says Apple's never done
better. Still, if that 16% number is correct, either Apple or its Chinese suppliers are doing
worse, not better. And 16% is a lot.
Apple Inc. stock has taken a beating in recent months, but Chief Executive Tim Cook
defended his company Tuesday, and expressed optimism that trade tensions with China would
soon ease. Apple shares have fallen by more than one-third since their peak on Oct. 3, and
tumbled further last week after the tech giant warned of disappointing iPhone sales in its
holiday quarter. But in an interview Tuesday with CNBC's Jim Cramer, Cook said the company
was still going strong, and its naysayers were full of "bologna." "Here's the truth, what
the facts are," Cook said about reports of slow iPhone XR sales, according to a CNBC
transcript.
"Since we began shipping the iPhone XR, it has been the most popular iPhone every day,
every single day, from when we started shipping, until now. . . . I mean, do I want to sell
more? Of course I do. Of course I'd like to sell more. And we're working on that." Slower
sales in China also contributed to Apple's lowered forecast, and Cook said Tuesday he
believes that situation to be "temporary."
"We believe, based on what we saw and the timing of it, that the tension, the trade-war
tension with the U.S. created this more-sharp downturn," he said. Cook said he's "very
optimistic" a trade deal between the U.S. and China will be reached . "I think a deal is
very possible. And I've heard some very encouraging words," he said.
16% fewer phones, that gets you the second production cut at Apple and its 'magnificent
ecosystem' in short order. Now sure, Cook can try and blame the tariffs. but Samsung's Q4 2018
sales fell 11%, and its operating profit fell by 29%. It's a bigger and wider issue, and China
is at the heart of it.
Apple, which slashed its quarterly sales forecast last week, has reduced planned
production for its three new iPhone models by about 10% for the January-March quarter, the
Nikkei Asian Review reported on Wednesday. That rare forecast cut exposed weakening iPhone
demand in China, the world's biggest smartphone market, where a slowing economy has also been
buffeted by a trade war with the United States.
Many analysts and consumers have said the new iPhones are overpriced. Apple asked its
suppliers late last month to produce fewer-than-planned units of its XS, XS Max and XR
models, the Nikkei reported, citing sources with knowledge of the request. The request was
made before Apple announced its forecast cut, the Nikkei said.
And very much not least there was this graph of Chinese investments in Africa. What are the
conditions? At what point will they call back the loans? And when countries can't pay back,
what's the penalty? How much of this has been provided by Beijing in US dollars it doesn't have
nearly enough of?
It's like the much heralded Belt and Road project, or Silk Road 2.0, isn't it, where the
first batch of participating nations have started sounding the alarm over loan conditions. Yes,
it sounds great, I admit, but I have long said that in reality Belt&Road is China's
ingenious scheme to export its industrial overcapacity and force other countries to pay for it.
It's like the model Rome had, and the US still do, just all in one single project. And this one
has a name, and it can be expanded to Africa.
But no, I don't see it. I think China's debt, combined with the vast distance it still has
from owning a global reserve currency, will call the shots, not Xi Jinping.
China won't be taking over. At least, not anytime soon.
Notwithstanding recent
oil-price volatility , spending on offshore oilfield services will rise by 6 percent in 2019 reaching $208 billion, before surging
by another 14 percent in 2020, according to Norwegian consultancy
Rystad Energy AS . That's after almost halving since 2014.
U.S. shale industry could struggle if WTI remains below $60-$70 per barrel (differ by the
area and the spots). Investing in $50th range is just "hope" investmnet which is reling og
positive price dynamics, and below them is clear losses for produces, which means additional
junk bond issues.
... ... ...
But even as production held up, drilling activity indicated a sharper slowdown was underway.
The index for utilization of equipment by oilfield services firms dropped sharply in the fourth
quarter, down from 43 points in the third quarter to just 1.6 in the fourth – falling to
the point where there was almost no growth at all quarter-on-quarter.
Meanwhile, employment has also taken a hit. The employment index fell from 31.7 to 17.5,
suggesting a "moderating in both employment and work hours growth in the fourth quarter," the
Dallas Fed wrote. Labor conditions in oilfield services were particularly hit hard.
