In 2014-2016 Bloomberg (like most other US MSM) consistently use fear mongering about Iran oil that soon will
flood the market. And provide only selective quotes from Iran officials and no facts about their industry
and fields.
Now they are taking the opposite extreme: that without Iran oil proves might skyrocket.
I do not trust such reporting. Iran probably want and can sell condensate that they already accumulated
and were unable to sell. After that we get into pretty much unpredictable situation. They want to get
rid of it and there are buyers for it in Japan and elsewhere. With proper discount.
Do they have buyers for their additional oil (if any) at the price they want with no additional discounts
(they explicitly stated that there will be no additional discounts). If yes, then how quickly they can
rump up the production and their transportation network ? With investments from whom? China? Russia?
If it is so easy to rump up production, why they did not do this in 2010-2013 when prices were much
higher and both China and India were buying their oil.
Saudis will not give them their quota in the current circumstances when they already burned so much
cash for preserving it and diplomatic relations between countries are broken.
I would love to embrace OFM’s hope that the U.S. will be able to improvise, adapt, and overcome the
ever-growing challenges stemming from declining availability of economically extractable resources and
the overtaxing of industrial civilization’s by-products’ sinks…but I am afraid that as ‘the economy’
continues to decline due to humanity’s over-extension, increasing numbers of armed demagogues may try
to take advantage of the situation.
Steven Mufson noted "Obama’s foreign
policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices" (Washingtonpost,
Dec 23, 2015):
Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure
chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States’ adversaries under greater stress.
After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling
economic discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia’s economic and political calculations, and dampening
Iranian leaders’ hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will
be lifted next year.
At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the
Obama administration’s foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining
the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil
revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic
recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.
Access to 100 billion previously frozen is nice and will help to upgrade their oil infrastructure
"in a long run" as well to by some modern air defense systems. But with that amount of cash in hand
why they are so pressed to sell their strategic resource at rock bottom prices? They are better diversified
the Saudis and sanctions helped too increase this diversification.
I am wondering why BBC and other MSM are pushing this event so hard in the direction of increasing "oil
glut". This this pure colonial greed? During the latest OPEC meeting Iran was one of the countries that
was for cutting output, not increasing it.
Iran has already access to growing markets in Asia, especially India and China. As for European market
the question that BBC did not eve try to answer is "To whom can they sell their oil without undercutting
Saudis?" So why Europe makes any sense at all to them. I would let Saudis to waste their resources as
long as then can. Stupidity should be punishable.
Saudis recently even tried to kick out Russia from Polish oil market, by undercutting their price despite
the fact that they have a pipeline, so transportation costs are much lower. Their behavior is really
strange, as if they to get rid of oil as fast as they can is the primary goal of the new king and his
"Margaret Thatcher of Saudi Arabia" neoliberal son, who wants to privatize everything in sight. In was
actually the son which got Saudis in Yemen civil war.
I think Iran might be able to sell their condensate to Japan at huge discount, and may be a couple of
other Asian countries able to process it, but that's about it.
Before sanctions were imposed on Iran in 2012 (to keep Israel as the top dog in the area) "the top destination
for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22%
of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively
of the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports with Italy and
Spain taking the largest amounts.
Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with it accounting for 100% and
51% of total crude imported, respectively. South Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran."
If all sanctions on Iran are lifted, very soon, they may reach 3.5 million barrels per day
by Q1 2022, but no way before then. I doubt they will ever reach 3.8 million again.
At any rate, to get to 29.54 million bpd by Q4 OPEC would need to increase production by 4.5
million bpd from April's production level. Dennis, we both know that is not going to
happen.
A draft copy of the accord that surfaced on media last year showed plans for long-term
supply of Iranian crude to China as well as investment in oil, gas, petrochemical, renewables
and nuclear energy infrastructure.
Lured by the prospect of cheaper prices, China has already
increased its imports of Iranian oil to around 1 million barrels a day, eroding U.S.
leverage as it prepares to enter stalled talks with Tehran to revive a nuclear deal.
The Biden administration has indicated that it's open to reengaging with Iran after
then-President Donald Trump abandoned the accord nearly three years ago and reimposed economic
sanctions, but the two sides have yet to even agree to meet. Iran exported around 2.5 million
barrels of oil a day before American penalties resumed.
Iran's closer integration with China may help shore up its economy against the impact of the
U.S. sanctions, while sending a clear signal to the White House of Tehran's intentions. Wang
Yi, who arrived in Tehran on Friday, also met with Rouhani to discuss the nuclear deal.
In a televised speech, Rouhani raised the prospect of restrictions being eased before the
end of his second and final term as president in early August.
"We're ready for the lifting of sanctions," he said on Saturday. "If obstacles are removed,
all or at least some sanctions can be lifted."
No additional details of the agreement were revealed as Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad
Javad Zarif and Chinese counterpart Wang Yi took part in a ceremony marking the event.
The deal marked the first time Iran has signed such a lengthy agreement with a major world
power. In 2001, Iran and Russia signed a 10-year cooperation agreement, mainly in the nuclear
field, that was lengthened to 20 years through two five-year extensions.
Before the ceremony Saturday, Yi met Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and special Iranian
envoy in charge of the deal Ali Larijani.
Saeed Khatibzadeh, spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, on Friday called the agreement
"deep, multi-layer and full-fledged."
The deal, which had been discussed since 2016, also supports tourism and cultural exchanges.
It comes on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and
Iran.
The two countries have had warm relations and both took part in a joint naval exercise in
2019 with Russia in the northern Indian Ocean.
Reportedly, Iran and China have done some $20 billion in trade annually in recent years.
That's down from nearly $52 billion in 2014, however, because of a decline in oil prices and
U.S. sanctions imposed in 2018 after then-President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. unilaterally
out of a nuclear deal between Iran and world powers, saying it needed to be renegotiated.
Iran has pulled away from restrictions imposed under the deal under those sanctions in order
to put pressure on the other signatories -- Germany, France, Britain, Russia and China -- to
provide new economic incentives to offset U.S. sanctions.
Thanks Dennis.
It is easy for us to discount the production capacity of Iran, however this could be a
mistake.
If China needs oil it will fund production in Iran, regardless of the 'worlds' concern over
Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions [very aggressive ambitions that are largely
theocratically driven].
This weekend-
'Iran, China sign strategic long-term [25 yr] cooperation agreement
The agreement covers a variety of economic activity from oil and mining to promoting industrial
activity in Iran, as well as transportation and agricultural collaboration.' https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/27/iran-china-agreement-478236
Miss Lacy and Arby both draw our attention to the obscenity of the US using this crisis in
order to put pressure on governments that it dislikes by cutting off medicine and other
resources.
Among the places where people are currently dying in large numbers because Washington
chooses that they should are Cuba-under an oil embargo-, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Iran.
Those who cannot bring themselves to believe that government could be so evil as to deploy
a virus as a weapon to weaken another state, only have to look at what is happening today:
Venezuela desperately needs funds, much of its foreign exchange having been seized illegally
by the US and its satellites, in order to weather the pandemic.
Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to embarrass
another state, is an accessory to murder.
Posted by: arby | Mar 18 2020 14:32 utc | 11
Posted by: Miss Lacy | Mar 18 2020 18:15 utc | 50
Posted by: bevin | Mar 18 2020 18:33 utc | 55
Anyone supporting such a policy, condoning the killing of vulnerable people to
embarrass another state, is an accessory to murder.
Although many argue that the foreign policies of the US government don't really reflect
the views and desires of ordinary citizens, the comments in the Fox News report on this story
suggest otherwise (caveat - be prepared to be appalled).
Iran hawks never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it.
Notable quotes:
"... And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that "new deal" and demanding more? ..."
Daniel
Larison Two Iran hawks from the Senate, Bob Menendez and Lindse Graham, are
proposing a "new deal" that is guaranteed to be a non-starter with Iran:
Essentially, their idea is that the United States would offer a new nuclear deal to both
Iran and the gulf states at the same time. The first part would be an agreement to ensure
that Iran and the gulf states have access to nuclear fuel for civilian energy purposes,
guaranteed by the international community in perpetuity. In exchange, both Iran and the gulf
states would swear off nuclear fuel enrichment inside their own countries forever.
Iran is never going to accept any agreement that requires them to give up domestic
enrichment. As far as they are concerned, they are entitled to this under the Non-Proliferation
Treaty, and they regard it as a matter of their national rights that they keep it. Insisting on
"zero enrichment" is what made it impossible to reach an agreement with Iran for the better
part of a decade, and it was only when the Obama administration understood this and compromised
to allow Iran to enrich under tight restrictions that the negotiations could move forward.
Demanding "zero enrichment" today in 2020 amounts to rejecting that compromise and returning to
a bankrupt approach that drove Iran to build tens of thousands of centrifuges. As a proposal
for negotiations, it is dead on arrival, and Menendez and Graham must know that. Iran hawks
never talk about diplomacy except as a way to discredit it. They want to make a bogus offer in
the hopes that it will be rejected so that they can use the rejection to justify more
aggressive measures.
The identity of the authors of the plan is a giveaway that the offer is not a serious
diplomatic proposal. Graham is one of the most incorrigible hard-liners on Iran, and Menendez
is probably the most hawkish Democratic senator in office today. Among other things, Menendez
has been a
booster of the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), the deranged cult of Iranian exiles
that has been buying the support of American politicians and officials for years. Graham has
never seen a diplomatic agreement that he didn't want to destroy. When hard-liners talk about
making a "deal," they always mean that they want to demand the other side's surrender.
Another giveaway that this is not a serious proposal is the fact that they want this
imaginary agreement submitted as a treaty:
That final deal would be designated as a treaty, ratified by the U.S. Senate, to give Iran
confidence that a new president won't just pull out (like President Trump did on President
Barack Obama's nuclear deal).
This is silly for many reasons. The Senate doesn't ratify treaties nowadays, so any "new
deal" submitted as a treaty would never be ratified. As the current president has shown, it
doesn't matter if a treaty has been ratified by the Senate. Presidents can and do withdraw from
ratified treaties if they want to, and the fact that it is a ratified treaty doesn't prevent
them from doing this. Bush pulled out of the ABM Treaty, which was ratified
88-2 in 1972. Trump withdrew from the INF Treaty just last year. The INF Treaty had been
ratified with a
93-5 vote. The hawkish complaint that the JCPOA wasn't submitted as a treaty was, as usual,
made in bad faith. There was no chance that the JCPOA would have been ratified, and even if it
had been that ratification would not have protected it from being tossed aside by Trump.
Insisting on making any new agreement a treaty is just another way of announcing that they have
no interest in a diplomatic solution.
Menendez and Graham want to make the obstacles to diplomacy so great that negotiations
between the U.S. and Iran can't resume. It isn't a serious proposal, and it shouldn't be taken
seriously.
And even if Iran were to accept and proceed comply in good faith, just as Iran complied
scrupulously with the JCPOA, what's to prevent any US administration from tearing up that
"new deal" and demanding more?
Then Trump ordered the drone strike on Soleimani, drastically escalating a simmering
conflict between Iran and the United States. All of a sudden the roles were reversed, with
Bolton praising the president and asserting that Soleimani's death was "
the first step to regime change in Tehran ." A chorus of neocons rushed to second his
praise: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA officer and prominent Never Trumper, lauded Trump's
intestinal fortitude, while Representative Liz Cheney hailed Trump's "decisive action." It
was Carlson who was left sputtering about the forever wars. "Washington has wanted war with
Iran for decades," Carlson
said . "They still want it now. Let's hope they haven't finally gotten it."
"... Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and "Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without corroborating sources." ..."
"... According to what we know, a Hezbollah agent conducted years of surveillance on potential targets , and alleged sleeper agents within U.S. cities have so far not been activated, even in the wake of Iranian Quds force General Soleimani's death and the series of crippling sanctions the Trump administration has put on Iran. ..."
Why is Pompeo suddenly directing increasingly heated rhetoric towards Iran and its proxies
in South America?
"Anti-Iran hawks like Pompeo like to emphasize that Iran is not a defensively-minded
international actor, but rather that it is offensively-minded and poses a direct threat to the
United States," said Max Abrahms, associate professor of political science at Northeastern and
fellow of the Quincy Institute said in an interview with The American Conservative. "And
so for obvious reasons, underscoring Hezbollah's international tentacles helps to sell their
argument that Iran needs to be dealt with in a military way, and that the key to dealing with
Iran is through confrontation and pressure."
Stories highlighting the role of Hezbollah in America's backyard "are almost always peddled
by anti-Iran hawks," he said.
Like Clare Lopez, vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security
Policy, who aligns with the argument that Hezbollah has been populating South America since the
days of the Islamic revolution.
"From at least the 1980s, many Lebanese fled to South America, and among that flow Hezbollah
embedded themselves," she told The American Conservative in a recent interview. Their
activity "really expanded throughout the continent" during the presidencies of Iran's Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
During that time, Lopez added, "there was a really strong relationship that developed
Iranians established diplomatic facilities, enormous embassies and consulates, embedded IRGC
cover positions and MOIS (intelligence services) within commercial companies and mosques and
Islamic centers. This took place in Brazil in particular but Venezuela also."
Iran and Hezbollah intensified their involvement throughout the region in technical services
like tunneling, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Venezuela offered Iran an international
banking work-around during the period of sanctions, said Lopez.
Obviously security analysts like Lopez and even Pompeo, have been following this for years.
But the timing here, as the Senate impeachment inquiry heats up, looks suspicious.
Last week, just as it looks increasingly likely that former national security advisor John
Bolton and Pompeo himself will be hauled before the Senate as witnesses about the foreign aid
hold-up to Ukraine, Pompeo praised Colombia, Honduras, and Guatemala for designating
"Iran-backed Hezbollah a terrorist organization," and slammed Venezuelan President Nicolas
Maduro for embracing the terrorist group.
Hezbollah "has found a home in Venezuela under Maduro. This is unacceptable," Pompeo said
when he met with Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido last week.
Asked by Bloomberg News how significant a role Hezbollah plays in the region, Pompeo
responded, "too much."
From the interview:
Pompeo : " I mentioned it in Venezuela, but in the Tri-Border Area as well. This
is again an area where Iranian influence – we talk about them as the world's largest
state sponsor of terror. We do that intentionally. It's the world's largest; it's not just a
Middle East phenomenon. So while – when folks think of Hezbollah, they typically think
of Syria and Lebanon, but Hezbollah has now put down roots throughout the globe and in South
America, and it's great to see now multiple countries now having designated Hezbollah as a
terrorist organization. It means we can work together to stamp out the security threat in the
region."
Question: "I'm struck by this, because even hearing you – what you're
saying, right, now – I mean, to take a step back, an Iranian-backed terrorist
organization has found a home in America's backyard."
Pompeo: "It's – it's something that we've been talking about for some
time. When you see the scope and reach of what the Islamic Republic of Iran's regime has
done, you can't forget they tried to kill someone in the United States of America. They've
conducted assassination campaigns in Europe. This is a global phenomenon. When we say that
Iran is the leading destabilizing force in the Middle East and throughout the world, it's
because of this terror activity that they have now spread as a cancer all across the globe.
"
Pompeo has also been publicly floating increasing sanctions on Venezuela. He called the
behavior of Maduro's government "cartel-like" and "terror-like," intensifying the sense that
there is a real security "threat" in our hemisphere.
Yet the U.S. has little real insight into what happens in hostile regimes like Maduro's, and
"Pompeo is probably the least reliable person in the world when it comes to information about
Iran or its proxies," said Abrahms. "He has a terrible track record; he is an ideologue. He is
the opposite of an impartial empiricist. I would never accept anything he says without
corroborating sources."
There's no question that Hezbollah has a presence in South America, said Abrahms, "but the
nature of its presence has been politicized."
"What this underscores is that Iran could pull the trigger, it could bloody
the U.S., including the U.S. homeland, but tends to avoid such violence. I think the question
that needs to be asked isn't just, 'where in the world could Iran commit an attack?' but
whether Iran is a rational actor that can be deterred," said Abrahms. "Interestingly, this
administration as well as its hawkish supporters tend to emphasize their belief that Iran can
in fact be deterred," since that is the logic behind "maximum pressure" against Iran, after
all. "The main causal mechanism according to advocates of maximum pressure, is that it will
force Iran as a rational actor to reconsider whether it wants to irritate the U.S By applying
economic pressure through sanctions, [they hope to] succeed in coaxing Iran to restructure the
nuclear deal and making additional concessions to the west and reigning in its activities in
the Persian Gulf and the Levant. At least on a rhetorical level, the hawks say they believe
Iran can be deterred," he said.
It would not be the first time that a president reacted to an intensifying impeachment
inquiry by redirecting national focus to threats abroad. In December 1998, as the impeachment
inquiry into then-President Bill Clinton heated up, Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq.
We should therefore apply some caution when we see decades-old threats amplified by
administration officials.
Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and national security
reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington Examiner and for CNS News. She
is the author of Patton Uncovered, a book about General George Patton in World War II, and her
work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill, UK Spectator, and elsewhere. Boland is a graduate from
Immaculata University in Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter
Well, it looks like I'll need to start contributing to NPR again. They are a little too
woke for my tastes, but Pompeo is a liar, and frankly beyond the pale. A perfect
representative of the current administration by the way. Kudos to NPR for standing up to
him.
Much like U.S. foreign policy, it seems that Mike Pompeo is going to ignore the facts and
keep recklessly escalating the conflict. Surely he's aware that
The Washington Post
published the
email correspondence
between Ms. Kelley and press aide. This just makes him look like
a coward.
From the Trump voter perspective, this journalist should feel lucky that she wasn't sent
to Guantanamo Bay. All Trump voters think this way, there is no exception.
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this. And thank you for opening the
comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump
to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what
his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more
years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery,
he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons
and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
Trump outlived his shelf life. Money quote: "This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years."
Notable quotes:
"... Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making ..."
"... This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring the world in 4 more years. ..."
"... besides much talk and showmastery, he has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously change the course. ..."
"... So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his intentions. ..."
"... Trump stands no chance if things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote. ..."
"... Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way out. ..."
"... Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I can't vote for either. Both spread chaos. ..."
"... President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC ..."
"... His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 - 15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year. ..."
"... Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and successful. ..."
President Trump will easily be acquitted in the senate trial. This may occur this week and
there will probably be no witnesses called. That will be an additional victory for him and will
add to the effect of his trade deal victories and the general state of the US economy. These
factors should point to a solid victory in November for him and the GOP in Congress.
Ah! Not so fast the cognoscenti may cry out. Not so fast. The Middle East is a graveyard of
dreams:
1. Iraq. Street demonstrations in Iraq against a US alliance are growing more
intense. There may well have been a million people in Muqtada al-Sadr's extravaganza. Shia
fury over the death of Soleimani is quite real. Trump's belief that in a contest of the will he
will prevail over the Iraqi Shia is a delusion, a delusion born of his narcissistic personality
and his unwillingness to listen to people who do not share his delusions. A hostile Iraqi
government and street mobs would make life unbearable for US forces there.
2. Syria. The handful of American troops east and north of the Euphrates "guarding"
Syrian oil from the Syrian government are in a precarious position with the Shia Iraqis at
their backs across the border and a hostile array of SAA, Turks, jihadis and potentially
Russians to their front and on their flanks.
3. Palestine. The "Deal of the Century" is approaching announcement. From what is
known of its contours, the deal will kill any remaining prospects for Palestinian statehood and
will relegate all Palestinians (both Israeli citizens and the merely occupied) to the status of
helots forever . Look it up. In return the deal will offer the helotry substantial bribes in
economic aid money. Trump evidently continues to believe that Palestinians are
untermenschen . He believe they will sell their freedom. The Palestinian Authority has
already rejected this deal. IMO their reaction to the imposition of this regime is likely to be
another intifada.
Some combination of the disasters that may emerge from these ME factors might well turn
Trump's base against him and this result would be entirely of his own making . pl
Could it be true? If that is the case, it´s more scary than Elora thought when that of Soleimani
happened....This starts to look as a frenopatic...isn´t it?
With Iran and her allies holding the figurative Trump Card on escalation, will they ramp up
the pressure to topple him? They could end up with a Dem who couldn't afford to "lose" Syria
or Iraq.
I submit to you, Colonel, that the biggest threat to Trump is a Bernie/Tulsi ticket. Bernie
is leading in the Iowa and NH polls, and the recent spat with Warren (in my opinion) leaves
Bernie with no viable choice for VP other than Tulsi.
Thank you Colonel; I have been waiting for your take on this.
And thank you for opening the comments again. If there is a problem with my post, please
point them out to me.
And i agree. This may well be a fatal mistake of his. And while i have thought Trump to be the lesser evil compared to Clinton, i am now at a
point where i seriously fear what his ignorance and slavery to the neocon doctrine may bring
the world in 4 more years.
Still, immigration is another important issue, but besides much talk and showmastery, he
has not really changed anything substantial in this regard; Nothing that could seriously
change the course.
So he stripped himself of any true argument to vote for him, besides for ultra neocons and
ultra fundamental evangelical Christians. And even they don't seem to trust in his
intentions.
And China? He may have changed some small to medium problems for the better, but nothing
is changed in the overall trend of the US continuing to loose while China emerges as the next
global superpower.
It may have been slowed for some years; It may even have been accelerated, now that China
has been waken up to the extend of the threat posed by the US.
North Korea? They surely will never denuclearize. Even less after how Trump showed the
world how he treats international law and even allies.
With Trump its all photo ops and showmanship. And while he senses what issues are
important, it is worth a damn if he butchers the execution, or values photo ops more than
substantial progress.
Not that i would see a democratic alternative. No. But at least now everyone who wants to
know can see, that he is neither one.