The data lends weight to comments made by top oilfield service firms from several months
ago. Schlumberger and Halliburton warned in the third
quarter of last year that shale companies were slowing drilling activity. Pipeline constraints,
well productivity problems and "budget exhaustion" was leading to weaker drilling conditions.
The comments were notable at the time, and received press coverage, but oil prices were still
high and still rising, and so was shale output. The crash in oil prices and the worsening
slowdown in the shale patch puts those comments in new light.
What does all of this mean? If oil producers are not hiring service firms and deploying
equipment, that suggests they are rather price sensitive. The fall in oil prices forced
cutbacks in drilling activity. Oilfield service firms in particular are bearing the brunt of
the slowdown. Executives from oilfield service firms told the Dallas Fed that their operating
margins declined in the quarter.
Baker huges reports a current US rig count decrease of 1% in the past two weeks. Several
companies I support in the Permian have stacked rigs and layed off workers. $50 bbl is the
magic number, the longer below that number the worse it will get.
Or it shows how much better the industry has gotten in response to production and prices.
It's like a capital intensive industry that doesn't waste capital drilling for something that
won't make them money. That's preservation of capital.
It doesn't take years or months to respond. It takes weeks.
Yes sure, the easiest datasets to follow in one place are at SRSrocco. Steve StAngelo,
kudos to him, has been onto this for years and has analyzed a lot of data from different
sources.
There are lots of other sources if you duck it (Google is, of course, much more of the
official narrative) but Steve has done a pretty good job of pulling a lot of information
together over many years and for free. Even the paid access business facilities don't have
much information (Surprise?).
The shale industry has been a kind of Ponzi scheme with OPM, entirely dependent on
constant new loans to keep production levels up with new wells, and has never made a profit.
I have often wondered, actually, to what extent the ESF (That is, USG) has supported the
industry as a means of attempting to put more pressure on RRRRUUUUUSSSSSIIIAAAAA!!!!!!! and
its energy income. Ultimately, unsuccessfully so, so perhaps this support might not last too
much longer?
Without subsidies from "someone", it's difficult to understand how an unprofitable
industry could have survived for so long. The Banks are not stupid. Wait, let me re-consider
that last remark!! But not in the way I meant
"... It makes sense for Saudi Arabia to focus its cuts on sales to the U.S., the only country that publishes detailed weekly data on oil imports and inventory levels -- traders watch the reports closely. This means the reductions will be evident more quickly than would similar cuts to other destinations, so a drop in American imports should have a much more immediate impact on price expectations. ..."
There's already less Saudi crude oil getting loaded for export.
The list of things that President Donald Trump criticizes in his tweets varies from one day to the next. He may soon have to direct
his ire to oil prices and the actions of his ally, Saudi Arabia, once again.
The desert kingdom is already making good on its promise to slash supply, and the initial evidence suggests that the biggest cut
is being made in deliveries to the U.S. On top of that, the price it charges American buyers of its crude has been raised to near
record levels for cargoes to be shipped in February. That could be bad news for a president who just celebrated falling gas prices.
The OPEC+ group of countries met in December and,
after Russia took the reins
, eventually agreed to cut supplies by 1.2 million barrels a day from January. For Saudi Arabia,
that meant cutting production to just over 10.3 million, but it pledged to go further -- oil minister Khalid Al-Falih told reporters
and analysts that it would be slashed to 10.2 million barrels a day in January.
The first job was to unwind the output surge made in November that had helped to deliver the price drop hailed by Trump. That
was done last month. Saudi production in December was back below the October baseline used for its (and most other countries') promised
cuts.
Saudi Cuts
Saudi crude production was cut to 10.65 million barrels a day in December from a record 11.07 million in November
That couldn't have been what Trump wanted, given what he tweeted the day before OPEC began its meeting in Vienna -- at the time,
crude prices were in the midst of their worst quarterly decline in four years.
Bloomberg's tracking of crude exports from
Saudi Arabia indicates that the biggest drop in flows from the kingdom was in the volume heading for the U.S. Shipments to ports
on the Atlantic, Gulf and West coasts fell by nearly 60 percent between November and December to just over 350,000 barrels a day.