4 years ago, democracy was corrupted, but at least there was someone who presented himself
as an alternative to that rotten establishment.
Now, even that small ray of light is as dark as it gets.
And that is the saddest thing. What worth is democracy, when one does not even have a true
alternative, besides Tulsi on endless wars, and Bernie for the socialist ;) ?
I just have watched again the Ken Burns documentary of the civil war. I know it is not
perfect (Though i love Shelby Foote's parts), but the sense of the divided 2 Americas there,
is still the same today. Today, America seems to break apart culturally, socially and
economically on the fault lines that have sucked it into the civil war over 150 years
ago.
And just like with seeing no real way out politically, i sadly can see no way to heal and
unite this country, as it never was truly united after the civil war, if not ever before. As
you Colonel said some weeks ago, the US were never a nation.
And looking at other countries, only a major national crisis may change this.
A most sad realization. But this hold true also for other western countries, including my
own.
The economy is actually quite good and he is NOT "a dictator." Dictators are not put on
trial by the legislature. He is extremely ignorant and suffers from a life in which only
money mattered.
Once Bernie wins the nomination, it's going to be escalation time. Trump stands no chance if
things get hot with Iran. He didn't win by enough to sacrifice the antiwar vote.
I'm starting to think that Trumps weakness is believing that everyone and everything has a
monetary price. I think perhaps his dealings with China may reinforce his perception, as,
also, his alleged success in bullying the Europeans over Iran -- with the threat of tariffs on
European car imports. His almost weekly references to Iraqi and Syrian oil, allies "not
paying their way", financial threats to the Iraq Government, all suggest a fixation on
finance that has served him well in business.
The trouble is that one day President Trump is going to discover there is something money
can't buy, to the detriment of America.
Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo have got themselves in a no-win situation. NATO cannot occupy
both Syria and Iraq, illegally. There are way too few troops. The bases in these nations are
sitting ducks for the next precision ballistic missile attack. Any buildup would be
contested. Ground travel curtailed. A Peace Treaty and Withdrawal is the only safe way
out.
Donald Trump is blessed with his opponents. Democrats who restarted the Cold War with
Russia in 2014 are now using it to justify his Impeachment. If leaders cannot see reality
clearly, they will keep making incredibly stupid mistakes. If Joe Biden is his opponent, I
can't vote for either. Both spread chaos.
My subconscious is again acting out. The mini-WWIII with Iran could shut off Middle
Eastern oil at any time. The Fed is back to injecting digital money into the market. China
has quarantined 44 million people. Global trade is fragile. Today there are four cases of
Wuhan Coronavirus in the USA.
If confirmed that the virus is contagious without symptoms and
an infected person transmits the virus to 2 to 3 people and with a 3% mortality rate and a
higher 15% rate for the infirmed, the resupply trip to Safeway this summer could be both
futile and dangerous.
It's an old story. Mr X is elected POTUS; going to do this and that; something happens in the
MENA. That's all anyone remembers.
Maybe time to kiss Israel goodbye, tell SA to sell in whatever currency it wants, and realise that oil producers have to sell
the stuff -- it's no good to them in the ground...
President Trump controls part of the White House -- definitely not the NSC -- and much of the
Department of Commerce & Treasury. His hold elsewhere in the DC bureaucracy may be 5 -
15%. When the President decided to pull US troops out of Syria, his NSC Director flew to
Egypt and Turkey to countermand the order. Facing the opposition of a united DC SWAMP, the
President caved, and thereby delayed his formal impeachment by a year.
Going out on a limb, President Trump continues to play a very weak hand and may survive to
fight another day. Fortunately for the US, his tax and regulatory policies, as well as his
economic negotiations with China, Japan, Korea and Mexico seem to be on target and
successful.
Carthage must be destroyed! I don't know if Trump is going to war with Iran willingly or with
a Neocon gun to his head, but if he's impeached I expect Pence to go on a holy crusade.
Daniel
Larison
We saw how Mike Pompeo
made a
fool of himself
on Friday with his angry tirade against Mary Louise Kelly, a reporter for NPR. That outburst came
after an interview that he cut short in which he was asked legitimate questions that he could not answer. His response
to the report about this was to malign the reporter with bizarre lies in what could be the most unhinged statement ever
sent out by an American Secretary of State:
Official response from Pompeo about his NPR interview. Haven't seen anything like this before
with a State Department seal on it:
pic.twitter.com/Hi1P18ZS0A
Pompeo's accusatory statement confirmed the substance of what Kelly had reported, and absolutely no one believes him
when he says that she lied to him. All of the available evidence
supports
Kelly's account, and nothing supports Pompeo's:
On the program, Ms. Kelly said Katie Martin, an aide to Mr. Pompeo who has worked in press relations, never asked
for that conversation to be kept off the record, nor would she have agreed to do that.
Mr. Pompeo's statement did not deny Ms. Kelly's account of obscenities and shouting. NPR said Saturday that Ms.
Kelly "has always conducted herself with the utmost integrity, and we stand behind this report." On Sunday, The New
York Times obtained emails between Ms. Kelly and Ms. Martin that showed Ms. Kelly explicitly said the day before the
interview that she would start with Iran and then ask about Ukraine. "I never agree to take anything off the table,"
she wrote.
It is the new definition of chutzpah for Pompeo to accuse someone else of lying and lack of integrity, since he has
been daily
shredding his
credibility
by
making things up
about non-existent U.S. policy successes and telling
easily refuted
lies
about
North
Korea
,
Iran
,
Yemen
, and
Saudi Arabia
. We have
good reason to believe
that the
recent claim that there was an "imminent attack" from Iran earlier this month was
another one of those lies
.
For her part, Kelly has a reputation for solid and reliable reporting, and no one thinks that she would do the things he
accuses her of doing. Pompeo's dig at the end is meant to imply that she misidentified Ukraine on the blank map that he
had brought in to test her. No one believes that claim, either. This is another preposterous lie that tells us that his
version of events can't be true. Pompeo has been
waging a war on the truth
for
the last year and a half, and this is just the most recent assault. The Secretary's meltdown this weekend has been
useful in making it impossible to ignore this any longer.
Literally nobody thinks Mike Pompeo is telling the truth about this, or anything. He works for
Donald Trump, who also lies about everything, always.
https://t.co/yTzZDZl5Gw
All of this is appalling, unprofessional behavior from any government official, and in a sane administration this
conduct along with his other false and misleading statements would be grounds for resignation. When Pompeo publicly
attacks a journalist for doing her job and impugns her integrity to cover up for the fact that he doesn't have any, he
is attacking the press and undermining public accountability. He is also undermining the department's advocacy for
freedom of the press when he tries to intimidate journalists with his obnoxious outbursts. Pompeo already alienated and
disgusted people in his department with his failure to come to the defense of officials that were being publicly
attacked and smeared, and this latest display has further embarrassed them. We need a Secretary of State who isn't a
serial liar, and right now we don't have one.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
.
He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
How tank maintenance mechanical engineer and military contractor who got into congress
pretending to belong to tea party can became the Secretary of state? Only in America ;-)
"You Think Americans Really Give A F**k About Ukraine?" - Pompeo
Flips Out On NPR Reporter by Tyler Durden Sat, 01/25/2020 - 15:05 0
SHARES
Democrats' impeachment proceedings were completely overshadowed this week by the panic over
the Wuhan coronavirus. Still, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is clearly tired of having his
character repeatedly impugned by the Dems and the press claiming he hung one of his ambassadors
out to dry after she purportedly resisted the administration's attempts to pressure
Ukraine.
That frustration came to a head this week when, during a moment of pique, Secretary Pompeo
launched into a rant and swore at NPR reporter Mary Louise Kelly after she wheedled him about
whether he had taken concrete steps to protect former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie
Yovanovitch.
House Democrats last week released a trove of messages between Giuliani associate Lev Parnas
and Connecticut Republican Congressional candidate Robert Hyde. The messages suggested that
Yovanovitch might have been under surveillance before President Trump recalled her to
Washington. One of the messages seems to reference a shadowy character able to "help" with
Yovanovitch for "a price."
Kelly recounted the incident to her listeners (she is the host of "All Things
Considered")
After Kelly asked Pompeo to specify exactly what he had done or said to defend Yovanovitch,
whom Pompeo's boss President Trump fired last year, Pompeo simply insisted that he had "done
what's right" with regard to Yovanovitch, while becoming visibly annoyed.
Once the interview was over, Pompeo glared at Kelly for a minute, then left the room,
telling an aide to bring Kelly into another room at the State Department without her recorder,
so they could have more privacy.
Once inside, Pompeo launched into what Kelly described as an "expletive-laden rant",
repeatedly using the "f-word." Pompeo complained about the questions about Ukraine, arguing
that the interview was supposed to be about Iran.
"Do you think Americans give a f--k about Ukraine?" Pompeo allegedly said.
The outburst was followed by a ridiculous stunt: one of Pompeo's staffers pulled out a blank
map and asked the reporter to identify Ukraine, which she did.
"People will hear about this," Pompeo vaguely warned.
Ironically, Pompeo is planning to travel to Kiev this week.
The questions came after Michael McKinley, a former senior adviser to Pompeo, told Congress
that he resigned after the secretary apparently ignored his pleas for the department to show
some support for Yovanovitch.
Listen to the interview here. A transcript can be found
here .
NPR's Mary Louise Kelly says the following happened after the interview in which she asked
some tough questions to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. pic.twitter.com/cRTb71fZvX
He's right. American don't give a **** about Ukraine. But why did Clinton and Obama and
now Trump and Pompeo? Why are they spending our money there instead of either taking care of
problems here or paying off the national debt?
The best thing that could happen to the Ukraine is for Russia to take it back.. they would
clean up that train wreck of a country... they've proven themselves as to being the scumbags
they are gypsies and grifters...
But why are Trump and Pompeo continuing the policy of Obama and Clinton there? Remember
Trump said he would pay off the national debt in 8 years? How about stop spending our money
on the War Party's foreign interventions for a starter.
I wish the same level of questioning was directed at Pompeo regarding Syria and Iran. You
may like his response because of the particular topic, but it doesn't change the fact that
he's a psycho neo-con fucktard who should be shot for treason.
U.S. Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo participates in a press conference with U.S. President Donald J. Trump during the
NATO Foreign Ministerial in Brussels on July 12, 2018. (State Department photo/ Public Domain)
January 24, 2020
|
9:21 pm
Daniel Larison
Mike Pompeo has proven to be a
blowhard and a bully
in his role as Secretary of State, and nothing seems to bother him more than challenging questions
from professional journalists. All of those flaws and more were on display during and after his interview with NPR's Mary
Louise Kelly today. After abruptly ending the
interview
when pressed on his failure to defend members of the Foreign Service, Pompeo then threw a fit and berated the
reporter who asked him the questions:
Immediately after the questions on Ukraine, the interview concluded. Pompeo stood, leaned in and silently glared at
Kelly for several seconds before leaving the room.
A few moments later, an aide asked Kelly to follow her into Pompeo's private living room at the State Department
without a recorder. The aide did not say the ensuing exchange would be off the record.
Inside the room, Pompeo shouted his displeasure at being questioned about Ukraine. He used repeated expletives,
according to Kelly, and asked, "Do you think Americans care about Ukraine?" He then said, "People will hear about this."
People are certainly hearing about it, and their unanimous judgment is that it confirms Pompeo's reputation as an
obnoxious, thin-skinned excuse for a Secretary of State. Kelly's questions were all reasonable and fair, but Pompeo is not
used to being pressed so hard to give real answers. We have seen his short temper and condescension before when other
journalists have asked him tough questions, and he seems particularly annoyed when the journalists calling him out are
women. Pompeo probably has the worst working relationship with the press of any Secretary of State in decades, and this
episode will make it worse.
When Pompeo realized he wouldn't be able to get away with his standard set of vacuous talking points and lies, he ended
the conversation. The
entire
interview
is worth reading to appreciate how poorly Pompeo performs when he is forced to explain how failing
administration policies are "working." When pressed on his untrue claims that "maximum pressure" on Iran is "working," all
that he could do was repeat himself robotically:
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: How?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
QUESTION: Sanctions?
SECRETARY POMPEO: We'll stop them.
Kelly refused to accept pat, meaningless responses, and she kept insisting that Pompeo provide something, anything, to
back up his assertions. This is how administration officials should always be interviewed, and it is no surprise that the
Secretary of State couldn't handle being challenged to back up his claims. The questions wouldn't have been that hard to
answer if Pompeo were willing to be honest or the least bit humble, but that isn't how he operates. He sees every interview
as an opportunity to snow the interviewer under with nonsense and to score points with the president, and giving honest
answers would get in the way of both.
The section at the end concerned Pompeo's failure to stand up for State Department officials, especially Marie
Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine. Since Pompeo's support for these officials has been abysmal, there was
nothing substantive that he could say about it and tried to filibuster his way out of it. To her credit, Kelly was
persistent in trying to pin him down and make him address the issue. He had every chance to explain himself, but instead he
fell back on defensive denials that persuade no one:
QUESTION: Sir, respectfully, where have you defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've defended every single person on this team. I've done what's right for every single person on
this team.
QUESTION: Can you point me toward your remarks where you have defended Marie Yovanovitch?
SECRETARY POMPEO: I've said all I'm going to say today. Thank you. Thanks for the repeated opportunity to do so; I
appreciate that.
Pompeo could have defended Yovanovitch and other officials that have come under attack, but to do that would be to risk
Trump's ire and it would require him to show the slightest bit of courage. In the end, his "swagger" is all talk and his
rhetoric about supporting his "team" at State is meaningless. Pompeo made a fool of himself in this interview, and it is
perfectly in keeping with his angry, brittle personality that he took out his frustrations by yelling at the reporter who
exposed him as the vacuous blowhard that he is.
about the author
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at
TAC
, where he also keeps a solo
blog
. He has been published in the
New York Times
Book Review
,
Dallas Morning News
,
World Politics Review
,
Politico Magazine
,
Orthodox
Life
, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for
The Week
. He
holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on
Twitter
.
email
Left out was the part when pompeo had one of his minions bring out a blank world map and challenged her to
find the Ukraine which she immediately did - i wonder if trump could find it
Apparently, Pompeo has suggested Kelly had pointed to Bangladesh, not Ukraine, on the map, and
commented "It is worth noting that Bangladesh is NOT Ukraine."
I don't suppose we are ever likely to
see conclusive evidence that will establish for certain where she pointed.
It's probably just a matter of looking at their respective records of lying, cheating, and
stealing, and making a guess based on that.
My God, can he get any worse. I suppose so since his boss always falls to a lower level. There is no bottom.
Just admit that everyday brings a new low. Only thing surprising is that we get surprised at their
despicable behavior.
That's the problem with Trump henchmen: they can
always
get worse. There is no bottom, for to
have a limit below which the henchmen will not go would embarrass the
Capo di Tutti Capi
for
blowing through it on the way down. Henchmen have bills to pay, too, you know, just like people.
I'm sorry, is the "conservative" in the name of this blog some kind of parody? You all sure sound like
liberal democrats. Never been here before, won't be coming back.
Oh, and you forgot about the part where
Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer transitioned to
a new topic. And the way she did so was to ask Pompeo if he owed Marie Yanokovich an apology. Yes, riveting
journalism devoid of partisan bias. Lol! But it was Pompeo. Right.
To the person who down voted me, I don't care. Honestly I'm glad you butthurt whiners have a place to
share your hurt feelings. Maybe if you're lucky Joe Biden will be President soon and you can all
rejoice that "decency" is back, or something.
Apparently Pompeo can only keep so many talking points in his head. One topic only. Are we to believe
the Secretary of State can't expound on more than a single subject? It must be true, otherwise he
wouldn't go around insisting he will only talk about one subject during an interview. I expect he
won't be getting many invites for interviews outside of FOX. Just as well, he's a bag of hot air
anyway.
I think there are many conservatives writing and commenting on this site. But perhaps you are
confusing "conservative" with "republican". There is little conservatism left in the republican party.
"...Pompeo came ready to discuss one topic, which was agreed to beforehand, and the interviewer
transitioned to a new topic."
Oh, the humanity!
Secretary Pompous couldn't just give a little chuckle and say something like "Now, now. You know we
agreed to talk only on one topic, so let's get together on another day to discuss other topics". ?
Just another guy in power who is too full of himself.
QUESTION: My question, again: How do you stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
Italicized/bold
text was excerpted from the website
www.dni.gov
within a US National Intelligence Estimate published in Nov2007 titled:
Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities
ANSWER:
Key Judgements
A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we
also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop
nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to
suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing
international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work.
Italicized/bold text was excerpted from the website
fas.org
a report published (updated 20Dec2019) by the Congressional Research Service titled:
Page 53, 2nd paragraph -
Iran's Nuclear Program: Status
Director of National Intelligence Coats reiterated the last sentence in May 2017 testimony.330He
testified in January 2019 that the U.S. intelligence community "continue[s] to assess that Iran is not
currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons-development activities we judge necessary to produce a nuclear
device." Subsequent statements from U.S. officials indicate that Iran has not resumed its nuclear weapons
program. According to an August 2019 State Department report, the "U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that
Iran is not currently undertaking the key nuclear weapons development activities judged necessary to produce
a nuclear device." Any decision to produce nuclear weapons "will be made by the Supreme Leader," Clapper
stated in April 2013.
"... Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the last two decades. Wilkerson states: ..."
"... America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is. ..."
"... We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party -- the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of it. ..."
"... That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make war. ..."
Lawrence Wilkerson, a College of William & Mary professor who was chief of staff for
Secretary of State Colin Powel in the George W. Bush administration, powerfully summed up the
vile nature of the US national security state in a recent interview with host Amy Goodman at
Democracy Now.
Asked by Goodman about the escalation of US conflict with Iran and how it compares with the
prior run-up to the Iraq War, Wilkerson provided a harsh critique of US foreign policy over the
last two decades. Wilkerson states:
Ever since 9/11, the beast of the national security state, the beast of endless wars, the
beast of the alligator that came out of the swamp, for example, and bit Donald Trump just a
few days ago, is alive and well.
America exists today to make war. How else do we interpret 19 straight years of war and no
end in sight? It's part of who we are. It's part of what the American Empire is.
We are going to lie, cheat and steal, as [US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo] is doing
right now, as [President Donald Trump] is doing right now, as [Secretary of Defense Mark
Esper] is doing right now, as [Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)] is doing right now, as [Senator
Tom Cotton (R-AR)] is doing right now, and a host of other members of my political party --
the Republicans -- are doing right now. We are going to cheat and steal to do whatever it is
we have to do to continue this war complex. That's the truth of it, and that's the agony of
it.
What we saw President Trump do was not in President Trump's character, really. Those boys
and girls who were getting on those planes at Fort Bragg to augment forces in Iraq, if you
looked at their faces, and, even more importantly, if you looked at the faces of the families
assembled along the line that they were traversing to get onto the airplanes, you saw a lot
of Donald Trump's base. That base voted for Donald Trump because he promised to end these
endless wars, he promised to drain the swamp. Well, as I said, an alligator from that swamp
jumped out and bit him. And, when he ordered the killing of Qassim Suleimani, he was a member
of the national security state in good standing, and all that state knows how to do is make
war.
Wilkerson, over the remainder of the two-part interview provides many more
insightful comments regarding US foreign policy, including recent developments concerning Iran.
Watch Wilkerson's interview here:
"... Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial and energy hegemony of] America". ..."
"... a regular part of the MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior violence. ..."
"... No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force (land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We will use violence and armed force to make this happen. ..."
"... But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next poor bastards who stand up to us." ..."
Pompeo omitted a crucial part of this sentence: "deterrence to protect [the financial
and energy hegemony of] America".
While this might be obvious to us, the narrative that US foreign policy is about
protecting citizens, values and apple pie from 'bad guys' -- and indeed that the militaries
of all Western countries are benign police forces preventing ISIS from burning your old
Eagles albums and other violations of 'freedom' -- is such a regular part of the
MSM/cinema diet masticated by the general public that we have completely forgotten that the
basic function of the armed forces is the pursuit of vested interests through superior
violence.
It always seemed strange to me that the post-ww2 cinematic template for war-movies, and by
extension the basic plot of all reporting of western military activity in the media, always
represented the enemy as evil precisely because they use militaries in an instrumental
way (i.e for the purpose they were designed). The Germans, or for that matter the
Persians in 300 , or any baddies in war films, seek to extend and protect their
interests (real or imagined) by deploying armed forces.
The good guys are always identifiable through this idea of 'deterrence': "hey man, all we
want is just to live and let live, but you pushed us so we pushed back." Then one stirs in a
little 'preemptive deterrence': you looked like you were going to push so we acted. If we
'accidentally' go too far, it's because there is a deranged C-in-C: Hitler, or Xerxes, or
some other naughty boy who can be the fall-guy, scapegoat, etc.
To get serious we need to go back a very long way, to, say, the Iliad , which, like
all Greek (and Roman) literature, assumes as a premise (and it's tragedy) that the warrior's
basic function is to kill, pillage, rape and occasionally protect others from the same. But
mostly take by force .
No qualms or BS 'deterrence', armies are for taking other people's stuff by force
(land-grabs, etc). I would respect Pompeo a whole lot more (but not much more...) if he just
once came out and said: "Iran is run by people who don't want us to take their stuff; we want
to undermine them and replace them with paid yes-men who will let us take Iran's stuff. We
will use violence and armed force to make this happen.
But we have no intention of distributing this loot evenly among our citizens. Instead
it will be paid as dividends to select shareholders and spent retooling the military for next
poor bastards who stand up to us."