That's the lowest since Bloomberg started tracking these flows in January 2017.
Cutting Shipments
The flow of Saudi crude heading to the U.S. slumped last month, as the kingdom slashed output
The size of the drop isn't set in stone -- a small number of ships signaling that they are heading for the Suez Canal or Singapore
could eventually go to the U.S. Even so, a decline in Saudi crude shipments to American ports should start to show up in lower deliveries
after about six weeks. By mid-February, U.S. imports of the kingdom's oil could fall to the lowest in more than 30 years, according
to data from the Department of Energy. The last time the flow from Saudi to the U.S. fell below half a million barrels a day was
in the mid-1980s, after the kingdom slashed its production by 80 percent over four years in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to
prop up oil prices.
Slowing The Flow
Imports of Saudi crude into the U.S. could soon fall to their lowest in more than 30 years
It's not just this volume decline that is going to rile Trump. The price of that oil isn't going to make him happy either.
Saudi Arabia sets its crude prices a month in advance of it being loaded at its export terminals, so it has just published its
price list for February. In common with other producers, it does not set an outright price, but rather a differential to regional
benchmarks for each export grade and each market area.
Price differentials for U.S. buyers have been going up since August and for most grades are now close to record levels. Saudi
heavy crude, which is the closest alternative to dwindling supplies from Venezuela and Mexico, is the most expensive it's been since
2009 in relative terms.
Price Rises
Saudi crude prices for U.S. buyers have risen to near record levels against the regional benchmark
It makes sense for Saudi Arabia to focus its cuts on sales to the U.S., the only country that publishes detailed weekly data on
oil imports and inventory levels -- traders watch the reports closely. This means the reductions will be evident more quickly than
would similar cuts to other destinations, so a drop in American imports should have a much more immediate impact on price expectations.
There is no reason to doubt that Al-Falih will do what he said in Vienna. It was only after slashing exports to the U.S. in July
2017 that oil prices really began to recover, and Saudi Arabia will be hoping for a similar impact this time, too. But don't be surprised
if that also unleashes angry tweets from the U.S. president.
Julian Lee is an oil strategist for Bloomberg First Word. Previously he worked as a senior analyst at the Centre for Global Energy
Studies.
From the piece you linked above which seems to indicate capex spending will be flat to
slightly down there was also this:
Asked to provide a specific price for WTI used for capital planning this year,
executives said they expect prices to average $54/bbl, with responses ranging from $50 to
$64.99. Only 9% thought prices would be below $50.
If their oil price expectation (the average) proves correct, there will not be a lot of
money made in 2019 in the tight oil plays of Texas.
"... The EIA weekly reports are a joke with zero movements for crude inventory for last 2 weeks. And an adjustment factor that nobody understands. Maybe the government shutdown has some influence after all. ..."
It is all a big illusion that oil is cheap like water in my opinion. To manipulate the market
down will only make for more volatility in the future, and it is a good a bet as when the oil
price fell to 30 dollars/b in 2016 that prices will eventually rise again from this level.
It has do with that the tanking of oil prices is out of the usual cycle in the industry
(low investments makes for less oil after 3+ years).
I have started to bet on oil prices going up again even more for the fun of it (a few bets
made too early I have to admit) and now I put some meaningful amount of money in it; to make
it even more fun hopefully.
The EIA weekly reports are a joke with zero movements for crude inventory for last 2
weeks. And an adjustment factor that nobody understands. Maybe the government shutdown has
some influence after all.
To build a wall against the tide water is an illustration of how successful it will be to
keep the oil prices down with illusional data alone. And I stand by that a recession based on
"fear" news alone is fake, but can of course in the end become a self fulfilling
prophecy.
And [there is] the real fear is inflation based on too high oil prices. Extensive tariffs
to hinder trade will also never help prosperity, but it remains to be seen if threats are
made real or if the policy at some point will be revoked.
You guys insist on continuing to think money isn't created from thin air by the Fed and
actually means something in the context of a substance that feeds you food. If you have to
have it, and you do have to have it, things will be done for you to get it. Borrowed money
that was created from thin air . . . who cares if you can't pay it back? You have to eat.
Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because
there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that depends
on physics.
You won't know anything until you find yourself sitting in a line waiting for gasoline.
You won't see it coming. You won't predict it. It will just happen someday.
Some truth to that Watcher. Simplistic thinking in investors. If we aren't making much money,
the US won't be making much money, so the price of oil must go lower. Not just simplistic,
flat out stupid.
And the number of people who think oil supply is limited is fairly scarce in relation to
the population as a whole. Probably less than the number of people who think chocolate milk
comes from brown cows.
On Friday, Bloomberg said
that many of the world's largest banks are forecasting a rebound in oil prices next year as
fears of a recession prove misplaced.
According to a Bloomberg survey of oil analysts, Brent will average $70 a barrel in 2019,
almost a third higher than its price on Thursday. Michael Cohen, head of energy and commodities
research at Barclays Plc in New York, said "we could even see something similar to a V-shaped
recovery next year, on two very important conditions. One, that the reduction in OPEC exports
leads to a reduction in inventories. And two, that we don't see a further deterioration in
macroeconomic conditions."
The Bloomberg report added that despite a recent darkening outlook for the global economy
amid prolonged trade disputes between the U.S. and China, and as the U.S. Federal Reserve
embarks on tightening monetary policy, most commentators aren't seeing an actual recession
biting the oil market next year. The median forecast of 24 oil analysts in the Bloomberg survey
projects that Brent crude futures will average exactly $70 a barrel in 2019. The price on
Thursday was about $53.50 while the average so far in 2018 has been about $72. Meanwhile, the
median forecast for WTI is $61.13. WTI futures traded at about $45.27 on Monday.
America is now the largest producer of oil in the world. For the U.S., this is great news as
the dream of energy independence grows and maybe one day we can tell OPEC to go take a
hike.
However, while the shale oil revolution has helped change the energy landscape forever, we
cannot take shale for granted. We can't just assume that the industry can withstand any price
and that production can keep rising despite the market conditions. We can't assume that shale
oil producers can match OPEC production cuts barrel for barrel.
We also can't assume OPEC, weakened by falling prices of late, won't strike back like they
did in 2014. That's when OPEC declared a production war on U.S. shale producers. The then de
facto head of the OPEC Cartel Ali al-Naimi spoke about market share rivalry with the United
States and said that they wanted a battle with the U.S. There were no winners in that
production war. Ali al-Naimi was sacked as he almost bankrupted Saudi Arabia. It took its toll
on U.S. producers as well, as many were forced into bankruptcy despite making significant
progress on efficiency and cost cutting.
With 2019 underway, OPEC, along with Russia, agreed to remove 1.2 million barrels per day
off the market for the first six months of the year. Early reports on OPEC compliance to the
agreed upon production cuts is overwhelming at a time when there are new questions about how
shale oil producers are faring after this recent oil price drop.
Private forecasters are showing that there are major cuts in Saudi exports and even signs
that OPEC production is falling sharply. Bloomberg News confirmed that by reporting "observed
crude exports from Saudi Arabia fell to 7.253 million barrels per day in December on lower
flows to the U.S. and China." Furthermore, other private trackers believe that the drop may be
the biggest in exports since Bloomberg began tracking shipments in early 2017. Oil saw another
boost after Bloomberg reported that OPEC oil production had the biggest monthly drop in two
years falling by 530,000 barrels a day to 32.6 million a day last month. It's the sharpest
pullback since January 2017.
Rewind to 2017, there was talk that shale oil producers would make up the difference and the
cut would not matter, but that was proven wrong. This time expect the same because it is likely
that shale oil producers may have to cut back as the sharp price drop has put them in a bad
position. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that, even now, some shale oil wells are not
producing as much oil as expected. This coupled with a large declining production rate in shale
swells means that they need capital to keep drilling to keep those record production numbers
moving higher. "Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017
in America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to
the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins in
Texas and North Dakota. Collectively, the companies that made projections are on track to pump
nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of
data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one
billion barrels of oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices.