Once they delved into "Conquest and Exploitation", the Military were OverScoped and Few
People thought of rebuilding/modernizing Civil Infrastructure and Economy of the
Conquered.
Also, IMHO, every Govt-Job that affect the Military and Veterans' Lives should be held by
Veterans. Need them to be where the Rubber Meets the Road before sending others into harm's
way. I'd go as far to require WH, Congress, Supremes to be Previously Assigned to Combat
Units/Hot Zones (FatBoy Pompeo Fails here) - and have Combat Eligible Family be in Active
Duty or Drilling Reserves - ready to be sent to the Front Lines should they call for War
while running the Republic-turned-Hegemon.
That would include BoneShards' Adult Children and Spouses.
WH have been on a PetroUSD/MIC/PNAC7/AIPAC Bandwagon - which drive down Non-Yielding
Nation-States with Sanctions.
Now BoneShards Opened the Pandora's Box of Open State Level Assassinations using
Diplomatic Peace Missions as Venues. Worse? Against a Nation-State which can Respond in Kind
- AND Develop+Deploy Nuclear WMDs. Not Ethical - Inhumane and Imbecilic, really. That's why I
am voting for Gabbard this Time. A 2nd Gen Navy Vet. Been to War Zones in the Gulf.
One of the strongest predictive sign that you have a sociopathic boss is that he/she is not
agreement capable.
The maintenance of fear, chaos and blowback are exACTLY the desired result. Deliberately
and on purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". ..."
I would put it a bit differently. Trump's erraticness is a strong signal he fits to a
pattern the Russians have used to depict the US: "not agreement capable". That's what I
meant by he selects for weak partners. His negotiating style signals that he is a bad faith
actor. Who would put up with that unless you had to, or you could somehow build that into
your price?
I have no idea who your mythical Russians are. I know two people who did business in Russia
before things got stupid and they never had problems with getting paid. Did you also miss that
"Russians" have bought so much real estate in London that they mainly don't live in that you
could drop a neutron bomb in the better parts of Chelsea and South Kensington and not kill
anyone?
Pray tell, how could they acquire high end property if they are such cheats?
"It is politically important: Russia has paid off the USSR's debt to a country that no
longer exists," said Mr Yuri Yudenkov, a professor at the Russian University of Economics and
Public Administration. "This is very important in terms of reputation: the ability to repay on
time, the responsibility," he told AFP.
It would have been very easy for Russia to say it cannot be held responsible for USSR's
debts, especially in this case where debt is to a non-existent entity.
Some rather alarming news this morning (here); Pompeo now says the assassination of Soleimani
was deterrence.
Not stopping there, he went on to say that U.S. deterrence also applies to Russia and
China!
I'd say the gauntlet has been thrown down; just how far behind can war be now?
The U.S. has been pushing the limits of international crime for decades; and I think
they're so used to being not challenged, that they forget (or stupidly think they're
invincible) Russia and China will fight rather than cow tow to any U.S. coercion...
IMO, we just entered a new and far more dangerous era...
I see we have reached peak hypocrisy now. Resign Mike. You are an embarrassment to the
people of the United States who you claim to be serving. Every day you read the same script,
and it's a bevy of lies, every time.
"... Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely," said the former Republican national security official. ..."
As planning got underway, Pompeo worked with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Army Gen. Mark
Milley and the commander of CENTCOM Marine Gen. Kenneth McKenzie to assess the profile of
troops in the field. Multiple sources also say that hawkish Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of
Arkansas and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, were kept in the loop and also pushed Trump to
respond.
Trump was not at all reluctant to target Soleimani, multiple sources said, adding that the
President's other senior advisers -- Esper, Milley, CIA Director Gina Haspel and national
security adviser Robert O'Brien -- "were all on board."
Pompeo has forged "very close relationships" with Haspel and Esper, alliances that
bolstered his ability to make the case to Trump. "They all work together very, very closely,"
said the former Republican national security official.
That said, the former official expressed concern about the lack of deep expertise in Trump's
national security team. Several analysts pointed to this as one factor in Pompeo's outsized
influence within the administration.
The government is so compromised by Trump and by all the vacancies and lack of experience,
this former official said, that "everything is being done by a handful of principles -- Pompeo,
Esper, Milley. There are a lot of things being left on the floor."
'Such a low bar'
Pompeo is arguably the most experienced of the national security Cabinet, the former
national security official said, "but it's such a low bar."
"It's such a small group and there's so much that needs to be done," the former official
said. "Everyone in this administration is a level and a half higher than they would be in a
normal administration. They have no bench," they said.
The Trump administration has been handicapped by the President's refusal to hire Republicans
who criticize him. Other Republicans won't work for the administration, for fear of being
"tainted" or summarily fired, the former official said.
As layers of experience have been peeled away at the White House, some analysts say
safeguards have been removed as well. CNN's Peter Bergen has written in his new book, "Trump
and his Generals," that former Defense Secretary James Mattis told his aides not to present the
President with options for confronting Iran militarily.
Randa Slim, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, argues that since the departure of
Mattis, former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats and former White House chief of
staff and retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, there are very few voices at the White House to offer
"deeply considered advice."
"We don't have those people who have that experience and could look Trump in the eye and who
have his respect and who could say, 'Hey, hey, hey -- wait!'," Slim said.
'Brought to Jesus': the evangelical grip on the Trump administration The influence of
evangelical Christianity is likely to become an important question as Trump finds himself
dependent on them for political survival
Fri 11 Jan 2019 02.00 EST Last modified on Fri 18 Jan 2019 16.51 EST
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via Email Donald Trump at
the Republican national convention in Cleveland, Ohio, on 18 July 2016. Photograph: Mike
Segar/Reuters I n setting out the Trump administration's Middle East policy, one of the first
things Mike Pompeo made clear to his audience in Cairo is that he had come to the region as "as
an evangelical Christian".
In his speech at the American University in Cairo, Pompeo said that in his state department
office: "I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and his word, and the truth."
The secretary of state's primary message in Cairo was that the US was ready once more to
embrace conservative Middle Eastern regimes, no matter how repressive, if they made common
cause against Iran.
His second message was religious. In his visit to Egypt, he came across as much as a
preacher as a diplomat. He talked about "America's innate goodness" and marveled at a newly
built cathedral as "a stunning testament to the Lord's hand".
ss="rich-link"> 'Toxic Christianity': the evangelicals creating champions for
Trump Read more
The desire to erase Barack Obama's legacy, Donald Trump's instinctive embrace of autocrats,
and the private interests of the Trump Organisation have all been analysed as driving forces
behind the administration's foreign policy.
The gravitational pull of white evangelicals has been less visible. But it could have
far-reaching policy consequences. Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo both cite evangelical
theology as a powerful motivating force.
Just as he did in Cairo, Pompeo called on the congregation of a Kansan megachurch three
years ago to join a fight of good against evil.
"We will continue to fight these battles," the then congressman said at the Summit church in Wichita. "It
is a never-ending struggle until the rapture. Be part of it. Be in the fight."
For Pompeo's audience, the rapture invoked an apocalyptical Christian vision of the future,
a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus Christ, when the faithful
will ascend to heaven and the rest will go to hell.
For many US evangelical Christians, one of the key preconditions for such a moment is the
gathering of the world's Jews in a greater Israel between the Mediterranean and the Jordan
River. It is a belief, known as premillenial dispensationalism or Christian Zionism – and
it has very real potential consequences for US foreign policy .
It directly colours views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and indirectly, attitudes
towards Iran, broader Middle East geopolitics and the primacy of protecting Christian
minorities. In his Cairo visit, Pompeo heaped praise on Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, for building the
new cathedral, but made no reference to the 60,000
political prisoners the regime is thought to be holding, or its routine use of torture.
Pompeo is an evangelical Presbyterian, who says he was "brought to Jesus" by other cadets at
the West Point military academy in the 1980s.
"He knows best how his faith interacts with his political beliefs and the duties he
undertakes as secretary of state," said Stan van den Berg, senior pastor of Pompeo's church in
Wichita in an email. "Suffice to say, he is a faithful man, he has integrity, he has a
compassionate heart, a humble disposition and a mind for wisdom."
As Donald
Trump finds himself ever more dependent on them for his political survival, the influence
of Pence, Pompeo and the ultra-conservative white Evangelicals who stand behind them is likely
to grow.
"Many of them relish the second coming because for them it means eternal life in heaven,"
Andrew Chesnut, professor of religious studies at Virginia Commonwealth University said. "There
is a palpable danger that people in high position who subscribe to these beliefs will be
readier to take us into a conflict that brings on Armageddon."
Chesnut argues that Christian Zionism has become the "majority theology" among white US
Evangelicals, who represent about a quarter of the
adult population . In a 2015
poll , 73% of evangelical Christians said events in Israel are prophesied in the Book of
Revelation. Respondents were not asked specifically whether their believed developments in
Israel would actually bring forth the apocalypse.
The relationship between evangelicals and the president himself is complicated.
Trump himself embodies the very opposite of a pious Christian ideal. Trump is not
churchgoer. He is profane, twice divorced, who has boasted of sexually assaulting women. But
white evangelicals have embraced him.
Eighty per cent of white evangelicals voted for him in 2016, and his popularity among them
is remains in the 70s. While other white voters have flaked away in the first two years of his
presidency, white evangelicals have become his last solid bastion.
Some leading evangelicals see Trump as a latterday King Cyrus, the sixth-century BC Persian
emperor who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity.
The comparison is made explicitly in
The Trump Prophecy , a religious film screened in 1,200 cinemas around the country in
October, depicting a retired firefighter who claims to have heard God's voice, saying: "I've
chosen this man, Donald Trump, for such a time as this."
Lance Wallnau , a self-proclaimed
prophet who features in the film, has called Trump "God's Chaos Candidate" and a "modern
Cyrus".
"Cyrus is the model for a nonbeliever appointed by God as a vessel for the purposes of the
faithful," said Katherine
Stewart , who writes extensively about the Christian right.
She added that they welcome his readiness to break democratic norms to combat perceived
threats to their values and way of life.
"The Christian nationalist movement is characterized by feelings of persecution and, to some
degree, paranoia – a clear example is the idea that there is somehow a 'war on
Christmas'," Stewart said. "People in those positions will often go for authoritarian leaders
who will do whatever is necessary to fight for their cause."
Trump was raised as a Presbyterian, but leaned increasingly towards evangelical preachers as
he began contemplating a run for the presidency.
Trump's choice of Pence as a running mate was a gesture of his commitment, and four of the
six preachers at his inauguration were evangelicals, including White and Franklin Graham, the
eldest son of the preacher Billy Graham, who defended Trump through his many sex scandals,
pointing out: "We are all sinners."
Having lost control of the House of Representatives in November, and under ever closer
scrutiny for his campaign's links to the Kremlin, Trump's instinct has been to cleave ever
closer to his most loyal supporters.
Almost alone among major demographic groups, white evangelicals are overwhelmingly in favour
of Trump's border wall, which some preachers equate with fortifications in the Bible.
Evangelical links have also helped shape US alliances in the Trump presidency. As secretary
of state, Pompeo has been instrumental in forging link with other evangelical leaders in the
hemisphere, including
Guatemala's Jimmy Morales and the new Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro . Both have undertaken to
follow the US lead in
moving their embassies in Israel to Jerusalem .
Trump's order to move
the US embassy from Tel Aviv – over the objections of his foreign policy and national
security team – is a striking example of evangelical clout.
ss="rich-link"> Sheldon Adelson: the casino mogul driving Trump's Middle East
policy Read more
The move was also pushed by Las Vegas billionaire and Republican mega-donor, Sheldon
Adelson, but the orchestration of the
embassy opening ceremony last May, reflected the audience Trump was trying hardest to
appease.
For many evangelicals, the move cemented Trump's status as the new Cyrus, who oversaw the
Jews return to Jerusalem and rebuild the Temple.
The tightening of the evangelical grip on the administration has also been reflected in a
growing hostility to the UN, often portrayed as a sinister and godless organisation.
Since the US ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced her departure in October and Pompeo took
more direct control, the US mission has become increasingly combative, blocking references to
gender and
reproductive health in UN documents.
Some theologians also see an increasingly evangelical tinge to the administration's broader
Middle East policies, in particular its fierce embrace of Binyamin Netanyahu's government, the
lack of balancing sympathy for the Palestinians – and the insistent demonisation of the
Iranian government.
ss="rich-link"> US will expel every last Iranian boot from Syria, says Mike Pompeo
Read more
Evangelicals, Chesnut said, "now see the United States locked into a holy war against the
forces of evil who they see as embodied by Iran".
This zeal for a defining struggle has thus far found common cause with more secular hawks
such as the national security adviser, John Bolton, and Trump's own drive to eliminate the
legacy of Barack Obama, whose signature foreign policy achievement was the 2015 nuclear deal
with Tehran, which Trump abrogated last May.
In conversations with European leaders such as Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May, Trump has
reportedly insisted he has no intention of going to war with Iran. His desire to extricate US
troops from Syria marks a break with hawks, religious and secular, who want to contain Iranian
influence there.
But the logic of his policy of ever-increasing pressure, coupled with unstinting support for
Israel and Saudi Arabia, makes confrontation with Iran ever more likely.
One of the most momentous foreign policy questions of 2019 is whether Trump can veer away
from the collision course he has helped set in motion – perhaps conjuring up a last
minute deal, as he did with North Korea – or instead welcome conflict as a distraction
from his domestic woes, and sell it to the faithful as a crusade.
The 2016 presidential elections are proving historic, and not just because of the surprising
success of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders, the lively debate among
feminists over whether to support Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump's unorthodox candidacy.
The elections are also groundbreaking because they're revealing more dramatically than ever
the corrosive effect of big money on our decaying democracy.
Following the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision and related rulings,
corporations and the wealthiest Americans gained the legal right to raise and spend as much
money as they want on political candidates.
The 2012
elections were consequently the most expensive in U.S. history. And this year's races are predicted to cost even
more. With the general election still six months away, donors have already sunk $1 billion into
the presidential race -- with $619 million raised by candidates and another $412 million by
super PACs.
Big money in politics drives grave inequality in our country. It
also drives war.
After all, war is a profitable industry. While millions of people all over the world are
being killed and traumatized by violence, a small few make a killing from the never-ending war
machine.
During the Iraq War, for example, weapons manufacturers and a cadre of other corporations
made billions on federal contracts.
Most notoriously this included Halliburton, a military contractor previously led by Dick
Cheney. The company made huge profits from George W. Bush's decision to wage a costly,
unjustified, and illegal war while Cheney served as his vice president.
Military-industrial corporations spend heavily on political campaigns. They've given
over $1 million to this year's presidential candidates so far -- over $200,000 of which
went to Hillary Clinton, who leads the pack in industry backing.
These corporations target House and Senate members who sit on the Armed Forces and
Appropriations Committees, who control the purse strings for key defense line items. And
cleverly, they've planted
factories in most congressional districts. Even if they provide just a few dozen
constituent jobs per district, that helps curry favor with each member of Congress.
Thanks to aggressive lobbying efforts, weapons manufacturers have secured the
five largest contracts made by the federal government over the last seven years. In 2014,
the U.S. government awarded over $90 billion worth of contracts to Lockheed Martin, Boeing,
General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman.
Military spending has been one of the top three biggest federal programs every year since
2000, and it's far and away the largest discretionary portion. Year after year, elected
officials spend several times
more on the military than on education, energy, and the environment combined.
Lockheed Martin's problematic F-35 jet illustrates this disturbingly disproportionate use of
funds. The same $1.5 trillion Washington will spend on the jet, journalist Tom Cahill
calculates , could have provided tuition-free public higher education for every student in
the U.S. for the next 23 years. Instead, the Pentagon ordered a fighter plane that
can't even fire its own gun yet.
Given all of this, how can anyone justify war spending?
Some folks will say it's to make
us safer . Yet the aggressive U.S. military response following the 9/11 attacks -- the
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO bombing of Libya, and drone strikes in Pakistan and
Yemen -- has only destabilized the region. "Regime change" foreign policies have collapsed
governments and opened the doors to Islamist terrorist groups like ISIS.
Others may say they support a robust Pentagon budget because of the
jobs the military creates . But dollar for dollar, education spending creates nearly three
times more jobs than military spending.
We need to stop letting politicians and corporations treat violence and death as "business
opportunities." Until politics become about people instead of profits, we'll remain crushed in
the death grip of the war machine.
And that is the real national security threat facing the United States today.
Share this:
"... Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1. ..."
CEOs of major U.S. military contractors stand to reap huge windfalls from the escalation of conflict with Iran.
This was evident in the immediate aftermath of the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official last
week. As soon as the news reached financial markets, these companies' share prices spiked, inflating the value of
their executives' stock-based pay.
I took a look at how the CEOs at the top five Pentagon contractors were affected by this surge, using the most
recent SEC information on their stock holdings.
Northrop Grumman executives saw the biggest increase in the value of their stocks after the U.S. airstrike that
killed Qasem Suleimani on January 2. Shares in the B-2 bomber maker rose 5.43 percent by the end of trading the
following day.
Wesley Bush, who turned Northrop Grumman's reins over to Kathy Warden last year, held
251,947 shares
of company stock in various trusts as of his final SEC Form 4 filing in May 2019. (Companies
must submit these reports when top executives and directors buy and sell company stock.) Assuming Bush is still
sitting on that stockpile, he saw the value grow by $4.9 million to a total of $94.5 million last Friday.
New Northrop Grumman CEO Warden saw the
92,894 shares
she'd accumulated as the firm's COO expand in value by more than $2.7 million in just one day of
post-assassination trading.
Lockheed Martin, whose
Hellfire missiles
were reportedly used in the attack at the Baghdad airport, saw a 3.6 percent increase in
price per share on January 3. Marillyn Hewson, CEO of the world's largest weapon maker, may be kicking herself for
selling off a considerable chunk of stock last year when it was trading at around $307. Nevertheless, by the time
Lockheed shares reached $413 at the closing bell, her
remaining stash
had increased in value by about $646,000.
What about the manufacturer of the
MQ-9 Reaper
that carried the Hellfire missiles? That would be General Atomics. Despite raking in
$2.8
billion
in taxpayer-funded contracts in 2018, the drone maker is not required to disclose executive
compensation information because it is a privately held corporation.
We do know General Atomics CEO Neal Blue is worth an estimated
$4.1 billion
-- and he's a
major
investor
in oil production, a sector that
also stands to profit
from conflict with a major oil-producing country like Iran.
*Resigned 12/22/19. **Resigned 1/1/19 while staying on
as chairman until 7/19. New CEO Kathy Warden accumulated 92,894 shares in her previous position as Northrop
Grumman COO.
Suleimani's killing also inflated the value of General Dynamics CEO Phebe Novakovic's fortune. As the weapon
maker's share price rose about 1 percentage point on January 3, the former CIA official saw her
stock holdings
increase by more than $1.2 million.
Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy saw a single-day increase in his stock of more than half a million dollars, as the
missile and bomb manufacturer's share price increased nearly 1.5 percent. Boeing stock remained flat on Friday.
But Dennis Muilenberg, recently ousted as CEO over the 737 aircraft scandal, appears to be well-positioned to
benefit from any continued upward drift of the defense sector.
As of his final
Form 4
report, Muilenburg was sitting on stock worth about $47.7 million. In his yet to be finalized exit
package, the disgraced former executive could also pocket huge sums of currently unvested stock grants.
Hopefully sanity will soon prevail and the terrifyingly high tensions between the Trump administration and Iran
will de-escalate. But even if the military stock surge of this past Friday turns out to be a market blip, it's a
sobering reminder of who stands to gain the most from a war that could put millions of lives at risk.
We can put an end to dangerous war profiteering by denying federal contracts to corporations that pay their top
executives excessively. In 2008, John McCain, then a Republican presidential candidate, proposed
capping CEO pay
at companies receiving taxpayer bailouts at no more than $400,000 (the salary of the U.S.
president). That notion should be extended to companies that receive massive taxpayer-funded contracts.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, has
a plan
to deny federal contracts to companies that pay CEOs more than 150 times what their typical worker
makes.
As long as we allow the top executives of our privatized war economy to reap unlimited rewards, the profit
motive for war in Iran -- or anywhere -- will persist.
Share this:
Sarah Anderson directs the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-edits the IPS
publication Inequality.org. Follow her at @SarahDAnderson1.
"... Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian commander, CNN reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration. ..."
"... The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role of CIA director and then his current one. ..."
"... Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS, Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied. ..."
"... "He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the Cabinet". ..."
"... While bragging about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc reacting favorably to the suggestion. ..."
Mike Pompeo has reportedly long cherished plans to take the Iranian general off the Middle
East battlefield, as he is said to have for quite a while seen late Commander Soleimani as the
one behind the spiralling tensions with Tehran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been
revealed to be the puppet master behind POTUS Trump's motion to liquidate a top Iranian
commander, CNN
reported citing sources inside and around the White House, with the revelation indicating
Pompeo's influential status in the Trump administration.
According to several sources, taking Iranian General Qasem Soleimani – the leader of
the elite Quds Force, a powerful military group with vast leverage in the region - "off the
battlefield" has been Pompeo's goal for a decade.
Pompeo "was the one who made the case to take out Soleimani, it was him absolutely", a source
said, adding he apparently floated the idea when debating the US Embassy raid over New Year
with Trump.
According to a number of sources close to Pompeo, the secretary of state has at all times
believed that Iran is the root cause of the woes in the Middle East, and Soleimani in
particular - the mastermind of terrorism raging across the region. This point of view is
notably in tune with how Pompeo commented on the commander's assassination:
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield", Pompeo told CNN on 5 January. "We made the right
decision". The same day, Pompeo told ABC that killing Soleimani was important "because this
was a fella who was the glue, who was conducting active plotting against the United States of
America, putting American lives at risk".