Some companies are off track by more than 50% in certain regions" the Journal reported.
"While U.S. output rose to an all-time high of 11.5 million barrels a day, shaking up the
geopolitical balance by putting U.S. production on par with Saudi Arabia and Russia. The
Journal's findings suggest current production levels may be hard to sustain without greater
spending, because operators will have to drill more wells to meet growth targets. Yet shale
drillers, most of whom have yet to consistently make money, are under pressure to cut spending
in the face of a 40% crude-oil price decline since October."
Of course, none of this matters if we see a prolonged slowdown in the global economy, Demand
may indeed turn out to be the great equalizer. Yet if growth comes back, say if we get a China
trade deal or if they ever reopen the U.S. government, we will most likely see a very tight
market in the new year. The OPEC cuts will lead to a big drawdown in supply and shale oil
producers will find it hard to match OPEC and demand growth barrel for barrel.
OPEC oil supply fell by 460,000 barrels per day (bpd) between November and December, to
32.68 million bpd, a Reuters survey found on Thursday, as top exporter Saudi Arabia made an
early start to a supply-limiting accord, while Iran and Libya posted involuntary declines.
OPEC, Russia and other non-members - an alliance known as OPEC+ - agreed last December to
reduce supply by 1.2 million bpd in 2019 versus October 2018 levels. OPEC's share of that cut
is 800,000 bpd.
"If OPEC is faithful to its agreed output cut together with non-OPEC partners, it would take
3-4 months to mop up the excess inventories," energy consultancy FGE said.
Things have been quite active in the Eastern Mediterranean lately, with Israel, Cyprus and
Greece pushing forward for the realization of the EastMed pipeline, a new gas conduit destined
to diversify Europe's natural gas sources and find a long-term reliable market outlet for all
the recent Mediterranean gas discoveries. The three sides have reached an agreement in late
November (roughly a year after signing the MoU) to lay the pipeline, the estimated cost of
which hovers around $7 billion (roughly the same as rival TurkStream's construction cost). Yet
behind the brave facade, it is still very early to talk about EastMed as a viable and
profitable project as it faces an uphill battle with traditionally difficult Levantine
geopolitics, as well as field geology.
The EastMed gas pipeline is expected to start some 170 kilometers off the southern coast of
Cyprus and reach Otranto on the Puglian coast of Italy via the island of Crete and the Greek
mainland. Since most of its subsea section is projected to be laid at depths of 3-3.5
kilometer, in case it is built it would become the deepest subsea gas pipeline, most probably
the longest, too, with an estimated length of 1900km. The countries involved proceed from the
premise that the pipeline's throughput capacity would be 20 BCM per year (706 BCf), although
previous estimates were within the 12-16 BCm per year interval. According to Yuval Steinitz,
the Israeli Energy Minister, the stakeholders would need a year to iron out all the remaining
administrative issues and 4-5 years to build the pipeline, meaning it could come onstream not
before 2025.
The EastMed gas pipeline is expected to start some 170 kilometers off the southern coast
of Cyprus and reach Otranto on the Puglian coast of Italy via the island of Crete and the
Greek mainland.
Cyprus,Crete,Greece, Italy....
Yes, very stable EU supply line going through the most stable countries in the EU.
Yeah, I'm having trouble with the sub sea depth numbers too, despite the route cuts the
conflicts to a half a dozen from an infinite number.
Intuitively, shipping LNG offers comparable delivery price albeit at lower volumes,and can
be done off shore.
Even here in bucolic Pensyltucky, delivery of natty to market is limited by a lack of
piping infrastructure, limiting the gas boom. It gives the tree huggers time to throttle the
business. Figuring that the political climate and costs are going to get better with time
passing is foolish.
Also considered is price, still cheap, cheap, cheap.
Our local natty supplier just applied for, and received a price reduction, effective next
fall.
Since most of its subsea section is projected to be laid at depths of 3-3.5 kilometer,
in case it is built it would become the deepest subsea gas pipeline, most probably the
longest, too...
oh yeah bitchez. nothing could possibly go wrong with that plan. /s
none has even discovered the goods yet ... and we are told we have to go to war about
building some (((PIPELINES))) on something to be discovered in the future ... if ever
....
as Abba Waterloo song said the history books on the shelf just keeps repeating itself ...
that is why is not that difficult to see through the BS ...
World War I we are told was over some archiduke being killed by some extremist ...as a
result 1/3 of the Serb nation was killed ...
"... Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers ..."
"... Collectively, the [shale] companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one billion barrels of oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices. Some companies are off track by more than 50% in certain regions. ..."
MSM seems to be catching on to the hype in shale, excerpts from an excellent article on
shale on WSJ today:
Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in
America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to
the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins in
Texas and North Dakota.
Collectively, the [shale] companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil
and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad
Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one billion barrels of
oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices. Some companies are
off track by more than 50% in certain regions.
-- --
In September 2015, Pioneer Natural Resources, based in Irving, Texas, told investors that
it expected wells in the Eagle Ford shale of South Texas to produce 1.3 million barrels of
oil and gas apiece. Those wells now appear to be on a pace to produce about 482,000 barrels,
63% less than forecast, according to the Journal's analysis.
An average of Pioneer's 2015 forecasts for wells it had recently fracked in the Midland
portion of the Permian basin suggested they would produce about 960,000 barrels of oil and
gas each. Those wells are now on track to produce about 720,000 barrels, according to the
Journal's review, 25% below Pioneer's projections.
In 2014, Parsley Energy, an Austin, Texas-based producer, told investors its average well
in the Midland section of the Permian basin would produce 690,000 barrels, according to a
review of Parsley's quarterly earnings presentations. By 2015, its estimates averaged
1,050,000 barrels.
Parsley is on track to miss its Midland well forecasts for every year from 2014 to 2017 by
an average of 25%, according to the Journal's analysis.
-- --
One reason thousands of early shale wells aren't meeting expectations is that many
companies extrapolated how much they would produce from small clusters of prolific initial
wells, according to reserves specialists. Some also excluded their worst-performing wells
from the calculations, which is akin to eliminating strikeouts when projecting a baseball
player's batting average.
"... Based on first year production numbers supplied by Shallow Sand, production can't increase without borrowing, except in some isolated areas. ..."
"... Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that depends on physics. ..."
As I have posted before, the wells we apply a 60 month payout to have a much lower
decline rate than the shale wells, and are being drilled out of cash flow, not borrowed
money.
For example, a well we drilled in 2006 just passed 10,000 BO and produced 370 BO in
2018. It cost about 1/100 the cost of a shale well ($70K +/-).
Maybe not a valid comparison, but. 100:1 ratio would be cumulative of 1 million BO
and annual of 37,000 BO, which I think a rate you will not find often for any US shale well
after 12.5 years on production.
Our LOE is higher per BO, so not entirely valid, but still maybe somewhat useful for
comparison.
I note in the WSJ article PXD argued that the comparisons weren't valid because they
use a 50 year well life in calculating EUR v 30 year well life in the study.
I would think the PV of years 30-50 would be tiny on a 20,000' hz well producing
under 20 BOEPD! That PXD uses that argument seems to make them look a little foolish? Or am I
being too tough on them?
Shallow, you know they can't run a stripper well like you. Damn thing will be
plugged at seven years. Dennis can calculate his damn curves to twenty to thirty years if
he wants to. I can't disprove it, because we are only in about year eight, and some have
probably been plugged already, although I have no statistics on it. Although, I found one
of EOGs that didn't make it 7 years without trying too hard.
Mike was talking about borrowing on conventional production that has a much
smaller decline rate. You drill one this year, and borrow the next year to drill another,
you are increasing production. Not running on a treadmill.
Don't have the paywall, but you've given the gist. Investors were not happy with
returns. Now, they are being fact checked, and that can look real messy. Borrowing is set
to become restricted for many reasons. I really see some headwinds for future production
increases.
Based on first year production numbers supplied by Shallow Sand, production
can't increase without borrowing, except in some isolated areas.
To get even close to
covering declines from last years wells, they have to, at least, recover most of that
capex cost in the first year of production. That is far from reality, right now. To
increase, or later to even keep up, with production, they will have to borrow money. They
can possibly make a profit in three years, but that is meaningless to providing for
growth. Think it going to start looking nastier.