The sources suggested that the Iranian general was Pompeo's fixation, so that he even sought
to get a visa to Iran in 2016 when he represented Kansas in Congress, before assuming the role
of CIA director and then his current one.
Despite winning the moniker of "Trump whisperer" over the ties he has developed with POTUS,
Pompeo's ability to sell an aggressive Iran strategy to Trump, who has commonly opposed any
military confrontation, has caused a certain sway, the sources implied.
"He's the one leading the way", according to the source in Pompeo's inner circle, discussing
the showdown with Iran. "It's the president's policy, but Pompeo has been the leading voice in
helping the president craft this policy. There is no doubt Mike is the one leading it in the
Cabinet".
Regardless of who inspired the drone attack that killed Soleimani, the two countries are
indeed going through a stint of severe tensions, but no direct military confrontation. After
Tehran's retaliatory attack, Trump announced a slew of more stringent economic limitations to
be slapped on Iran.
While bragging
about Washington's "big and accurate" missiles as well as US achievements during his
tenure, he separately praised the "new powerful economic sanctions" aimed at Iran, promising
that they would be in place until Tehran "changes its behaviour". Also, he invited NATO to get
more deeply involved in what is going on in the Middle East, with the Transatlantic bloc
reacting favorably to the suggestion.
"... Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to enlist proxies has always surprised me. ..."
"... Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly. ..."
"... Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya, Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain al-Asad. ..."
"... US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020? ..."
"... But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course. ..."
"... Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the differences between the evil empire and the Iranians. ..."
"... Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US can do, but go. ..."
"... Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests. ..."
"... People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short, Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green. ..."
"... It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are isolated? ..."
"... The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. ..."
"... It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil" Iranian "regime". ..."
"... The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit. ..."
"... Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in hardened shelters at the time of the attack. ..."
Iran told the US they were going to attack and what areas.
Of course the US military is not going to abandon its radar installation is it? Maybe there
were a few others stationed where survival was iffy. If they die then not surprising that their
deaths were covered up because they were told those areas would be hit.
That is the reason we had the Trump presser today that was projection of, we got the
message, don't do any more...stand down.
If the latest about bombs in the Baghdad Green Zone are accurate then either more Iran or
some other factor wanting to trigger US response or ???
We are all still alive so China/Russia is backstopping Iran from nuclear attack seems
clear
With those poor disenfranchised American folks putting all their hope in trump and his
agenda, are they realizing the benefits of their support yet? I've read 71% of young
Americans can't afford to buy a home now the money men have inflated prices to the extreme.
Trump's people, the money men.
Did they vote for him as a show of support for his granting every wish Netanyahu ever
had?
Did they vote for him to support Netanyahu's aggression against his chosen foe, which
clearly was an effort to cast the spear of fear into the hearts of Israeli's?
Demagogues and wannabes set about to rule by making the population afraid.
Walter
Thanks for the explanation.In layman terms and I would guess many professions and trades,
speed and velocity are interchangeable.
Laguerre. Hopefully you are right on the Kurds and Sunnis, but the US ability to
enlist proxies has always surprised me. There always seem to be corruptible people
anywhere, plus others interested in using the US for their small time ends. But Iraq has
changed with the killing of Soleimani. Anti US may end up trumping local grievances for the
majority.
Newspeak: IRAN APPEARS TO BE STANDING DOWN. Imperial words when attacked directly.
What is lost in all this debate whether this was Kabuki or not is that Iran went toe to
toe with the empire -- directly. Pissed on the red lines set by the empire a day earlier.
No need for proxies. No need for false flag from the enemies. Iran has justified legality
under article 51 as Zarif pointed out.
Terror needed re-balancing, and for now, balance of terror has been established.
Iran has been patiently demonstrating its capabilities. The following terms came
into the vernacular and are associated with those capabilities: Stena Impero/Adryan Darya,
Khurais and Abqaiq, RQ-4A Global Hawk, PMU/PMF and many others, and now, Ain
al-Asad.
US cannot afford to fight a war with Iran directly. If so, it would have to fight
from Hindu Kush to the Mediterranean, so, just be ready for skirmishes here and there. I
see RSH is posting here now. He has been predicting a war between the two nations by the
end of 2010, end of 2011, end of 2012, and on and on, on other sites. Haven't read enough
of his comments to see if it's now by the end of 2020?
The stage rigging is on plain display here. This was arranged and calculated well in
advance. Arranged by someone with power to compel obedience, who would expect perfect
compliance to a scheme with many moving parts. So may parts of this might have gone wrong,
with WW3 as the consequence of a mistake.
I completely agree, I think this entire thing is a precursor to something much worse,
such as a massive false-flag that will let this conflict turn hot. Last night was but a
small taste or using Iranian wording 'mosquito bite'. People are quick to dismiss that war
would never be a viable option for the powers that be. When really they have been setting
the stage for global calamity for quite some time. The Iran/US/Israel theater is just the
first of a number of dominoes that have been carefully set up (NK-US; India-Pakistan;
Russia-NATO) to name but a few. Tensions are intentionally being ratcheted up for a major
cascading explosion that will ripple around the globe. The ponzi economy bubble-game they
have created during the last 20 years is part of that plan to trigger even worse panic
among the populace. Having said all of this, it seems to me that they want Trump to still
be re-elected before things really turn sour, so there seems to be some time left, which is
why the current de-escalation.
But I think both Iran and North Korea will keep the pressure on the US high
throughout this election year, entirely intentional of course.
Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:28 utc |
237ben , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc |
238
Damn, I'm late to the party again. It's probably been said already, but Iran's response
is pure genius. Early warning to try to avoid casualties, speaks volumes about the
differences between the evil empire and the Iranians.
Thanks b, and all. So much better coming here, as opposed to the MSM..
Mao , Jan 8 2020 20:30 utc |
239WJ , Jan 8 2020 20:31 utc |
240
It all depends now on Trump's reelection strategy: Will he run on bringing the troops home
or will he run on another Middle East war.
Posted by: somebody | Jan 8 2020 16:34 utc | 108
Were I a zionist advisor/donor to Trump, I would advise/blackmail him to do the
following: Run a 2020 campaign premised on bringing the troops home, and indeed bring
enough of them home (or to Germany) to make that plausible. Then, after you win the
election, stage some action or invent some pretext (we control the media and can help you
do both) that requires you do go to war against Iran. It will be unpopular and many of your
citizens will die. But you are in your second term, we have given you lots of $$$$, and we
still have that video tape from the late 1990s of you and the 14-year old eastern european
girl.
Unless one entertains the belief that Iran's missile attacks all misfired and missed
their human targets-which appears to be the view that the friends of Israel and those who
believe in the indefatigability of the US military, hold- then what Iran has just provided
is spectacular confirmation that, short of a nuclear attack, there is nothing that the US
can do, but go.
Clearly its bases cannot be defended, that is what the craters and smashed buildings
are telling them. If the Secretary of Defense wants to wait for a written request to leave
the country that is his privilege-he's lucky not to be living there- but there is no way
that the US forces can stay there. They have become unwelcome guests.
Of course there are still those who tell us that Iraqi public opinion is divided and
that the sunni and the Kurds will be willing agents of the imperialists: I don't think so.
What the US has done is to unite Iraqis around nationalist objects and to close the
carefully opened divide between the sects. They have come full circle since 2003 and now
even the Iraqi members of ISIS (who are a small minority in the Foreign Legion of Uighurs,
Bosnians, Albanians, Chechens and wahhabis) will not serve as a wedge to keep Iraqis
fighting each other.
Or Iran: it has taken trillions of dollars and decades for Washington to knock it into
the densest politicians' heads but now everyone understands:
"The US is our enemy, it sees us as untermenschen to be exterminated like vermin. In
order to survive and to rebuild our lives and communities we must expel them. We have no
choice.
First we will ask the Swiss Embassy to tell them to leave, then we will pass resolutions
in Parliament, and put on fireworks displays at their bases. And they will leave."
And next will come the matter of Palestine, and the al quds Soleimani's brigade was
named for. Israel is beginning to look very lonely now in the Levant- a very abusive,
violent and noisy neighbour given to trespassing and larceny.
"Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi -- according to well-informed sources in Baghdad --
answered that "this act may carry devastating results on the Middle East: Iraq refuses to
become the theatre for a US-Iran war".
The Iranian official replied: "Those who began this cycle of violence are the US, not
Iran; the decision has been taken."
Prime Minister Abdel Mahdi informed the US forces of the Iranian decision. US declared a
state of emergency and alerted all US bases in Iraq and the region in advance of the
attack.
Iran bombed the most significant US military base in Iraq, Ayn al-Assad, where just in
the last two days, the US command had gathered the largest number of forces. Many US bases,
particularly in Shia controlled areas and around Baghdad, were evacuated in the last days
for security reason towards Ayn al-Assad, a base that holds anti-nuclear shelters."
Easy to see why the US approved of Mahdi as president. A pissweak appeaser how can do no
more than write letters to the UN. If he doesn't want a US Iran war in Iraq then he should
be booting the yanks out as the Yanks are based there purely on Iran's account. What Mahdi
is doing amounts to providing sanctuary to the US on Iran's border.
Some of us are indeed quite skeptical that there were no casualties reported whatsoever
- by "Western" media outlets. This commenter previously noted that it would be in the US
establishment's interest to downplay the impact of the attack as much as possible.
Furthermore, to those who are wondering how true casualty figures could be prevented from
being leaked, all the US government has to do is declare such information classified, at
which point it becomes a serious felony (think Snowden or Manning) to leak it.
>>b) The fact that Suleimani was a national hero for a nation of 82 million people
and also for 150 million of shia around the world, mourned by millions in the streets, make
a bigger Trump "victory" over the Iranian "regime", and it is a powerful advice to the
others leaders and commanders in the world that try to fight or oppose to USA.
This is not a gain, the US will be hated and sabotaged by the many shia groups across
the world (a young and growing demographic with combat experience), and there will be many
covert activities against it all over the place. An american dying here and there, a US
company sabotaged here and there. The US will be very busy fighting shia groups undercover
just as it needs to compete with Russia and China, not to mention the security costs. They
will probaly give tacit support to some sunni groups already fighting the US. Taliban
getting manpads and targeting info of US presence in Afghainstan? No, this is not good news
for the US. It means having more and more enemies everywhere and dividing resources into
many fronts. Taking on Russia, China and Iran/Iraq/Shia Crescent will to be too much. The
debt clock is ticking.
>>g) The retaliation of the PMU lob some katyusha rockets in the backyard of few
US bases
No, they will simply make it impossible for any american to get out outside of the
Embassy in Iraq. Workers, companies etc. will be driven out by harrassment.
>>h) Trump is defiant about not leaving Iraq, I think at the end they will go but
after they have a very good deal. Of course it is all about the Iraqi oil, in exchange for
the American blood and money wasted in Iraq. Iraq has the biggest oil reserves in the world
and USA want a good chunk of them, they never ever leave "giving" all of them to the
Chinese or Iranians or anybody else. Trump does not want US soldiers in Iraq, but he wants
the oil above anything else (it is condition "sine qua non" to maintain the Empire)
You don't know much about Iraq then. Iraq (including elites) does not want the US there.
It does not want to be a battlefield and it does not want to have Shia leaders attacked in
their own country. This is a Red Line for iraqis. Muqtada Al Sadr, the most influential
person in Iraq, who kicked the arse of the US occupation in 2004-2007 wants the US and even
the Embassy out, embargo on US products, etc. Iraqi shia are not intimidated by the US, far
from it, they have seen far worse in the past and that only angered them even more. Iraq
will move into China-Russia-Iran orbit, this is a done deal. A chinese delegation just
arrived in Iraq to provide security solutions for the country.
>> Trump has now the full enthusiastic support of the AIPAC and all the others
powerful Israeli lobby he will have more money than required for the election. He has
demonstrated he is the best possible POTUS for Israel.
This is debatable, considering that 80 % of US jews voted against Trump. Israel is not
the only issue for US jews. They do not like loud mouthed white racists. US media is an
expression of US jews and US media continues to be highly hostile to Trump. If they really
wanted him, media would be supportive.
j) In the short term USA will leave Syria and in the medium term Iraq, OK, but they
never ever leave "all the region", they need to be there to maintain the "American Way of
Live" (US $ as reserve currency)
There will be less US presence in the Middle East and it won't be just Syria, Iraq and
Afghanistan drawdowns. US debt levels point to unsustainable military spending. That is, in
2025 - 2030 the US will be forced to cut military spending significantly. Even now the US
is cutting the number of ships due to lack of money. So in general, there will be less US
presence everywhere, including in the Middle East. Too much debt.
As for Iraq, the US HQ for Iraq was just evacuated to Kuwait, US forces stopped
operations and are confinded to their bases (defacto house arrest), and US workers are
fleeing the country.
>>If nothing dramatically change, I expect a crushing victory of Trump in the
coming US election, he has all the cards now in his hand, and he will not waste them.
And i see people in the US and all over the world deeply disturbed by his behavior.
People want calm, not never ending drama, threats, sexism, racism, vulgarity and
warmongering. Women (majority of voters) do not like such behavior. Women and minorites are
very hostile to Trump due to this. Republicans lost the House and it looks like someone did
not get the message. Even if Trump somehow wins, this will lead to civil war like situation
in the US due to the changing demographics. Minorities DO NOT want Trump and their numbers
will only be increasing far into the future. This means growing division and infighting
within the US.
You look at this through the eyes of an American, that is why you see it as 'kabuki' and
'face saving' weakness, because as an American your answer is wholesale slaughter. Body
count is your metric of success.
America cant retaliate because they know the next blow will bleed. They were unable to
intercept the incoming missiles because US point defenses are mediocre. Once a projectile
gets past the patriots, not a difficult task, they will only face some rail mounted
stingers and 20 mm cannon. Has to be scarry for the dumb grunts.
I won't attack you or your post, but it is no good manners to enter somebody's house and
speak shit. If your family didn't teach you this, and your education didn't manage to
polish the animal in you, then you are a lost case, no need to deal with you. You'll live
on mother earth and then die without having any good impact whatsoever.
People voted for Trump primarily for two reasons: Obama and the D-Party had stabbed
them in the back allowing millions to lose their homes while the fraudulent banksters got
away scot-free and with $Trillions too-boot, and they knew Clinton was a deranged warmonger
while Trump talked reasonably about the Outlaw US Empire's many Imperial Follies. In short,
Trump was seen by many as the lesser of two evils. No, I voted Green.
If you read Dr.
Hudson's analysis and the transcript from this show , you'll
be informed about a great many facts about the Outlaw US Empire that the vast majority of
its citizens are unaware of thanks to BigLie Media. And I could direct you to dozens of
additional examples that provide even more facts about the situation, the core of the
problem and potential solutions.
Many good academics and others have tried to inform the USA's citizenry about the why of
their dilemma and provided suggestions for action, but their voices are drowned out by
what's known as the Establishment Narrative parroted by BigLie Media. IMO, Sanders would
have waxed Trump in 2016, but he was clearly the target of a conspiracy to prevent him from
gaining the D-Party nomination. IMO, the only reason he endorsed Clinton was he knew of the
sort of domestic mayhem Trump and the R-Party would wreck upon his supporters. Please,
before denigrating the masses within the Evil Outlaw US Empire, try to discover why they
behave as they do. Lumping them all together and calling them dumb fuck-wits won't get you
anywhere and only serves to exacerbate things.
It sounds as though Abdel Mahdi is being forced into the popular opinion. The US is
being reduced into its best defended bases. Where from there, when those bases are
isolated?
I am reposting this.
The Iranians care, they sent some of the best gifts, and they're rightly proud of them.
A Hallmark kinna time, the Holidays n all that.
Brother, I have read about the problems involved, I took some calculus long ago, but the
engineering behind what Iran has demonstrated in very complex. They put the clown on the
back foot.
There is a realignment of strategy in the Celestial Heaven of DC... Not a change in
goal, just "whaddwe do now, how r we gunna smash 'em"...
The US did not escalate today. Trump's speech was all bluster and falsehood, directed
almost exclusively to American audience in the interest of domestic politics. If
anything, the call for NATO to step up was an indication the Americans planned to step
back. The Turks will not be pouring troops into Iraq. Trump was referring to the Europeans.
The US corporate media continues to report with subdued tone, with ultra hawkish Fox News
continuing to describe the struck airbases as "Iraqi facilities".
This is true only on the assumption that the "US establishment" is united in seeking to
de-escalate with Iran. But evidence suggests that at least two members of that
establishment--Pompeo and Esper--are clearly not interested in de-escalation
(notwithstanding Pompeo's directive to the embassies). For them, the death of dozens of
American soldiers could only be a good thing, as it would easily be manipulated in the
press to motivate the US populace's desire for retribution.
It is also possible that what Pompeo and Esper and Netanyahoo are seeking to
accomplish is to maintain the highest level of tension possible without precipitating
actual war. This is because all parties recognize that actual war with Iran would entail
the destruction of much of Israel's infrastructure and many thousands of Israeli
casualties, and these are prices too high to pay for the overthrowing of even the "evil"
Iranian "regime".
De-escalation with Iran hurts Netanyahoo; actual war with Iran hurts Netanyahoo. What
helps Netanyahoo is the constant threat of war with Iran along with the public perception
that only he, of all Israeli politicians, has the sufficient resolve to face down the
Persian menace. Because I am of the view that Israel is not just an outpost of the US
empire but in many cases the tail that wags the dog of this empire, I fully expect that the
US will continue to seek to ride the escalation-de-escalation wave with Iran until
Netanyahoo either stabilizes his domestic position in Israel or loses it altogether.
Actually the Hashd Al Shaabi militia, which is part of the Iraqi military, wanted to
take over the US Embassy and Mehdi threatened to resign over that, not over the protests in
general or the harrassment of the US Embassy. This is why iraqi troops stayed out as the
Embassy was besieged. He chose China over the US for reconstruction of Iraq and made very
compromising remarks about Trump (how he threatened to put snipers killing people in Iraq,
how Soleimani was there for diplomatic mission as peace envoy, etc.)
Mehdi is an expression of the majority Shia sentiment in Iraq - it is him who came to
Parliament to demand a resolution for US withdrawal from the country. As for Iraqi Shia
sentiment, numerically speaking, 80 % of Shia MPs and the PM demanded a US withdrawal from
the country.
What is the source for the account that the Swiss embassy received advance warning of the
missile strike?
I haven't seen it elsewhere. I'm not saying that to knock it, but since b doesn't
mention or link to a source, and I don't see it discussed in comments, I'd like to know
where he got that report from.
CNN.com says Iran reached out through various channels, "including through Switzerland
and other countries", but after the strike, to make known there was nothing else on
the way.
If Iran succeeds in forcing the Empire out, then obviously the zionists would be unable
to remain more than briefly. But without zionists Jews and Arabs have always got along
reasonably well... So we may imagine "Israel" going through a "phase change" when Empire
departs...because then the decent people can have a say in things, then justice may prevail
- something all Abrahamic Creeds respect and call for as a basic foundation. Of course
there's nothing pretty about a civil war in Israel, or as it is at present "forward
operating base zion"
"The Iraqi government must work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil
and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason."
This entire episode has been an absolute disaster for the Iranians. They sent no message
to the US.
Disaster? How so? The Iranians have just displayed that they can and will attack
targets with precision. No message? Seriously? You've missed the bigger picture. Iran have
scored one on the Strategic level. What you're also missing is that Iraq is moving even
closer to Iranian and Chinese-Russian orbit.
The missile strikes is also a message to Iranian regional competitors. I can guarantee
you Riyadh and Abu Dhabi have taken notice.
I'm expecting more small level attacks on US assets in Iraq and it'll likely spread to
other neighboring countries. Death by a thousand cuts. In the end, the US will have no
choice but to leave Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
Scott Ritter also says there was advance warning, though via the Iraqi government, not
mentioning the Swiss embassy in Tehran:
Iran communicated its intent to strike US targets in Iraq directly to the Iraqi Prime
Minister a full two hours prior to the missiles being launched; Iraq then shared this
information with US military commanders, who were able to ensure all US troops were in
hardened shelters at the time of the attack.
Ritter doesn't give his sourcing either. Of course the significant thing is that such
advance warning was given at all. I'd just like to know how solid the factual basis is, and
to what extent it is officially confirmed by any of the relevant governments.
If US soldiers were killed by the attack, this can't be hidden forever; sooner or later,
coffins will go back home and families will be informed. Specially if it's as high as 80.
Though for the moment, the Pentagon can stay quiet, and won't publicly acknowledge it, the
bodies will have to come back to the US and be buried - as far as I know, they're not
janissaries but US military, most have relatives, friends and family and can't be
disappeared just like that.
The USS Liberty is a different situation: the US didn't hide for decades that people
were lost in the bombing, it didn't acknowledge that it was a deliberate attack. Pretty
much the opposite case to the present one.
"... This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless policy. ..."
This crisis was sparked by Donald Trump. Trump withdrew from the
deal that had stopped Iran's nuclear weapons program, leading Iran to restart its nuclear
program. Trump ramped up economic pressure and sent more US troops to the region, and tensions
grew. Then the US killed
Gen Qassem Suleimani , signaling a significant escalation, to which Iran responded with an
attack on Iraqi bases where US and Iraqi troops are stationed.
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
ass="inline-garnett-quote inline-icon ">
America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was when Trump
took office
It is up to Congress and the American people to force Trump to adopt a more pragmatic path.
For too long Congress has ceded to the executive branch its authority to determine when America
goes to war, and the current crisis with Iran is exactly the kind of moment that requires
intense coordination between the legislative and executive branches. The president cannot start
a war without congressional authorization, and with the erratic Trump in office, Congress must
make that clear by cutting off the use of funds for war with Iran.