And to add to Ron's answer, God would have to add, and make each well profitable the
first year.
The miracle of US shale is about to have Toto pull back the curtain and reveal the
real wizard.
Shale was, is, and will be just a supplemental source of oil supply. An investor
could, if it was managed right, put x amount into the business, and in several years get
a marginal return. In two to three years, a second well could be drilled to increase that
income. That would be shale production growth. Not the imaginary growth numbers that are
being thrown out.
The putrid 10Qs and 10ks for 2019 will add to the fire.
You guys insist on continuing to think money isn't created from thin air by the Fed and
actually means something in the context of a substance that feeds you food. If you have to
have it, and you do have to have it, things will be done for you to get it. Borrowed money
that was created from thin air . . . who cares if you can't pay it back? You have to
eat.
Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because
there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that
depends on physics.
You won't know anything until you find yourself sitting in a line waiting for gasoline.
You won't see it coming. You won't predict it. It will just happen someday.
Some truth to that Watcher. Simplistic thinking in investors. If we aren't making much
money, the US won't be making much money, so the price of oil must go lower. Not just
simplistic, flat out stupid.
And the number of people who think oil supply is limited is fairly scarce in relation to
the population as a whole. Probably less than the number of people who think chocolate milk
comes from brown cows.
And if you think I am being unreasonably hard on the average IQ, google who is now
running the country, and consider almost 50% voted for him. Ok, I'll give them somewhat of
a break, as I didn't like the alternative, either. They should allow write ins, so we can
all vote.
And any moron can borrow 20 billion and service the debt for awhile. Maybe all of it, if
they are lucky. Who cares, it's only paper. Not a bad idea. I have an oil company, I can
borrow 20 billion, stick half into BNO, and have a ball with the rest. If I lose, I can
declare bankruptcy, and they can get my prepaid funeral expenses, but none of my gold bars
in the Caymans. And, I am 99.9% certain that is less of a risk than any E&P I can think
of.
"... Senate Resolution on December 19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline ..."
"... Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. ..."
Senator Ron Johnson (R- Wis) and Richard Durban (D-Ill) and 39 of their colleagues introduced a Senate Resolution on December
19, 2019 which calls for "a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline" as shown
here :
Here is a list of co-sponsors of the resolution:
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), ranking member of the
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation; and Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ben Cardin
(D-Md.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), James Risch (R-Idaho),
Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.),
Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.),
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Doug Jones (D-Ala.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.),
Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Roger Wicker
(R-Miss.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).
Here is the resolution (currently unnumbered) in its entirety:
Calling for a prompt multinational freedom of navigation operation in the Black Sea and urging the cancellation of the
Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
... ... ...
Whereas the United States has important national interests in the Black Sea region, including the security
of three NATO littoral states, the promotion of European energy market diversification by ensuring unfettered European access
to energy exporters in the Caucuses and central Asia, and combatting use of the region by smugglers as a conduit for trafficking
in persons, narcotics, and arms;
Whereas the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a proposed underwater natural gas pipeline project that would provide
an additional 55,000,000,000 cubic meters of pipeline capacity from the Russian Federation to the Federal Republic of Germany
through the Baltic Sea;
Whereas the Russian Federation's state-owned oil and gas company, Gazprom, is the sole shareholder of the Nord
Stream 2 project;
Whereas, in 2017, there was spare capacity of approximately 55,000,000,000 cubic meters in the Ukrainian gas
transit system;
Whereas Gazprom cut off natural gas exports to Europe via Ukraine in 2006, and again in 2009, over supply and
pricing disputes with Ukraine's state-owned oil and gas company, Naftogaz;
Whereas transit of Russian natural gas to Europe via Ukraine declined precipitously after the completion of
Nord Stream 1 in 2011, falling from 80 percent to between 40 and 50 percent of Russia's total exports to Europe;
Whereas, in 2017, Russian gas accounted for 37 percent of Europe's natural gas imports, an increase of
5 percent over 2016;
Whereas, on December 12, 2018, the European Parliament overwhelmingly passed a resolution condemning both the
Russian Federation's aggression in the Kerch Strait and the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline; and
Whereas, on December 11, 2018, the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution calling upon
the European
Union to reject the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and urging the President to use all available means to promote energy policies in
Europe that reduce European reliance on Russian energy exports:
... ... ...
(9) applauds and concurs with the European 2 Parliament's December 12, 2018, resolution condemning Russian aggression in the
Kerch Strait and
the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, calling for the pipeline's cancellation due to its threat to European energy security, and calling
on the Russian Federation to
7 guarantee freedom of navigation in the Kerch Strait;
and
(10) urges the President to continue working with Congress and our allies to ensure the appropriate policies to deter the Russian
Federation from further aggression.
Fortunately, these two neocons can make all the proclamations they want but without President Trump's support it's all just
words; neocon virtue signalling. And of course President Trump won't support what they're doing because he campaigned on and governs
as an anti-war president.
Ron Johnson is a Bushie neocon who actively supported the neocon ˇJebe! (Please Clap) Bush while Durbin is a Hillary Clinton
neocon who actively supported that drunken, corrupt, warmongering shrew.
Thank all that's holy that we have a genuine anti-war POTUS in office and not either of those two neocons, both of whom were
utterly in the pockets of defense contractors.
Thanks for your research on relevant naval law. The Ukrainian vessel is reported to have violated the ongoing protocol by failing
to take on a Russian pilot as it transited the strait and an important bridge could potentially have been attacked by those vessels.
This was a provocation by Ukraine that seems to have its desired effect on the U.S. Senate. For essential background on the Ukrainian
civil war, I recommend reading Stephen F. Cohen's article in the Nation in 2014, titled "Kiev's atrocities and the Silence of
the Hawks." https://www.thenation.com/article/kievs-atrocities-and-silence-hawks/
"... Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation. ..."
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with
Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some
point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and
borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they
would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics
manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial
Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
December 8, 2019 © Photo: Wikimedia For all of 2019 December has been a magnet. A number of major geopolitical issues come to head this month and many of them have everything to do with energy. This is the month that Russian gas giant Gazprom was due to finish production on three major pipeline projects – Nordstream 2, Turkstream and Power of Siberia.
euro is beginning to look like a credible rival to the dollar.
but your last sentence may hold some validity. For that matter, I don't think shale has given up completely after the first go round, if the price is right. Would that delay peak to another date? Quien sabe. Money talks. What price? I know I would keep an ICE around for long trips at $200 a barrel for the convenience. Food may be higher, though.
Speaking as a geologist, this is incorrect. Thermal maturity depends on far more than age. The Utica gas window is 300 million years older than the eagle fords gas window, just for example.Guym , 01/30/2019 at 2:01 pmI knew I'd be wrong on that, just repeating what I read on a non-technical site. ThanksRon Patterson , 01/29/2019 at 6:16 pmYes, of course there are more shale sources out there. But perhaps not as many as you think. All reservoir rock is not so tight as to hold most of its oil in place. There is, or rather was, lots of oil in West Texas but not much shale oil. The same is true for Southern California. I suspect most of the Middle east is similar.Phil Stevens , 01/29/2019 at 9:58 pm
Guest ricck lineheart mmmm Bible School So many self proclaimed Christians yet all appear to
be through their words and actions thirsty for blood just as history shows . The same people
talk peace and love for all , B.S. ! Americans have such short memories and this is the best
weapon the Zionist Jew uses . Along with MainStreamMedia to aid and assist the U.S. must bleed
and kill masses of people their god is evil and lusting for blood . Vote Up 4 Vote Down Reply 5
days ago 
Guest dennis ward Round up the usual suspects, the Saudi's and the Israeli's! STOP SELLING
THOSE MURDERING PSYCHOPATHS WEAPONS!!! Vote Up 3 Vote Down Reply 4 days ago 
Guest Arindam 'This was an incredibly amateurish blunder by Ottawa's foreign affairs leaders.
If they had been smarter, they would have simply told Washington that Meng had already left
Canada, or they could not find her. '