This is not just about how to de-escalate – it's about recognizing that America
fundamentally needs to change its disastrous course. Even if de-escalation of the acute
tensions is possible, the risks will remain as long as the United States pursues a reckless
policy. America is far worse off today towards Iran and in the Middle East than it was
when Trump took office – even worse off than we were on 1 January 2020. Today, Iran is
advancing its nuclear program, America has suspended its anti-Isis campaign, Iraq's parliament
has voted to evict US troops from the country, and we are in a dangerous military standoff with
Iran.
Digging out of this hole will be difficult and this administration is not capable of it.
Over the long run, future administrations will need to reorient America's goals and policies.
America needs to re-enter the nuclear deal and begin negotiations to strengthen it; work with
partners like Iraq – without a large US troop presence – in countering potential
threats like a resurgence of Isis; and adopt a broader regional policy that focuses on
protecting US interests and standing up for human rights and democracy rather than picking
sides in a regional civil war between dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Achieving US goals in the region will not be possible with a mere de-escalation of tensions
– we need to find a new path towards Iran and the Middle East.
America's top diplomat does not seem to think his job is to prevent war.
The
Washington Post
dives deeply into what is laughingly called the administration*'s "process" leading up to the decision
to kill Qasem Soleimani with fire last week. In short, all the "imminent threat" palaver was pure moonshine. According to the
Post,
this particular catastrophe was brewed up for a while amid the stalactites in the mind of Mike Pompeo, a Secretary
of State who makes Henry Kissinger look like Gandhi.
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve
the killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence,
the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes
to Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian
aggression created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
Poor Mike was morose. So, in an effort to bring himself out of the dumps, Mike decided to keep feeding the
rats in the president*'s head.
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But
that mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor
and injuring service members. On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where
the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior
U.S. officials said.
The whole squad got involved on this one.
Alex Wong
Getty Images
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran. One significant
factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the
U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the
decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
First-in-His-Class Mike Pompeo knows his audience. There's no question that he knows how to get what he wants
from a guy who doesn't know anything about anything, and who may have gone, as George V. Higgins once put it, as soft as church
music. This, I guess, is a skill. Of course, Pompeo's job is easier because the president* is still a raving maniac on the electric
Twitter machine. A handy compilation:
Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader
who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime,
including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits
in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any
Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many
years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE
HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!
They attacked us, & we hit back. If they attack again, which I would strongly advise them not to do, we will hit them harder
than they have ever been hit before!
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and
without hesitation!
And, this, perhaps my favorite piece of presidentin" yet.
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target,
the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required,
but is given nevertheless!
You have been informed, Congress. You have been informed, Iran.
Mike Pompeo is officially the Secretary of State. Apparently, he is also unofficially the
Secretary of Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the very model of a
modern major bureaucrat. He's running things on war and peace these days because the president* sure as hell isn't.
He's a Dollar Store Kissinger with nobody to restrain him. And he has no compunction whatsoever about lying in
public -- about Barack Obama, and about the definition of the word "imminent," which, to Pompeo, seems to extend back in
time to the Persian Empire and forward into the second term of the Malia Obama administration.
Pompeo met the press on Tuesday and everything he said was completely worthless. For example,
did you know that the Iran nuclear deal hastened the development of Iran's nuclear capacity, but that pulling out of
it, and frying the second-highest official of their government, slowed it down? Mike Pompeo knows that.
President Trump could not be more clear. On our watch, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon and, when we came into
office, Iran was on a pathway that had been provided by the nuclear deal, which clearly gave them the opportunity
to get those nuclear weapons. We won't let that happen...It's not political. The previous administration made a
different choice. They chose to underwrite and appease. We have chose to confront and contain.
But that's not political, you appeasing, underwriting wimps who worked for 11 years to get a
deal with these people. And that goes for all you appeasing, underwriting European bastards as well, who don't think
this president* knows anything about anything. And, as to the whole imminence thing, well, everything is imminent
sometime, and it's five o'clock somewhere.
"We know what happened at the end of last year in December ultimately leading to the death of an American. If
you're looking for imminence, you needn't look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken
against Soleimani. Then you had in addition to that what we could clearly see was continuing efforts on behalf of
this terrorist to build out a network of campaign activities that were going to lead potentially to the death of
many more Americans. It was the right decision, we got it right."
Yeah, they got nothing -- except the power, of course. The last time we had a terrible Republican
president determined to lie us into a war in the Middle East, he and his people at least did not do so by employing
utter and transparent gibberish. Times change.
After the Trump Administration's 75-minute briefing to the US Senate on the assassination of
Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani,
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was deeply critical , calling it the worst briefing he'd gotten in his
nine years in the Senate.
Saying the administration's briefers offered little on the legal or practical justification
for the attack, Sen. Lee particularly took umbrage at them warning the Senators that they must
not debate the War Powers authorization for a war with Iran .
Those giving the briefing objected to the very idea of the Senate discussing the matter
publicly, saying it would "embolden Iran." Sen. Lee noted that this is a power Constitutionally
reserved explicitly for the legislature.
"For them to tell us ... for us to debate and discuss these things on the Senate floor
would somehow weaken the American cause and embolden Iran in any other actions, I find very
insulting ," Lee said, who did not specify to reporters on Capitol Hill which briefer made
the assertion.
"It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't
care if they're with the CIA, the Department of Defense or otherwise -- to come in and tell
us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against
Iran, " Lee added.
-- ABC
Not only did Lee express annoyance that there was no pushback from any of the briefers on
telling the Senate not to debate something legally in their purview, but he said that while
he'd had problems with the language of Sen. Tim Kaine's (D-VA) resolution, he has now decided
that he will support the resolution, on condition of some amendments.
"Trump is too stupid, or willfully ignorant to know that Soleimani was at the
forefront of the US led
coalition to
eradicate ISIS from Northern Iraq in March 2015.
Soleimani also, as a commander of the Iranian Quds Force, was part of the American-led
coalition under US General Tommy Franks fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan in the October
2001 Battle
of Herat .
Moreover, Soleimani worked to
protect Eastern Christians against
ISIS in both Syria and Iraq, and
empowered them to
defend themselves as best they could.
As for the flunkie at State, Pompeo put up a clip of a few Iraqis celebrating the death of
Soleimani while parroting Trump's own lies that Iranians
"hated and feared him."
However, Pompass didn'tshow the millions mourning
Soleimani in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, including the minorities in Sunni states such as Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain.
That's not "hate and fear," that's "honor and respect."
Most Americans never heard of Soleimani -- a soft-spoken man of high refinement -- until
his murder last week. Now they're clamoring as if Trump had slain the devil himself."
When World?
Have you not had enough of the *** monstrosity Yet?
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"Seven aircraft and three military vehicles were destroyed in the attack," said the
statement, which included photos of aircraft ablaze and an al Shabaab militant standing
nearby. In a tweet, the US Africa Command confirmed an attack on the Manda Bay Airfield had
occurred.
One US military service member and two contractors were killed in an Islamist attack on a
military base in Kenya.
Islamist militant group al-Shabab attacked the base, used by Kenyan and US forces, in the
popular coastal region of Lamu on Sunday.
The US military said in a statement that two others from the Department of Defense were
wounded.
"The wounded Americans are currently in stable condition and being evacuated," the US
military's Africa Command said.
But the response of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin
Netanyahu , was particularly striking, as he has been one of Trump's staunchest
supporters on the world stage.
He told a meeting of his security cabinet on Monday: "The assassination of Suleimani
isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be
dragged into it."
"... Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States." ..."
"... "Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the game have totally changed," he said. ..."
"The Guardian" journalist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad says that before the attack on Qassem
Soleimani in Baghdad last week "there was an understanding between the Americans and the
Iranians" that allowed officials from Iran and the U.S. to move freely within Iraq and
maintained relative goodwill toward American bases.
"The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in which both Iran and the United States
coexisted in Iraq," he said.
Now, he told "Democracy Now!", it will be hard for the Iraqi public to see the bases as
anything but "a force that is driving them into a war between Iran and the United States."
"Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in
Baghdad airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in
Iraq. He took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani
was not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He
stayed in the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the
Americans and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the
Iranians would have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, the rules of the
game have totally changed," he said.
AMY GOODMAN: Ghaith, can you comment on this new information that's come to light about the
timing of Soleimani's assassination Friday morning? Iraq's caretaker Prime Minister Adel
Abdul-Mahdi has revealed he had plans to meet with Soleimani on the day he was killed to
discuss a Saudi proposal to defuse tension in the region. Mahdi said, quote, "He came to
deliver me a message from Iran responding to the message we delivered from Saudi Arabia to
Iran" -- Saudi Arabia, obviously, a well-known enemy of Iran. Was he set up? Talk about the
significance of this.
GHAITH ABDUL-AHAD: Well, it is very significant if it's actually General Qassem Soleimani
came to Iraq to deliver this message, if it was actually there was a process of negotiations in
the region. We know that Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government, in general, over the last year
had been trying to position Iraq as this middle power, as this power where both -- you know, as
a country that has a relationship with both Iran and the United States. In that awkward place
Iraq found itself in, Iraq has tried to maximize on this. So they started back in summer and
fall, when there was an escalation between Iran and the United States, when Iran shot down an
American drone. We've seen Adel Abdul-Mahdi fly to Iran, try to mediate. We've seen Adel
Abdul-Mahdi open channels of communications with the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia.
So, if it actually, the killing of General Soleimani, ended that peace initiative, it will
be kind of disastrous in the region, because, as Narges was saying earlier, it is -- you know,
Pompeo is speaking about Iran being this ultimate evil in the region, as this crescent of
Shias, as if they just arrived in the past 10 years in the region. The fact if we see Iran's
reactions, it's always a reaction to an American provocation. You've seen the occupation of
Iraq in 2003. You've seen Iran declared as an "axis of evil." So, if you see it from an Iranian
perspective, it's always this existential threat coming from the United States. And I don't
think there is a more existential threat than in past year. So, yes, I know -- I mean, I think
Adel Abdul-Mahdi and the Iraqi government were trying to find this middle ground, which I think
is totally lost, because even Adel Abdul-Mahdi, the person who was trying to find this middle
ground, was the person who proposed this law yesterday in the Parliament to expel all American
troops from the country.
And I would like to add like another thing. The killing of Qassem Soleimani ended an era in
which both Iran and the United States coexisted in Iraq. So, from 2013, '14, we, as
journalists, we've seen on the frontlines how the proxies of each power have been helping each
other. So we've seen Iranian advisers helping the American-trained Iraqi Army unit or
counterterrorism unit in the fight against ISIS. In the same sense, we've seen American
airstrikes on threats to these -- kind of to ISIS when it was threatening these militias. That
coexistence, it didn't only come from both having a -- sharing an enemy, which is ISIS, or
Daesh, but also these were the rules of the game. These were the rules in which Qassem
Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. I mean, remember, Qassem Soleimani arrived in Baghdad
airport, where half of it is an American base. Qassem Soleimani could travel openly in Iraq. He
took selfies. People took his pictures. That didn't happen in secret. Qassem Soleimani was not
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi hiding in a cave or moving stealthily through the country. He stayed in
the Green Zone. So, all this happened because there was an understanding between the Americans
and the Iranians. So, if the Americans wanted to keep their bases in Iraq, the Iranians would
have the freedom to move. And with the killing of Soleimani, I think the rules of the game have
totally changed.
So now I think the first victim of the assassination will be the American bases in Iraq. I
don't see any way where the Americans can keep their presence as they did before the
assassination of Soleimani. And even the people in the streets, even the people who opposes
Iran, who opposes the presence of Iranian militias in power and politics, the corruption of
these pro-Iranian parties, even those people would look at these American bases now as not as a
force that came to help them in the fight against ISIS, but a force that's dragging them into a
war between Iran and the United States.
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.
Notable quotes:
"... 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 ". ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... As a thank you to Trump calling the Israel occupied Golan a part of Israel Netanyahu called an (iirc also illegal) new Golan settlement "Ramat Trump" ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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. ..."
"... 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 ..."
You have just 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
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).
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.
As the Trump Administration continues to
barrel toward a war with Iran, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a press
conference in which he once again claimed that every dubious accusation made by the
administration was true, and the internally inconsistent comments among top officials are all
somehow in agreement.
Pompeo's comments, even the ones that made no sense or were obviously untrue, were echoed
across US media outlets as absolute facts following the briefing. Everyone was clearly more
comfortable just reporting " Pompeo says "
than analyzing it.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
was very critical of some of the worst claims Pompeo made , saying one would have to be
brain-dead to believe them. He noted it made no sense to attack Iran to "preempt" attacks when
the attack just made attacks even more likely.
Pompeo was largely dismissive of questions about the US attack, and rejected claims that
Gen. Qassem Soleimani was working on Saudi diplomacy, saying
nobody believed Soleimani was engaged in diplomacy and that Iranian FM was lying about
that. In reality, Iraq's PM Adel Abdul Mahdi was the one who broke the story of why Soleimani
was in Iraq. Instead of evidence to the contrary, Pompeo just denied.
On the question of the US barring Zarif from the UN in violation of the headquarters
agreement, Pompeo said the US doesn't comment on why they deny people entrance, and insisted
that the US always complies with the headquarters agreement, despite it flat out saying you
can't block officials from speaking at the UN, and the US doing exactly that.
The closest anyone at the briefing came to calling Pompeo on his contradictions was on the
matter of the US attacking cultural sites. President Trump threatened to attack Iranian
cultural sites on Saturday, Pompeo said Trump never said that on Sunday, and Trump said it
again on Sunday evening. Pompeo was asked to address this.
Pompeo said that what he said, that Trump never said there would be attacks on cultural
sites, was "completely consistent with what the President has said," which repeatedly was that
he intends to attack cultural sites. This was a bit too glaring, and one of the press said "No,
but the President has -" before being interrupted by Pompeo.
At this point, Pompeo went off on a tangent claiming that the ayatollah is the "real threat"
to Iranian culture. When asked if that meant US attacks on cultural sites are "ruled out,"
despite Trump's comments, Pompeo promptly ended the briefing and left.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper also claimed on Tuesday that Soleimani was planning to
attack Americans "within days" if the US hadn't killed him. As with Pompeo, his claim did not
include any evidence, and ask with Pompeo's claims, the press is echoing it.
Mike Pompeo was on the TeeVee today scoffing at those who do not agree with him and the
Ziocon inspired "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran. It must be a terrible thing for
intelligence analysts of integrity and actual Middle East knowledge and experience to have to
try to brief him and Trump, people who KNOW, KNOW from some superior source of knowledge that
Iran is the worst threat to the world since Nazi Germany, or was it Saddam's Iraq that was the
worst threat since "beautiful Adolf?"
The "maximum pressure" campaign is born of Zionist terrors, terrors deeply felt. It is the
same kind of campaign that has been waged by the Israelis against the Palestinians and all
other enemies great and small. This approach does not seem to have done much for Israel. The
terrors are still there.
Someone sent me the news tape linked below from Aleppo in NW Syria. I have watched it a
number of times. You need some ability in Arabic to understand it. The tape was filmed in
several Christian churches in Aleppo where these two men (Soleimani and al-Muhandis) are
described from the pulpit and in the street as "heroic martyr victims of criminal American
state terrorism." Pompeo likes to describe Soleimani as the instigator of "massacre" and
"genocide" in Syria. Strangely (irony) the Syriac, Armenian Uniate and Presbyterian ministers
of the Gospel in this tape do not see him and al-Muhandis that way. They see them as men who
helped to defend Aleppo and its minority populations from the wrath of Sunni jihadi Salafists
like ISIS and the AQ affiliates in Syria. They see them and Lebanese Hizbullah as having helped
save these Christians by fighting alongside the Syrian Army, Russia and other allies like the
Druze and Christian militias.
It should be remembered that the US was intent on and may still be intent on replacing the
multi-confessional government of Syria with the forces of medieval tyranny. Everyone who really
knows anything about the Syrian Civil War knows that the essential character of the New Syrian
Army, so beloved by McCain, Graham and the other Ziocons was always jihadi and it was always
fully supported by Wahhabi Saudi Arabia as a project in establishing Sunni triumphalism. They
and the self proclaimed jihadis of HTS (AQ) are still supported in Idlib and western Aleppo
provinces both by the Saudis and the present Islamist and neo-Ottoman government of Turkey.
Well pilgrims, there are Christmas trees in the newly re-built Christian churches of Aleppo
and these, my brothers and sisters in Christ remember who stood by them in "the last
ditch."
"Currently there are at least 600 churches and 500,000–1,000,000 Christians in Iran."
wiki below. Are they dhimmis? Yes, but they are there. There are no churches in Saudi
Arabia, not a single one and Christianity is a banned religion. These are our allies?
Mr. Jefferson wrote that "he feared for his country when he remembered that God is just." He
meant Virginia but I fear in the same way for the United States. pl
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
gjohnsit on Mon,
01/06/2020 - 6:14pm Just a few days ago SoS Mike Pompeo said that we assassinated General Soleimani
to stop an 'imminent attack' on Americans.
No evidence was presented to back up this claim. We are just supposed to believe it.
It turns out that
Pompeo and VP Pence had pushed Trump hard to do this assassination.
"... Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story. ..."
"... As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example: ..."
"... Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and actions of Muqtada al-Sadr. ..."
"... Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was. ..."
Before discussing what happens next and the big picture implications, it's worth pointing
out the incredible number of blatant lies and overall clownishness that emerged from U.S.
officials in the assassination's aftermath. It started with
claims from Trump that Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on Americans and was caught
in the act. Mass media did its job and uncritically parroted this line, which was quickly
exposed as a complete falsehood.
CNN anchor uncritically repeating government lies.
This is what mass media does to get wars going. https://t.co/QK1JET7TIj
It's incredibly telling that CNN would swallow this fact-free claim with total credulity
within weeks of discovering the extent of the lies told about
Syrian chemical attacks and
the Afghanistan war . Meanwhile, when a reporter asked a state department official for some
clarification on what sorts of attacks were imminent, this is what transpired.
When asked by a reporter for details about what kinds of imminent attacks Soleimani was
planning, the State Dept. responds with:
"Jesus, do we have to explain why we do these things?"
Naturally, we learned soon after from the Iraqi PM himself that Soleimani was in Iraq as
part of a diplomatic effort to de-escalate tensions. In other words, he was apparently lured to
Baghdad under false pretenses so he'd be a sitting duck for a U.S. strike. Never let the truth
get in the way of a good story.
Iraqi Prime Minister AbdulMahdi accuses Trump of deceiving him in order to assassinate
Suleimani. Trump, according to P.M. lied about wanting a diplomatic solution in order to get
Suleimani on a plane to Baghdad in the open, where he was summarily executed. https://t.co/HKjyQqXNqP
As you'd expect, some of the most ridiculous propaganda came from Mike Pompeo, a man who
genuinely loves deception and considers it his craft.. For example:
Pompeo on CNN says US has "every expectation" that people "in Iran will view the American
action last night as giving them freedom."
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Soleimani's daughter Zeinab were
among the hundreds of thousands mourning Soleimani in Tehran today. Iranian state TV put the
crowd size at 'millions,' though that number could not be verified. https://t.co/R6EbKh6Gow
Moving on to the really big question: what does this assassination mean for the future
role of the U.S. in the Middle East and American global hegemony generally? A few important
things have already occurred. For starters, the Iraqi parliament passed a
resolution calling for U.S. troops to leave. Even more important are the comments and
actions of Muqtada al-Sadr.
WOW,
Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr orders the return of "Mahdi Army" in response the
American strike that killed Suleimani.
Mahdi Army fought against the US troops during the invasion in 2003. Sadr disbanded the
group in 2008.
Unmentioned in the above tweet, but extremely significant, is the fact al-Sadr has been
a vocal critic of both the American and Iranian presence in Iraq. He doesn't want either
country meddling in the affairs of Iraqis, but the Soleimani assassination clearly pushed him
to focus on the U.S. presence. This is a very big deal and ensures Iraq will be far more
dangerous for U.S. troops than it already was.
Going forward, Iran's response will be influenced to a great degree by what's already
transpired. There are three things worth noting. First, although many Trump supporters are
cheering the assassination, Americans are certainly
nowhere near united on this , with many including myself viewing it as a gigantic strategic
blunder. Second, it ratcheted up anti-American sentiment in Iraq to a huge degree without Iran
having to do anything, as highlighted above. Third, hardliners within Iran have been given an
enormous gift. With one drone strike, the situation went from grumblings and protests on the
ground to a scene where any sort of dissent in the air has been extinguished for the time
being.
Exactly right, which is why Iran will go more hardline if anything and more united.
If China admitted to taking out Trump even Maddow wouldn't cheer. https://t.co/zqaEDIoWH1
Iranian leadership will see these developments as important victories in their own right and
will likely craft a response taking stock of this much improved position. This means a total
focus on making the experience of American troops in the region untenable, which will be far
easier to achieve now.
If that's right, you can expect less shock and awe in the near-term, and more consolidation
of the various parties that were on the fence but have since shifted to a more anti-American
stance following Soleimani's death. Iran will start with the easy pickings, which consists of
consolidating its stronger position in Iraq and making dissidents feel shameful at home. That
said, Iran will have to publicly respond with some sort of a counterattack, but that event will
be carefully considered with Iran's primary objective in mind -- getting U.S. troops out of the
region.
This means no attacks on U.S. or European soil, and no attacks targeting civilians either.
Such a move would be as strategically counterproductive as Assad gassing Syrian cities after he
was winning the war (which is why many of us doubted the narrative) since it would merely
inflame American public opinion and give an excuse to attack Iran in Iran. There is no way
Iranian leadership is that stupid, so any such attack must be treated with the utmost
skepticism.
President Trump and his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told us the US had to assassinate
Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani last week because he was planning "Imminent attacks" on US citizens.
I don't believe them.
Why not? Because Trump and the neocons – like Pompeo – have been lying about
Iran for the past three years in an effort to whip up enough support for a US attack. From the
phony justification to get out of the Iran nuclear deal, to blaming Yemen on Iran, to blaming
Iran for an attack on Saudi oil facilities, the US Administration has fed us a steady stream of
lies for three years because they are obsessed with Iran.
And before Trump's obsession with attacking Iran, the past four US Administrations lied
ceaselessly to bring about wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Serbia, Somalia, and the
list goes on.
At some point, when we've been lied to constantly and consistently for decades about a
"threat" that we must "take out" with a military attack, there comes a time where we must
assume they are lying until they provide rock solid, irrefutable proof. Thus far they have
provided nothing. So I don't believe them.
President Trump has warned that his administration has already targeted 52 sites important
to Iran and Iranian culture and the US will attack them if Iran retaliates for the
assassination of Gen. Soleimani. Because Iran has no capacity to attack the United States,
Iran's retaliation if it comes will likely come against US troops or US government officials
stationed or visiting the Middle East. I have a very easy solution for President Trump that
will save the lives of American servicemembers and other US officials: just come home. There is
absolutely no reason for US troops to be stationed throughout the Middle East to face increased
risk of death for nothing.
In our Ron Paul Liberty Report program last week we observed that the US attack on a senior
Iranian military officer on Iraqi soil – over the objection of the Iraq government
– would serve to finally unite the Iraqi factions against the United States. And so it
has: on Sunday the Iraqi parliament voted to expel US troops from Iraqi soil. It may have been
a non-binding resolution, but there is no mistaking the sentiment. US troops are not wanted and
they are increasingly in danger. So why not listen to the Iraqi parliament?
Bring our troops home, close the US Embassy in Baghdad – a symbol of our aggression
– and let the people of the Middle East solve their own problems. Maintain a strong
defense to protect the United States, but end this neocon pipe-dream of ruling the world from
the barrel of a gun. It does not work. It makes us poorer and more vulnerable to attack. It
makes the elites of Washington rich while leaving working and middle class America with the
bill. It engenders hatred and a desire for revenge among those who have fallen victim to US
interventionist foreign policy. And it results in millions of innocents being killed
overseas.
There is no benefit to the United States to trying to run the world. Such a foreign policy
brings only bankruptcy – moral and financial. Tell Congress and the Administration that
for America's sake we demand the return of US troops from the Middle East! (Republished from
The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
Yes, as long as Neoco hens and Christian Zionists run our foreign policy we're
screwed.
BTW, Mike Pompeo or as I affectionately call him; Lard face, Plump'eo, crazed CZ-zealot fat
boy, etc., is now a legitimate target of the Iranians. May Allah provide justice to the
family of Soleimani. (Grin) And look, I'm wishing 'ill will' on a zealot 'goy' (gentile)
instead of a typical Neo-cohen snake, how ironic. (Another grin) A positve spin:
With the 'incorrect' memo leaked by the Pentagon about an orderly exit from Iraq this can be
the silver lining in all this mess. This assassination might actually accelerate the exiting
of US forces from Iraq and the surrounding quagmires. Who knows, Trump might be a genius.
Again, NO MORE WARS FOR ZION, BDS NOW, ONE STATE SOLUTION-PALESTINE.
And to really stick it to Neo cohens (My apologies to Prof. Steven Cohen ),
Trump-Putin Axis Da!! Destroy the Deep State and the CABAL .
"I think there should be open hearings on this subject," Schiff told the
Washington Post in an interview published Monday. "The president has put us on a path where we may be at war with Iran. That
requires the Congress to fully engage."
Asked for his thoughts on President Trump warning Iran that the U.S. will hit 52 sites, including cultural sites, if Tehran retaliates
the California Democrat said: "None of that could come out of the Pentagon. Absolutely no way."
... ... ...
Schiff 's comments to the Post come after he suggested Secretary of State Mike Pompeo misrepresented intelligence indicating
that killing Soleimani saved American lives.
"It was a reckless decision that increased the risk to America all around the world, not decreased it. When Secretary Pompeo says
that this decision to take out Qasem Soleimani saved American lives, saved European lives, he is expressing a personal opinion, not
an intelligence conclusion," he
told CNN State of the Union host Jake Tapper. "I think it will increase the risk to Americans around the world. I have
not seen the intelligence that taking out Soleimani was going to either stop the plotting that is going on or decrease other risks
to the United States."
"... How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all in with Zionists and is one of them. ..."
"... I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous grounds. ..."
How do you think Soleimani organized, sustained and coordinated his Resistance Militias in different countries turning them
into a formidable military offensive resistance strategy? With strategic military and diplomatic savvy. Soleimani was sent as an envoy to Russia by Iran's Supreme Leader at a critical time in the Syrian war and also at Putin's
request. If Soleimani was lured by the U.S. and Saudis on a pretext of peace to be assassinated by a U.S. drone this proves just how
depraved Trump is. This strategy is right out of the Zionist dirty tricks playbook and Trump has proven in every way he is all
in with Zionists and is one of them.
As reported by krollchem @ 67 and by b in this and the following post, the involvement of Trump directly in premeditated murder
cannot be absolved, and the circumstances are abhorrent to any patriotic American citizen. May God have mercy on the souls of
the peace makers, for they shall be called the sons of God.
I take the Iraqi Prime Minister at his word, and reassert the need for Trump and his administration to be impeached on treasonous
grounds.
Where that will lead in terms of the rest of the US government I cannot say but VP Pence is also impeachable here, so
it is difficult to see who is least culpable in this. It may mean that there is need for a provisional government to be put in
place - not party organized. If impeachment proceeds apace as it should, behind the scenes such a people's approved peaceful
citizens coalition needs to be considered. This cannot stand as official US government policy. It is heinous.
I too, as forward @ 24 has done, sent prayers for the souls of the departed Iran general as well as his friend from Iraq and
their companions this morning in my home chapel. It is the Sunday before Christmas, old calendar. May the Lord bring them and
so many others before them to a place where the just repose.
The Trump administration has assassinated Iran's top military leader, Qassim Suleimani, and with the possibility of a serious escalation
in violent conflict, it's a good time to think about how propaganda works and train ourselves to avoid accidentally swallowing it.
The Iraq War, the bloodiest and costliest U.S. foreign policy calamity of the 21 st century, happened in part because
the population of the United States was insufficiently cynical about its government and got caught up in a wave of nationalistic
fervor. The same thing happened with World War I and the Vietnam War. Since a U.S./Iran war would be a disaster, it is vital that
everyone make sure they do not accidentally end up repeating the kinds of talking points that make war more likely.
Let us bear in mind, then, some of the basic lessons about war propaganda.
Things are not true because a government official says them.
I do not mean to treat you as stupid by making such a basic point, but plenty of journalists and opposition party politicians
do not understand this point's implications, so it needs to be said over and over. What happens in the leadup to war is that government
officials make claims about the enemy, and then those claims appear in newspapers ("U.S. officials say Saddam poses an imminent threat")
and then in the public consciousness, the "U.S. officials say" part disappears, so that the claim is taken for reality without ever
really being scrutinized. This happens because newspapers are incredibly irresponsible and believe that so long as you attach "Experts
say" or "President says" to a claim, you are off the hook when people end up believing it, because all you did was relay the fact
that a person said a thing, you didn't say it was true. This is the approach the New York Times took to Bush administration allegations
in the leadup to the Iraq War, and it meant that false claims could become headline news just because a high-ranking U.S. official
said them. [UPDATE: here's an example
from Vox, today, of a questionable government claim being magically transformed into a certain fact.]
In the context of Iran, let us consider some things Mike Pence tweeted about Qassim Suleimani:
"[Suleimani] assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September
11 terrorist attacks in the United States Soleimani was plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.
The world is a safer place today because Soleimani is gone."
It is possible, given these tweets, to publish the headline: "Suleimani plotting imminent attacks on American diplomats, says
Pence." That headline is technically true. But you should not publish that headline unless Pence provides some supporting evidence,
because what will happen in the discourse is that people will link to your news story to prove that Suleimani was plotting imminent
attacks.
To see how unsubstantiated claims get spread, let's think about the Afghanistan hijackers bit. David Harsanyi of the National
Review defends
Pence's claim about Suleimani helping the hijackers. Harsanyi cites the 9/11 Commission report, saying that the 9/11 commission
report concluded Iran aided the hijackers. The report
does indeed say that Iran allowed free
travel to some of the men who went on to carry out the 9/11 attacks. (The sentence cut off at the bottom of Harsanyi's screenshot,
however, rather crucially
says : "We have no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack.") Harsanyi
admits that the report says absolutely nothing about Suleimani. But he argues that Pence was "mostly right," pointing out that Pence
did not say Iran knew these men would be the hijackers, merely that it allowed them passage.
Let's think about what is going on here. Pence is trying to convince us that Suleimani deserved to die, that it was necessary
for the U.S. to kill him, which will also mean that if Iran retaliates violently, that violence will be because Iran is an aggressive
power rather than because the U.S. just committed an unprovoked atrocity against one of its leaders, dropping a bomb on a popular
Iranian leader. So Pence wants to link Suleimani in your mind with 9/11, in order to get you blood boiling the same way you might
have felt in 2001 as you watched the Twin Towers fall.
There is no evidence that either Iran or Suleimani tried to help these men do 9/11. Harsanyi says that Pence does not technically
allege this. But he doesn't have to! What impression are people going to get from helped the hijackers? Pence hopes you'll
conflate Suleimani and Iran as one entity, then assume that if Iran ever aided these men in any way, it basically did 9/11 even if
it didn't have any clue that was what they were going to do.
This brings us to #2:
Do not be bullied into accepting simple-minded sloganeering
Let's say that, long before Ted Kaczynski began sending bombs through the mail, you once rented him an apartment. This was pure
coincidence. Back then he was just a Berkeley professor, you did not know he would turn out to be the Unabomber. It is, however,
possible, for me to say, and claim I am not technically lying, that you "housed and materially aided the Unabomber." (A friend of
mine once sold his house to the guy who turned out to be the Green River Killer, so this kind of situation does happen.)
Of course, it is incredibly dishonest of me to characterize what you did that way. You rented an apartment to a stranger, yet
I'm implying that you intentionally helped the Unabomber knowing he was the Unabomber. In sane times, people would see me as the
duplicitous one. But the leadup to war is often not a sane time, and these distinctions can get lost. In the Pence claim about Afghanistan,
for it to have any relevance to Suleimani, it would be critical to know (assuming the 9/11 commission report is accurate) whether
Iran actually could have known what the men it allowed to pass would ultimately do, and whether Suleimani was involved. But that
would involve thinking, and War Fever thrives on emotion rather than thought.
There are all kinds of ways in which you can bully people into accepting idiocy. Consider, for example, the statement "Nathan
Robinson thinks it's good to help terrorists who murder civilians." There is a way in which this is actually sort of true: I think
lawyers who aid those accused of terrible crimes do important work. If we are simple-minded and manipulative, we can call that "thinking
it's good to help terrorists," and during periods of War Fever, that's exactly what it will be called. There is a kind of cheap sophistry
that becomes ubiquitous:
I don't think Osama bin Laden should have been killed without an attempt to apprehend him. -- > So you think it's good
that Osama bin Laden was alive?
I think Iraqis were justified in resisting the U.S. invasion with force. -- > So you're saying it's good when U.S. soldiers
die?
I do not believe killing other countries' generals during peacetime is acceptable. -- > So you believe terrorists should
be allowed to operate with impunity.
I remember all this bullshit from my high school years. Opposing the invasion of Iraq meant loving Saddam Hussein and hating America.
Thinking 9/11 was the predictable consequence of U.S. actions meant believing 9/11 was justified. Of course, rational discussion
can expose these as completely unfair mischaracterizations, but every time war fever whips up, rational discussion becomes almost
impossible. In World War I, if you opposed the draft you were undermining your country in a time of war. During Vietnam, if you believed
the North Vietnamese had the more just case, you were a Communist traitor who endorsed every atrocity committed in the name of Ho
Chi Minh, and if you thought John McCain shouldn't have been bombing civilians in the first place then clearly you believed he should
have been tortured and you hated America.
"If you oppose assassinating Suleimani you must love terrorists" will be repeated on Fox News (and probably even on MSNBC).
Nationalism advocate Yoram Hazony
says there is something wrong with those who
do not "feel shame when our country is shamed" -- presumably those who do not feel wounded pride when America is emasculated by our
enemies are weak and pitiful. We should refuse to put up with these kind of cheap slurs, or even to let those who deploy them place
the burden of proof on us to refute them. (In 2004, Democrats worried that they did appear unpatriotic, and so they ran a
decorated war veteran, John Kerry, for president. That didn't work.)
Scrutinize the arguments
Here's Mike Pence again:
"[Suleimani] provided advanced deadly explosively formed projectiles, advanced weaponry, training, and guidance to Iraqi
insurgents used to conduct attacks on U.S. and coalition forces; directly responsible for the death of 603 U.S. service members,
along with thousands of wounded."
I am going to say something that is going to sound controversial if you buy into the kind of simple-minded logic we just
discussed: Saying that someone was "responsible for the deaths of U.S. service members" does not, in and of itself, tell us anything
about whether what they did was right or wrong. In order to believe it did, we would have to believe that the United States is
automatically right, and that countries opposing the United States are automatically wrong. That is indeed the logic that many
nationalists in this country follow; remember that when the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, causing hundreds of deaths,
George H.W. Bush said
that he would never apologize for America, no matter what the facts were. What if America did something wrong? That was
irrelevant, or rather impossible, because to Bush, a thing was right because America did it, even if that thing was the mass murder
of Iranian civilians.
One of the major justifications for murdering Suleimani is that he "caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers." He was thus an aggressor,
and could/should have been killed. That is where people like Pence want you to end your inquiry. But let us remember where those
soldiers were. Were they in Miami? No. They were in Iraq. Why were they in Iraq? Because we illegally invaded and seized a country.
Now, we can debate whether (1) there is actually sufficient evidence of Suleimani's direct involvement and (2) whether these
acts of violence can be justified, but to say that Suleimani has "American blood on his hands" is to say nothing at all without
an examination of whether the United States was in the right.
We have to think clearly in examining the arguments that are being made.
Here 's the Atlantic 's
George Packer on the execution:
"There was a case for killing Major General Qassem Soleimani. For two decades, as the commander of the Revolutionary Guards'
Quds Force, he executed Iran's long game of strategic depth in the Middle East -- arming and guiding proxy militias in Lebanon
and Iraq that became stronger than either state, giving Bashar al-Assad essential support to win the Syrian civil war at the cost
of half a million lives, waging a proxy war in Yemen against the hated Saudis, and repeatedly testing America and its allies with
military actions around the region for which Iran never seemed to pay a military price."
The article goes on to discuss whether this case is outweighed by the pragmatic case against killing him. But wait. Let's dwell
on this. Does this constitute a case for killing him? He assisted Bashar al-Assad. Okay, but presumably then killing Assad
would have been justified too? Is the rule here that our government is allowed unilaterally to execute the officials of other governments
who are responsible for many deaths? Are we the only ones who can do this? Can any government claim the right?
He assisted Yemen in its fight against "the hated Saudis." But is Saudi Arabia being hated for good reason? It is not enough to
say that someone committed violence without analyzing the underlying justice of the parties' relative claims.
Moreover, assumptions are made that if you can prove somebody committed a heinous act, what Trump did is justified. But that doesn't
follow: Unless we throw all law out the window, and extrajudicial punishment is suddenly acceptable, showing that Suleimani was a
war criminal doesn't prove that you can unilaterally kill him with a drone. Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. So is George W. Bush.
But they should be captured and tried in a court, not bombed from the sky. The argument that Suleimani was planning imminent
attacks is relevant to whether you can stop him with violence (and requires persuasive proof), but mere allegations of murderous
past acts do not show that extrajudicial killings are legitimate.
It's very easy to come up with superficially persuasive arguments that can justify just about anything. The job of an intelligent
populace is to see whether those arguments can actually withstand scrutiny.
Keep the focus on what matters
"The main question about the strike isn't moral or even legal -- it's strategic." --
The Atlantic
"The real question to ask about the American drone attack that killed Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was not whether it was justified,
but whether it was wise" -- The New York Times
"I think that the question that we ought to focus on is why now? Why not a month ago and why not a month from now?" --
Elizabeth Warren
They're going to try to define the debate for you. Leaving aside the moral questions, is this good strategy? And then you
find yourself arguing on those terms: No, it was bad strategy, it will put "our personnel" in harms way, without noticing that you
are implicitly accepting the sociopathic logic that says "America's interests" are the only ones in the world that matters. This
is how debates about Vietnam went: They were rarely about whether our actions were good for Vietnamese people, but about whether
they were good or bad for us , whether we were squandering U.S. resources and troops in a "fruitless" "mistake." The people
of this country still do not understand the kind of carnage we inflicted on Vietnam because our debates tend to be about whether
things we do are "strategically prudent" rather than whether they are just. The Atlantic calls the strike a "blunder," shifting
the discussion to be about the wisdom of the killing rather than whether it is a choice our country is even permitted to make. "Blunder"
essentially assumes that we are allowed to do these things and the only question is whether it's good for us.
There will be plenty of attempts to distract you with irrelevant issues. We will spent more time talking about whether Trump followed
the right process for war, whether he handled the rollout correctly, and less about whether the underlying action itself is
correct. People like Ben Shapiro will say things
like :
"Barack Obama routinely droned terrorists abroad -- including American citizens -- who presented far less of a threat to
Americans and American interests than Soleimani. So spare me the hysterics about 'assassination."
In order for this to have any bearing on anything, you have to be someone who defends what Obama did. If you are, on the other
hand, someone who belives that Obama, too, assassinated people without due process (which he did), then Shapiro has proved exactly
nothing about whether Trump's actions were legitimate. (Note, too, the presumption that threatening "America's interests" can get
you killed, a standard we would not want any other country using but are happy to use ourselves.)
Emphasis matters
Consider three statements:
"The top priority of a Commander-in-Chief must be to protect Americans and our national security interests. There is no
question that Qassim Suleimani was a threat to that safety and security, and that he masterminded threats and attacks on Americans
and our allies, leading to hundreds of deaths. But there are serious questions about how this decision was made and whether we
are prepared for the consequences."
"Suleimani was a murderer, responsible for the deaths of thousands, including hundreds of Americans. But this reckless
move escalates the situation with Iran and increases the likelihood of more deaths and new Middle East conflict. Our priority
must be to avoid another costly war."
"When I voted against the war in Iraq in 2002, I feared it would lead to greater destabilization of the country and the
region. Today, 17 years later, that fear has unfortunately turned out to be true. The United States has lost approximately 4,500
brave troops, tens of thousands have been wounded, and we've spent trillions on this war. Trump's dangerous escalation brings
us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East that could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars. Trump promised
to end endless wars, but this action puts us on the path to another one."
These are statements made by Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, respectively. Note that each of them is
consistent with believing Trump's decision was the wrong one, but their emphasis is different. Buttigieg says Suleimani was a
"threat" but that there are "questions," Warren says Suleimani was a "murderer" but that this was "reckless," and Sanders says this
was a "dangerous escalation." It could be that none of these three would have done the same thing themselves, but the emphasis is
vastly different. Buttigieg and Warren lead with condemnation of the dead man, in ways that imply that there was nothing that
unjust about what happened. Sanders does not dwell on Suleimani but instead talks about the dangers of new wars.
We have to be clear and emphatic in our messaging, because so much effort is made to make what should be clear issues appear murky.
If, for example, you gave a speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq War, but the first half was simply a discussion of what a bad and threatening
person Saddam Hussein was, people might actually get the opposite of the impression you want them to get. Buttigieg and Warren,
while they appear to question the president, have the effect of making his action seem reasonable. After all, they admit that he
got rid of a threatening murderer! Sanders admits nothing of the kind: The only thing he says is that Trump has made the world worse.
He puts the emphasis where it matters.
I do not fully like Sanders' statement, because it still talks a bit more about what war means for our people ,
but it does mention destabilization and the total number of lives that can be lost. It is a far more morally clear and powerful antiwar
statement. Buttigieg's is exactly what you'd expect of a Consultant President and it should give us absolutely no confidence that
he would be a powerful voice against a war, should one happen. Warren confirms that she is not an effective advocate for peace. In
a time when there will be pressure for a violent conflict, we need to make sure that our statements are not watery and do not make
needless concessions to the hawks' propaganda.
Imagine how everything would sound if the other side said it.
If you're going to understand the world clearly, you have to kill your nationalistic emotions. An excellent way to do this is
to try to imagine if all the facts were reversed. If Iraq had invaded the United States, and U.S. militias violently resisted, would
it constitute "aggression" for those militias to kill Iraqi soldiers? If Britain funded those U.S. militias, and Iraq killed the
head of the British military with a drone strike, would this constitute "stopping a terrorist"? Of course, in that situation, the
Iraqi government would certainly spin it that way, because governments call everyone who opposes them terrorists. But rationality
requires us not just to examine whether violence has been committed (e.g., whether Suleimani ordered attacks) but what the
full historical context of that violence is, and who truly deserves the "terrorist" label.
Is there anything Suleimani did that hasn't also been done by the CIA? Remember that we actually engineered the overthrow of the
Iranian government, within living people's lifetimes . Would an Iranian have been justified in assassinating the head of the
CIA? I doubt there are many Americans who think they would. I think most Americans would consider this terrorism. But this is because
terrorism is a word that, by definition, cannot apply to things we do, and only applies to the things others do. When you start to
actually reverse the situations in your mind, and see how things look from the other side, you start to fully grasp just how crude
and irrational so much propaganda is.
"It was not an assassination." -- Noah Rothman, conservative commentator
"That's an outrageous thing to say. Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general."
-- Michael Bloomberg, on Bernie Sanders' claim that this was an "assassination"
Our access to much of the world is through language alone. We only see our tiny sliver of the world with our own eyes, much of
the rest of it has to be described in words or shown to us through images. That means it's very easy to manipulate our perceptions.
If you control the flow of information, you can completely alter someone's understanding of the things that they can't see firsthand.
Euphemistic language is always used to cover atrocities. Even the Nazis did not say they were "mass murdering innocent civilians."
They said they were defending themselves from subversive elements, guaranteeing sufficient living space for their people, purifying
their culture, etc. When the United States commits murder, it does not say it is committing murder. It says it is engaging in a stabilization
program and restoring democratic rule. We saw during the recent
Bolivian coup how easy it is
to portray the seizure of power as "democracy" and democracy as tyranny. Euphemistic language has been one of the key tools of murderous
regimes. In fact, many of them probably believe their own language; their specialized vocabulary allows them to inhabit a world of
their own invention where they are good people punishing evil.
Assassination sounds bad. It sounds like something illegitimate, something that would call into question the goodness of the United
States, even if the person being assassinated can be argued to have "deserved it." Thus Rothman and Bloomberg will not even admit
that what the U.S. did here was an assassination, even though we literally targeted a high official from a sovereign country and
dropped a bomb on him. Instead, this is " neutralization
." (Read this fascinatingly feeble attempt
by the Associated Press to explain why it isn't calling an obvious assassination an assassination, just as the media declined to
call torture torture when Bush did it.)
Those of us who want to resist marches to war need to insist on calling things exactly what they are and refuse to allow the country
to slide into the use of language that conceals the reality of our actions.
Remember what people were saying five minutes ago
Five minutes ago, hardly anybody was talking about Suleimani. Now they all speak as if he was Public Enemy #1. Remember how much
you hated that guy? Remember how much damage he did? No, I do not remember, because people like Ben Shapiro only just discovered
their hatred for Suleimani once they had to justify his murder.
During the buildup to a war there is a constant effort to make you forget what things were like a few minutes ago. Before World
War I, Americans lived relatively harmoniously with Germans in their midst. The same thing with Japanese people before World War
II. Then, immediately, they began to hate and fear people who had recently been their neighbors.
Let us say Iran responds to this extrajudicial murder with a colossal act of violent reprisal, after the killing
unifies the country around a demand for vengeance. They kill a high-ranking American official, or wage an attack that kills our
civilians. Perhaps it will attack some of the soldiers that are now being moved into the Middle East. The Trump administration will
then want you to forget that it promised this assassination was to "
stop a war ." It will then
want you to focus solely on Iran's most recent act, to see that as the initial aggression. If the attack is particularly bad,
with family members of victims crying on TV and begging for vengeance, you will be told to look into the face of Iranian evil, and
those of us who are anti-war will be branded as not caring about the victims. Nobody wants you to remember the history of U.S./Iran
relations, the civilians we killed of theirs or the time we destabilized their whole country and got rid of its democracy. They want
you to have a two-second memory, to become a blind and unthinking patriot whose sole thought is the avenging of American blood. Resisting
propaganda requires having a memory, looking back on how things were before and not accepting war as the "new normal."
Listen to the Chomsky on your shoulder.
"It is perfectly insane to suggest the U.S. was the aggressor here." -- Ben Shapiro
They are going to try to convince you that you are insane for asking questions, or for not accepting what the government tells
you. They will put you in topsy-turvy land, where thinking that assassinating foreign officials is "aggression" is not just wrong,
but sheer madness. You will have to try your best to remember what things are, because it is not easy, when everyone says
the emperor has clothes, or that Line A is longer than Line B, or that shocking people to death is fine, to have confidence in your
independent judgment.
This is why I keep a little imaginary Noam
Chomsky sitting on my shoulder at all times. Chomsky helps keep me sane, by cutting through lies and euphemisms and showing things
as they really are. I recommend reading his books, especially during times of war. He never swallowed Johnson's nonsense about Vietnam
or Bush's nonsense about Iraq. And of course they called him insane, anti-American, terrorist-loving, anti-Semitic, blah blah blah.
What I really mean here though is: Listen to the dissidents. They will not appear on television. They will be smeared and treated
as lunatics. But you need them if you are going to be able to resist the absolute barrage of misinformation, or to hear yourself
think over the pounding war drums. Times of War Fever can be wearying, because there is just so much aggression against dissent that
your resistance wears down. This is why a community is so necessary. You may watch people who previously seemed reasonable develop
a pathological bloodlust (mild-mannered moderate types like Thomas Friedman and Brian Williams going suck on our missiles
). Find the people who see clearly and stick close to them.
Daniel
Larison Colum Lynch and Robbie Gramer
report on the Trump administration's decision to refuse a visa to Iran's foreign minister.
Barring Zarif from the U.S. is a blatant violation of U.S. obligations as the host of U.N.
headquarters:
"Any foreign minister is entitled to address the Security Council at any time and the
United States is obligated to provide access to the U.N. headquarters district," said Larry
Johnson, a former U.N. assistant secretary-general. Under the terms of the U.S. agreement
with the United Nations, "they are absolutely obligated to let him in."
Johnson, who currently serves as an adjunct professor at Columbia University Law School,
noted that the U.S. Congress, however, passed legislation in August 1947, the so-called
Public Law 80-357, that granted the U.S. government the authority to bar foreign individuals
invited by the United Nations to attend meetings at its New York City headquarters if they
are deemed to pose a threat to U.S. national security. But Johnson said the U.S. law would
require the individual be "expected to commit some act against the U.S. national security
interest while here in the United States."
Refusing to admit Zarif is another foolish mistake on the administration's part. Preventing
him from coming to the U.N. not only breaches our government's agreement with the U.N., but it
also closes off a possible channel of communication and demonstrates to the world that the U.S.
has no interest in a diplomatic resolution of the current crisis. Far from conveying the
"toughness" that Pompeo imagines he is showing, keeping Zarif out reeks of weakness and
insecurity. Zarif is a capable diplomat, but is the Trump administration really so afraid of
what he would say while he is here that they would ignore U.S. obligations to block him?
By barring Zarif, the Trump administration has given him and his government another
opportunity to score an easy propaganda win. They have squandered an opportunity to reduce
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. needs to find an off-ramp to avoid further
conflict following the president's assassination order, but thanks to Pompeo's decision that
off-ramp won't be found in New York.
More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me
trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office
in the land!
The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis,
the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?
Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted
to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by
an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving
half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence.
Learn your history.
All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever
heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from
having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from
kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for
him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt
care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American
that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing
The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil.
The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the
Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung?
Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to
distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.
So Trump instead of draining the swamp brought swamp creatures like Pompeo into his Administration; now he can pay the price.
Notable quotes:
"... The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo ..."
"... "We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President Trump undertook." ..."
"... On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said. ..."
"... One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida. ..."
"... Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations. ..."
"... On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact. ..."
"... "No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat. ..."
"... Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible." ..."
"... At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals. ..."
"... After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target. ..."
The secretary also spoke to President Trump multiple times every day last week, culminating in Trump's decision to approve the
killing of Iran's top military commander, Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani, at the urging of Pompeo and Vice President Pence, the officials
said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Pompeo had lost a similar high-stakes deliberation last summer when Trump declined to retaliate militarily against Iran after
it downed a U.S. surveillance drone, an outcome that left Pompeo "morose," according to one U.S. official. But recent changes to
Trump's national security team and the whims of a president anxious about being viewed as hesitant in the face of Iranian aggression
created an opening for Pompeo to press for the kind of action he had been advocating.
The greenlighting of the airstrike near Baghdad airport represents a bureaucratic victory for Pompeo, but it also carries
multiple serious risks: another protracted regional war in the Middle East; retaliatory assassinations of U.S. personnel stationed
around the world; an
interruption in the battle against the Islamic State; the
closure of diplomatic pathways to containing
Iran's nuclear program; and a major backlash in Iraq, whose parliament
voted on Sunday to expel all U.S. troops from the country.
For Pompeo, whose political ambitions are a source of
constant speculation , the death of U.S. diplomats would be particularly damaging given his unyielding criticisms of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton following the killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and other American personnel in Benghazi in 2012.
But none of those considerations stopped Pompeo from pushing for the targeted strike, U.S. officials said, underscoring a fixation
on Iran that spans 10 years of government service from Congress to the CIA to the State Department.
"We took a bad guy off the battlefield. We made the right decision," Pompeo told CNN. "I'm proud of the effort that President
Trump undertook."
Pompeo first spoke with Trump about killing Soleimani months ago, said a senior U.S. official, but neither the president nor Pentagon
officials were willing to countenance such an operation.
For more than a year, defense officials warned that the administration's campaign of economic sanctions against Iran had increased
tensions with Tehran, requiring a bigger and bigger share of military resources in the Middle East when many at the Pentagon wanted
to redeploy their firepower to East Asia.
How the siege of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad unfolded On
Jan. 1, the siege on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad appeared to come to an end after supporters of the Iranian-backed Kataib Hezbollah
militia retreated. (Liz Sly, Joyce Lee, Mustafa Salim/The Washington Post)
Trump, too, sought to draw down from the Middle East as he promised from the opening days of his presidential campaign. But that
mind-set shifted on Dec. 27 when 30 rockets hit a joint U.S.-Iraqi base outside Kirkuk, killing an American civilian contractor and
injuring service members.
On Dec. 29, Pompeo, Esper and Milley traveled to the president's private club in Florida, where the two defense officials
presented possible responses to Iranian aggression, including the option of killing Soleimani, senior U.S. officials said.
Trump's decision to target Soleimani came as a surprise and a shock to some officials briefed on his decision, given the Pentagon's
long-standing concerns about escalation and the president's aversion to using military force against Iran.
One significant factor was the "lockstep" coordination for the operation between Pompeo and Esper, both graduates in the same
class at the U.S. Military Academy, who deliberated ahead of the briefing with Trump, senior U.S. officials said. Pence also endorsed
the decision, but he did not attend the meeting in Florida.
"Taking out Soleimani would not have happened under [former secretary of defense Jim] Mattis," said a senior administration official
who argued that the Mattis Pentagon was risk-averse. "Mattis was opposed to all of this. It's not a hit on Mattis, it's just his
predisposition. Milley and Esper are different. Now you've got a cohesive national security team and you've got a secretary of state
and defense secretary who've known each other their whole adult lives."
Mattis declined to comment.
In the days since the strike, Pompeo has become the voice of the administration on the matter, speaking to allies and making the
public case for the operation. Trump chose Pompeo to appear on all of the Sunday news shows because he "sticks to the line" and "never
gives an inch," an administration official said.
But critics inside and outside the administration have questioned Pompeo's justification for the strike based on his claims that
"dozens if not hundreds" of American lives were at risk.
Lawmakers left classified briefings with U.S. intelligence officials on Friday saying they heard nothing to suggest that the threat
posed by the proxy forces guided by Soleimani had changed substantially in recent months.
When repeatedly pressed on Sunday about the imminent nature of the threats, whether it was days or weeks away, or whether they
had been foiled by the U.S. airstrike, Pompeo dismissed the questions.
"If you're an American in the region, days and weeks -- this is not something that's relevant," Pompeo told CNN.
Some defense officials said Pompeo's claims of an imminent and direct threat were overstated, and they would prefer that he
make the case based on the killing of the American contractor and previous Iranian provocations.
Critics have also questioned how an imminent attack would be foiled by killing Soleimani, who would not have carried out the strike
himself.
"If the attack was going to take place when Soleimani was alive, it is difficult to comprehend why it wouldn't take place now
that he is dead," said Robert Malley, the president of the International Crisis Group and a former Obama administration official.
Following the strike, Pompeo has held back-to-back phone calls with his counterparts around the globe but has received a chilly
reception from European allies, many of whom fear that the attack puts their embassies in Iran and Iraq in jeopardy and has now eliminated
the chance to keep a lid on Iran's nuclear program.
"We have woken up to a more dangerous world," said France's Europe minister, Amelie de Montchalin.
Two European diplomats familiar with the calls said Pompeo expected European leaders to champion the U.S. strike publicly even
though they were never consulted on the decision.
"The U.S. has not helped the Iran situation, and now they want everyone to cheerlead this," one diplomat said.
"Our position over the past few years has been about defending the JCPOA," said the diplomat, referring to the 2015 Iran nuclear
deal.
On Sunday, Iran announced that it was suspending all limits of the nuclear deal, including on uranium enrichment, research
and development, and enlarging its stockpile of nuclear fuel. Britain, France and Germany, as well as Russia and China, were original
signatories of that deal with the United States and Iran, and all opposed Trump's decision to withdraw from the pact.
"No one trusts what Trump will do next, so it's hard to get behind this," said the European diplomat.
Pompeo has slapped back at U.S. allies, saying "the Brits, the French, the Germans all need to understand that what we did --
what the Americans did -- saved lives in Europe as well," he told Fox News.
Israel has stood out in emphatically cheering the Soleimani operation, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praising
Trump for "acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively."
"Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defense," he said.
Since his time as CIA director, Pompeo has forged a friendship with Yossi Cohen, the director of the Israeli intelligence
service Mossad, said a person familiar with their meetings. The men have spoken about the threat posed by Iran to both Israel and
the United States. In a prescient interview in October, Cohen said Soleimani "knows perfectly well that his elimination is not impossible."
Though Democrats have greeted the strike with skepticism, Republican leaders, who have long viewed Pompeo as a reassuring voice
in the administration, uniformly praised the decision as the eradication of a terrorist who directed the killing of U.S. soldiers
in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
"Soleimani made it his life's work to take the Iranian revolutionary call for death to America and death to Israel and turn them
into action," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said.
A critical moment for Pompeo is nearing as he faces growing questions about a potential Senate run, though some GOP insiders say
that decision seems to have stalled. Pompeo has kept in touch with Ward Baker, a political consultant who would probably lead the
operation, and others in McConnell's orbit, about a bid. But Pompeo hasn't committed one way or the other, people familiar with the
conversations said.
Some people close to the secretary say he has mixed feelings about becoming a relatively junior senator from Kansas after leading
the State Department and CIA, but there is little doubt in Pompeo's home state that he could win.
At every step of his government career, Pompeo has tried to stake out a maximalist position on Iran that has made him popular
among two critical pro-Israel constituencies in Republican politics: conservative Jewish donors and Christian evangelicals.
After Trump tapped Pompeo to lead the CIA, Pompeo quickly set up an Iran Mission Center at the agency to focus intelligence-gathering
efforts and operations, elevating Iran's importance as an intelligence target.
At the State Department, he is a voracious consumer of diplomatic notes and reporting on Iran, and he places the country far above
other geopolitical and economic hot spots in the world. "If it's about Iran, he will read it," said one diplomat, referring to the massive flow of paper that crosses Pompeo's desk. "If
it's not, good luck."
Tucker Carlson is livid with anger and frustration at Trump's actions .
Death to America is a rallying point for Iran to emphasize the same aspect of American
status .
They talk in future . Carlson is reminding that we are already there .
If people woke up with anger at Iran., they would find that the dead horse isn't able to
do much but only can attract a lot of attention from far .
The reason Taliban didn't inform Mulla Omar's death was to let the rank and file continues
to remain engaged without getting into internal feuding fight .
A trues state of US won't be televised until the horse starts rotting but then that would be
quite late .
I don't recall any dissent until this assassination . Now 70 cities are witnessing
protests and a few in Media are not happy at all .
There is a big unknown if and when Iran would strike back and at who. Persian is not like
khasaogi murderer or Harri kidnapper .
Most probably Pompeo was cheating and deceived Trump to get the approval of this asssasination. now with his head on the block he
is trying to avoid the responsibility.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough. ..."
"... Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides answers on "how this decision was reached ... then this move is questionable , to say the least." ..."
"... "I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives are at stake right now." ..."
"... the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations, which have led to U.S. deaths . ..."
Democrats on Sunday demanded answers about the
killing of top Iranian
Gen.
Qassem Soleimani as tensions mounted with Iran and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted that the United States had faced an
imminent threat.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week" that he worried that President Donald Trump's decision
"will get us into what he calls
another
endless war in the Middle East ." He called for Congress to "assert" its authority and prevent Trump from "either bumbling or
impulsively getting us into a major war."
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said public assurances from the Trump administration that such
a threat was "imminent" were simply not enough.
"I think we learned the hard way ... in the Iraq War that administrations sometimes
manipulate
and cherry-pick intelligence to further their political goals," he said.
"That's what got us into the Iraq War. There was no WMD," or weapons of mass destruction, he said. "I'm saying that they have
an obligation to present the evidence."
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg said on CNN's "State of the Union" that until the administration provides
answers on "how this decision was reached ... then
this move is questionable
, to say the least."
"I still worry about whether this president really understands that this is not a show, this is not a game," he said. "Lives
are at stake right now."
The fraught relationship with Iran has significantly deteriorated in the days since Soleimani's death, which came days after rioters
sought to storm the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad and a U.S. contractor was killed in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base
in Kirkuk.
The Defense Department said Soleimani, the high-profile commander of Iran's secretive Quds Force, who was accused of controlling
Iranian-linked proxy militias across the Middle East, orchestrated the attacks on bases in Iraq of the U.S.-led coalition fighting
the Islamic State militant group, including the strike that killed the U.S. contractor. In addition, the Defense Department said
Soleimani approved attacks on the embassy compound in Baghdad.
"
We
took action last night to stop a war ," Trump said Friday in a televised address, referring to the airstrike that killed Soleimani.
"We did not take action to start a war."
But the administration has yet to make public its evidence that Soleimani was acting out of step in comparison with his years
of similar planning as a leader in Iran's proxy wars and other covert operations,
which have led to U.S. deaths .
Iran and its allies vowed to retaliate for the general's death, and Trump has since escalated his language in response.
Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics
Below are some idea from Below are some idea from
OffGuardian that
clrify TT post...
The Saker took a look yesterday at The Soleimani murder – what
could happen next . He thinks, as he has said before, that Trump is regarded as a disposable
asset by his Deep State handlers and is being used as a front man for risky policy actions that
he can be scapegoated for if/when they go wrong.
war with Iran has been the auto-erotic fixation for the hardcore war nuts in Washington for
years, and imminent confrontation has been predicted regularly since at least 2005
Trump administration from the very beginning has been ramping up the tensions (Adelson money
at work): Trump teared up the nuclear deal, re-imposed sanctions, making provocations, making
threats. But this has all been within the familiar framework that always just stops short of
actual conflict. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they have ever
risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag 'terrorism'
as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost certainly
look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond anything they
have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much false flag
'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we can almost
certainly look forward to some of that. The murder of Soleimani is orders of magnitude beyond
anything they have ever risked before. the US and Israel now have carte blanche to stage as much
false flag 'terrorism' as they want and blame it on Iranian 'revenge'. Whatever else happens, we
can almost certainly look forward to some of that.
The major question really though is – will this backtracking and odd claims of wanting
de-escalation actually do anything to de-escalate? Will it persuade Iran not to seek retaliation,
supposing this is now what Pompeo et al want?
It's become a commonplace to describe Trump foreign policy as 'insane', and it's an apposite
description. But the murder of Soleimani takes the evident insanity to new and self-defeating
levels.
Notable quotes:
"... Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we deserve to be labeled as international pariahs. ..."
"... Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US dreams of regional hegemony. ..."
"... According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of anything, but what are the chances? ..."
"... This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the "mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. ..."
"... After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb, invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a lot! ..."
"... IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors. ..."
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States had "clear, unambiguous" intelligence that a top
Iranian general was planning a significant campaign of violence against the United States when
it decided to strike him, the top U.S. general said on Friday, warning Soleimani's plots "might
still happen."
Army General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a small group
of reporters "we fully comprehend the strategic consequences" associated with the strike
against Qassem Soleimani, Tehran's most prominent military commander.
But he said the risk of inaction exceeded the risk that killing him might dramatically
escalate tensions with Tehran. "Is there risk? Damn right, there's risk. But we're working to
mitigate it," Milley said from his Pentagon office. (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
This is pretty much in line with Trump's pronouncement that our assassination of Soleimani
along with Iraqi General Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was carried out to prevent a war not start one.
Whatever information was presented to Trump painted a picture of imminent danger in his mind.
What did the Pentagon see that was so imminent?
Well first let's look at the mindset of the Pentagon concerning our presence in Iraq and
Syria. These two recent quotes from Brett McGurk sums up that mindset.
"If we leave Iraq, that will just increase further the running room for Iran and Shia
militia groups and also the vacuum that will see groups like ISIS fill and we'll be right
back to where we were. So that would be a disaster."
"It's always been Soleimani's strategic game... to get us out of the Middle East. He wants
to see us leave Syria, he wants to see us leave Iraq... I think if we leave Iraq after this,
that would just be a real disastrous outcome..."
McGurk played a visible role in US policy in Iraq and Syria under Bush, Obama and Trump. Now
he's an NBC talking head and a lecturer at Stanford. He could be the poster boy for what many
see as a neocon deep state. He's definitely not alone in thinking this way.
So back to the question of what was the imminent threat. Reuters offers an elaborate story
of a secret meeting of PMU commanders with Soleimani on a rooftop terrace on the Tigris with a
grand view of the US Embassy on the far side of the river.
-- -- -- -- --
"In mid-October, Iranian Major-General Qassem Soleimani met with his Iraqi Shi'ite
militia allies at a villa on the banks of the Tigris River, looking across at the U.S. embassy
complex in Baghdad, and instructed them to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the
country"
"Two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters
that Soleimani instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful
militia leaders to step up attacks on US targets using sophisticated new weapons provided by
Iran."
"Soleimani's plans to attack US forces aimed to provoke a military response that would
redirect Iraqis' anger towards Iran to the US, according to the sources briefed on the
gathering, Iraqi Shi'ite politicians and government officials close to Iraq PM Adel Abdul
Mahdi."
"At the Baghdad villa, Soleimani told the assembled commanders to form a new militia
group of low-profile paramilitaries - unknown to the United States - who could carry out rocket
attacks on Americans housed at Iraqi military bases." (Reuters)
-- -- -- -- --
And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran? They were 1960s Chinese
designed 107mm multiple rocket launcher technology. These simple but effective rocket launchers
were mass produced by the Soviet Union, Iran, Turkey and Sudan in addition to China. They've
been used in every conflict since then. The one captured outside of the K1 military base seems
to be locally fabricated, but used Iranian manufactured rockets.
Since when does the PMU have to form another low profile militia unit? The PMU is already
composed of so many militia units it's difficult to keep track of them. There's also nothing
low profile about the Kata'ib Hizbollah, the rumored perpetrators of the K1 rocket attack.
They're as high profile as they come.
Perhaps there's something to this Reuters story, but to me it sounds like another shithouse
rumor. It would make a great scene in a James Bond movie, but it still sounds like a rumor.
There's another story put out by The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Although it also
sounds like a scene form a James Bond movie, I think it sounds more convincing than the Reuters
story.
-- -- -- -- --
Delegation of Arab tribes met with "Soleimani" at the invitation of "Tehran" to carry out
attacks against U.S. Forces east Euphrates
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights learned that a delegation of the Arab tribes met
on the 26th of December 2019, with the goal of directing and uniting forces against U.S.
Forces, and according to the Syrian Observatory's sources, that meeting took place with the
commander of the al-Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qassim Soleimani, who was
assassinated this morning in a U.S. raid on his convoy in Iraq. the sources reported that: "the
invitation came at the official invitation of Tehran, where Iran invited Faisal al-al-Aazil,
one of the elders of al-Ma'amra clan, in addition to the representative of al-Bo Asi clan the
commander of NDF headquarters in Qamishli Khatib al-Tieb, and the Sheikh of al-Sharayin, Nawaf
al-Bashar, the Sheikh of Harb clan, Mahmoud Mansour al-Akoub, " adding that: "the meeting
discussed carrying out attacks against the American forces and the Syria Democratic
Forces."
Earlier, the head of the Syrian National Security Bureau, Ali Mamlouk, met with the
security committee and about 20 Arab tribal elders and Sheikhs in al-Hasakah, at Qamishli
Airport Hall on the 5th of December 2019, where he demanded the Arab tribes to withdraw their
sons from the ranks of the Syria Democratic Forces. (SOHR)
-- -- -- -- --
I certainly don't automatically give credence to anything Rami sends out of his house in
Coventry. I give this story more credibility only because that is exactly what I would do if
Syria east of the the Euphrates was my UWOA (unconventional warfare operational area). This is
exactly how I would go about ridding the area of the "Great Satan" invaders and making Syria
whole again. The story also includes a lot of named individuals. This can be checked. This
morning Colonel Lang told me some tribes in that region have a Shia history. Perhaps he can
elaborate on that. I've read in several places that Qassim Soleimani knew the tribes in Syria
and Iraq like the back of his hand. This SOHR story makes sense. If Soleimani was working with
the tribes of eastern Syria like he worked with the tribes and militias of Iraq to create the
al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbi, it no doubt scared the bejeezus out of the Pentagon and
endangered their designs for Iraq and Syria.
So, Qassim Soleimani, the Iranian soldier, the competent and patient Iranian soldier, was a
threat to the Pentagon's designs a serious threat. But he was a long term threat, not an
imminent threat. And he was just one soldier.The threat is systemic and remains. The question
of why, in the minds of Trump and his generals, Soleimani had to die this week is something I
will leave for my next post.
A side note on Milley: Whenever I see a photo of him, I am reminded of my old Brigade
Commander in the 25th Infantry Division, Colonel Nathan Vail. They both have the countenance of
a snapping turtle. One of the rehab transfers in my rifle platoon once referred to him as "that
J. Edgar Hoover looking mutha fuka." I had to bite my tongue to keep from breaking out in
laughter. It would have been unseemly for a second lieutenant to openly enjoy such disrespect
by a PV2 and a troublemaking PV2 at that. God bless PV2 Webster, where ever you are.
Eric, the embassy attack hurt little more than our pride. Yes, an entrance lobby and it's
contents were burned and destroyed but no American was injured or even roughed up. It was the
Iraqi government that let the demonstrators approach the embassy walls, not Soleimani. The
unarmed PMU soldiers dispersed as soon as the Iraqi government said their point was made. If we
are so thin skinned that rude graffiti and gestures induce us to committing assassinations, we
deserve to be labeled as international pariahs.
Yes, I see Soleimani as a threat, but he was a threat to the jihadis and the continued US
dreams of regional hegemony. I was glad we went back into Iraq to take on the threat of IS and
cheered our initial move into Syria to do the same. That was the Sunni-Shia war you worry
about. More accurately, it was a Salafist jihadist-all others war. Unfortunately, we overstayed
the need and our welcome. It's a character flaw that we cannot loosen our grasp on empire no
matter how much it costs us.
Thanks for your post. What it says I buy. We are in the Middle East and have been for a
while to impose regional hegemony. What that has bought us is nebulous at best. Clearly we have
spent trillions and destabilized the region. Millions have been displaced and hundreds of
thousands have been killed and maimed, including thousands of our soldiers. Are we better off
from our invasion of Iraq, toppling Ghaddafi, and attempting to topple Assad using jihadists?
Guys like McGurk, Bolton, Pompeo will say yes. Others like me will say no.
The oil is a canard. We produce more oil than we ever have and it is a fungible commodity.
Will it impact Israel if we pull out our forces? Sure. But it may have a salutary effect that
it may force them to sue for peace. Will the Al Sauds continue to fund jihadi mayhem? Likely
yes, but they'll have to come to some accommodation with the Iranian Shia and recognize their
regional strength.
Our choice is straightforward. Continue down the path of more conflict sinking ever more
trillions that we don't have expecting a different outcome or cut our losses and get out and
let the natural forces of the region assert themselves. I know which path I'll take.
With all due respect, I think you are wrong. I think the protesters swarming the embassy was
exactly the same kind of tactic that US backed protesters used in Ukraine (and are currently
using in Hong Kong) to great effect. The Persians are unique in that they are capable of
studying our methodologies and tactics and appropriating them.
When the US backed protesters took over Maidan square and started taking over various
government building in Kiev, Viktor Yanukovych had two choices - either start shooting
protesters or watch while his authority collapsed. It was and is a difficult choice.
In my
humble opinion, there are few things the stewards of US hegemony fear more than the IRGC
becoming the worlds number one disciple of Gene Sharp.
TTG - "And what were those sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran?"
According to published pictures of the rockets recovered after the K-1 attack, they were the
same powerful new weapons that Turkish troops recovered from a YPG ammo depot in Afrin last
year: 'Iranian' 107mm rockets Manufactured 2016 Lot 570. I know matching lots isn't proof of
anything, but what are the chances?
If the U.S. only had a Dilyana Gaytandzhieva to bird-dog out the rat line. Wait... the MSM
would have fired her by now for weaponizing journalism against the neocons [sigh].
If a goal is to get the heck out of the Middle East since it is an intractable cess pit and
stat protecting our own borders and internal security, will we be better off with Soleimani out
of the picture or left in place.
Knowing of course, more just like him will sprout quickly, like dragon's teeth, in the sands
of the desert.ME is a tar baby. Fracking our own tar sands is the preferable alternative.
Real war war would be a direct attack on Israel. Then they get our full frontal assault. But
this pissy stuff around the edges is an exercise in futility. 2020 was Trump's to
lose.Incapacity to handle asymmetirc warfare is ours to lose.
There is no necessary link between the Iranian support for the Assad regime, to include its
operations in tribal areas of Syria. The Iranian-backed militias and Iranian government
officials have been operating in that area for a long time, supporting the efforts of
Security/Intel Ali Mamlouk. That Suleimani knew the tribes so well is a mark of his
professional competence. Everyone is courting the Syrian tribes, some sides more adeptly than
others. It is also worth noting that in putting together manpower for their various locally
formed Syrian militias, the Iranians took on unemployed Sunnis.
That said, there are small Ismaili communities in Syria and there are apparently a couple of
villages in Deir ez Zor that did convert to Shiism, but no mass religious change. The Iranians
are sensitive to the fact that they could cause a backlash if they tried hard to promote "an
alien culture."
Well, The Donald has turned to Twitter menacing iran with wiping out all of its World Heritage
Sites....which is declared intention to commit a war crime...
For what it seems Iran must sawllow the assasination of its beloved and highjly regarded
general...or else...
Do you really think there is any explanation for this, whatever Soleimani´s history (
he was doing his duty in his country and neighboring zone...you are...well...everywhere...) or
that we can follow this way with you escalating your threats and crimes ever and that everybody
must leave it at that without response or you menace coming with more ?
That somebody or some news agency has any explanation for this is precisely the sign of our
times and our disgrace. That there is a bunch of greedy people who is willing to do whatever is
needed to prevail and keep being obscenely rich...
BTW, would be interesting to know who are the main holders of shares at Reuters...
The same monopolizing almost each and every MSM and news agency at every palce in the world,
big bank, big pharma, big business, big capital ( insurances companies nad hedge funds ) big
real state, and US think tanks...
In Elora´s opinion, Bret MacGurk is making revanche from Soleimani for the predictable
fact that a humble and pious man bred in the region, who worked as bricklayer to help pay his
father´s debt during his youth, and moreover has an innate irresistible charisma, managed
to connect better with the savage tribes of the ME than such exceptionalist posh theoric bred
at such an exceptionalist as well as far away country like the US.
But...what did you expect, that MacGurk would become Lawrence of Arabia versus Soleimani in
his simpleness?
May be because of that that he deserved being dismembered by a misile...
As Pence blamed shamefully and stonefacelly Soleimani for 9/11, MacGurk blames him too for
having fallen from the heights he was...
It seems that Pence was in the team of four who assesed Trump on this hit...along with
Pompeo...
A good response would be that someone would leak the real truth on 9/11 so as to debunk
Pence´s mega-lie...
Two years ago, the public protest theme for Basel's winter carnival Fashnach was the imminent
threat nuclear war as NK and US were sabre rattling, and NK was lobbing missles across Japan
with sights on West Coast US cities.
Then almost the following week, NK and US planned to meet F2F in Singapore. And we could all
breathe again. In the very early spring of 2018.
This "imminent" threat of Gen. Soleimani attacking US forces seems eerily reminiscent of the
"mushroom cloud" imminent threat that Bush, Cheney and Blair peddled. Now we even have Pence
claiming that Soleimani provided support to the Saudi 9/11 terrorists. Laughable if it wasn't
so tragic. But of course at one time the talking point was Saddam orchestrated 9/11 and was in
cahoots with Osama bin Laden.
I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour.
After the Iraq WMD, Gadhaffi threat and Assad the butcher and the incorrigible terrorist
loving Taliban posing such imminent threats that we must use our awesome military to bomb,
invade, occupy, while spending trillions of dollars borrowed from future generations, and our
soldiers on the ground serving multiple tours, and our fellow citizens buy into the latest
rationale for killing an Iranian & Iraqi general, without an ounce of skepticism, says a
lot!
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how Trump's re-election will go when we are engaged in a
full scale military conflagration in the Middle East? It sure will give Tulsi & Bernie an
excellent environment to promote their anti-neocon message. You can see it in Trump's
ambivalent tweets. On the one hand, I ordered the assassination of Soleimani to prevent a war
(like we needed to burn the village to save it), while on the other hand, we have 52 sites
locked & loaded if you retaliate. Hmmm!! IMO, he has seriously jeapordized his re-election
by falling into the neocon Deep State trap. They never liked him. The coup by law enforcement
& CIA & DNI failed. The impeachment is on its last legs. Voila! Incite him into another
Middle Eastern quagmire against what he campaigned on and won an election.
I would think that Khamanei has no choice but to retaliate. How is anyone's guess? I doubt
he'll order the sinking of a naval vessel patrolling the Gulf or fire missiles into the US base
in Qatar. But assassination....especially in some far off location in Europe or South America?
A targeted bombing here or there? A cyber attack at a critical point. I mean not indiscriminate
acts like the jihadists but highly calculated targets. All seem extremely feasible in our
highly vulnerable and relatively open societies. And they have both the experience and skills
to accomplish them.
If ever you have the inclination, a speculative post on how the escalation ladder could
potentially be climbed would be a fascinating read.
"I find it fascinating watching the media spin and how easily so many Americans buy into the
spin du jour."
BP,
Yes, indeed. It is a testament to our susceptibility that there is such limited scepticism
by so many people on the pronouncements of our government. Especially considering the decades
long continuous streams of lies and propaganda. The extent and brazenness of the lies have just
gotten worse through my lifetime.
I feel for my grand-children and great-grand children as they now live in society that has
no value for honor. It's all expedience in the search for immediate personal gain.
I am and have been in the minority for decades now. I've always opposed our military
adventurism overseas from Korea to today. I never bought into the domino theory even at the
heights of the Cold War. And I don't buy into the current global hegemony destiny to bring
light to the savages. I've also opposed the build up of the national security surveillance
state as the antithesis of our founding. I am also opposed to the increasing concentration of
market power across every major market segment. It will be the destruction of our
entrepreneurial economy. The partisan duopoly is well past it's sell date. But right now the
majority are still caught up in rancorous battles on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
A question to the committee: what is the source for the claim that Soleimani bears direct
responsibility for the death of over 600 US military personnel?
If that is the case (and it appears to be) then the US govt's claim is nonsense, as it
clearly says " 'During Operation Iraqi Freedom, DoD assessed that at least 603 U.S. personnel
deaths in Iraq were the result of Iran-backed militants,' Navy Cmdr. Sean Robertson, a Pentagon
spokesman, said in an email."
So those figures represent casualties suffered during the US-led military invasion of Iraq
i.e. casualties suffered during a shooting-war.
If Soleimani is a legitimate target for assassination because of the success of his forces
on the battlefield then wouldn't that make Tommy Franks an equally-legitimate target?
Pulitzer Prize winning author of Caliphate, Romanian-American, Rukmini Callimachi, on the
intelligence on Soleimani "imminent threat" being razor-thin.
You just beat me to her thread, Jack. For the Twitter shy, this is the first of a series of 17
tweets as a teaser:
1. I've had a chance to check in with sources, including two US officials who had
intelligence briefings after the strike on Suleimani. Here is what I've learned. According to
them, the evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is
"razor thin".
IMO, Craig Murray is pointing in the right direction around the word 'immanent,' by pointing
out that it is referring to the legally dubious Bethlehem Doctrine of Self Defense, the
Israeli, UK and US standard for assassination, in which immanent is defined as widely as, 'we
think they were thinking about it.' The USG managed to run afoul of even these overly
permissive guidelines, which are meant only against non-state actors.
@ChuckOrloski
At the time I thought that it might be justified, if Al Qaida actually did 9/11. Now I know
that Al Qaida was and is a CIA operation and have my doubts regarding its involvement in
9/11.
Even if it was, that was on direct orders of its American handlers.
What's more, now I
know for sure that the US government spreads shameless lies, so you can't believe anything it
says. In fact, you can safely assume that everything it says is a lie and be right 99.9% of
the time.
So, I did not see it as a war crime back then, but I do now.
"... work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason ..."
"... Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized . ..."
"... The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and without hesitation! ..."
First, let’s begin by a quick summary of what has taken place (note: this info is still coming in, so there might be corrections
once the official sources make their official statements).
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA .
The Iraqi Parliament has now voted on a resolution requiring the government to press Washington and its allies to withdraw
their troops from Iraq.
Iraq’s caretaker PM Adil Abdul Mahdi said the American side notified the Iraqi military about the planned airstrike minutes
before it was carried out. He stressed that his government denied Washington permission to continue with the operation.
The Iraqi Parliament has also demanded that the Iraqi government must “ work to end the presence of any foreign troops
on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason “
The Iraqi Foreign Ministry said that Baghdad had turned to the UN Security Council with complaints about US violations of
its sovereignty .
Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr said the parliamentary resolution to end foreign troop presence in the country did not go
far enough, calling on local and foreign militia groups to unite . I also have confirmation that the Mehdi Army is being re-mobilized
.
The Pentagon brass is now laying the responsibility for this monumental disaster on Trump (see
here ). The are now slowly waking up to this immense clusterbleep and don’t want to be held responsible for what is coming
next.
For the first time in the history of Iran, a Red Flag was hoisted over the Holy Dome Of Jamkaran Mosque , Iran. This indicates
that the blood of martyrs has been spilled and that a major battle will now happen . The text in the flag say s “ Oh Hussein we
ask for your help ” (u nofficial translation 1) or “ Rise up and avenge al-Husayn ” (unofficial translation 2)
The US has announced the deployment of 3’000 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne to Kuwait .
Finally, the Idiot-in-Chief tweeted the following message , probably to try to reassure his freaked out supporters: “
The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World!
If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way…and
without hesitation! “. Apparently, he still thinks that criminally overspending for 2nd rate military hardware is going to
yield victory…
Analysis
Well, my first though when reading these bullet points is that General Qasem Soleimani has already struck out at Uncle Shmuel
from beyond his grave . What we see here is an immense political disaster unfolding like a slow motion train wreck. Make no mistake,
this is not just a tactical "oopsie", but a major STRATEGIC disaster . Why?
For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void.
Second, the US now has two options:
Fight and sink deep into a catastrophic quagmire or Withdraw from Iraq and lose any possibility to keep forces in Syria
Both of these are very bad because whatever option Uncle Shmuel chooses, he will lost whatever tiny level of credibility he has
left, even amongst his putative "allies" (like the KSA which will now be left nose to nose with a much more powerful Iran than ever
before).
The main problem with the current (and very provisional) outcome is that both the Israel Lobby and the Oil Lobby will now be absolutely
outraged and will demand that the US try to use military power to regime change both Iraq and Iran.
Needless to say, that ain't happening (only ignorant and incurable flag-wavers believe the silly claptrap about the US armed forces
being "THE BEST").
Furthermore, it is clear that by it's latest terrorist action the USA has now declared war on BOTH Iraq and Iran.
This is so important that I need to repeat it again:
The USA is now at war, de-facto and de-jure , with BOTH Iraq and Iran.
I hasten to add that the US is also at war with most of the Muslim world (and most definitely all Shias, including Hezbollah and
the Yemeni Houthis).
Next, I want to mention the increase in US troop numbers in the Middle-East. An additional 3'000 soldiers from the 82nd AB is
what would be needed to support evacuations and to provide a reserve force for the Marines already sent in. This is NOWHERE NEAR
the kind of troop numbers the US would need to fight a war with either Iraq or Iran.
Finally, there are some who think that the US will try to invade Iran. Well, with a commander in chief as narcissistically delusional
as Trump, I would never say "never" but, frankly, I don't think that anybody at the Pentagon would be willing to obey such an order.
So no, a ground invasion is not in the cards and, if it ever becomes an realistic option we would first see a massive increase in
the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not more (depending on the actual plan).
No, what the US will do if/when they attack Iran is what Israel did to Lebanon in 2006, but at a much larger scale. They will
begin by a huge number of airstrikes (missiles and aircraft) to hit:
Iranian air defenses Iranian command posts and Iranian civilian and military leaders Symbolic targets (like nuclear installations
and high visibility units like the IRGC) Iranian navy and coastal defenses Crucial civilian infrastructure (power plants, bridges,
hospitals, radio/TV stations, food storage, pharmaceutical installations, schools, historical monuments and, let's not forget that
one, foreign embassies of countries who support Iran). The way this will be justified will be the same as what was done to Serbia:
a "destruction of critical regime infrastructure" (what else is new?!)
Then, within about 24-48 hours the US President will go on air an announce to the world that it is "mission accomplished" and
that "THE BEST" military forces in the galaxy have taught a lesson to the "Mollahs". There will be dances in the streets of Tel Aviv
and Jerusalem (right until the moment the Iranian missiles will start dropping from the sky. At which point the dances will be replaced
by screams about a "2nd Hitler" and the "Holocaust").
Then all hell will break loose (I have discussed that so often in the past that I won't go into details here).
In conclusion, I want to mention something more personal about the people of the US.
Roughly speaking, there are two main groups which I observed during my many years of life in the USA.
Group one : is the TV-watching imbeciles who think that the talking heads on the idiot box actually share real knowledge and expertise.
As a result, their thinking goes along the following lines: " yeah, yeah, say what you want, but if the mollahs make a wrong move,
we will simply nuke them; a few neutron bombs will take care of these sand niggers ". And if asked about the ethics of this stance,
the usual answer is a " f**k them! they messed with the wrong guys, now they will get their asses kicked ".
Group two : is a much quieter group. It includes both people who see themselves as liberals and conservatives. They are totally
horrified and they feel a silent rage against the US political elites. Friends, there are A LOT of US Americans out there who are
truly horrified by what is done in their name and who feel absolutely powerless to do anything about it. I don't know about the young
soldiers who are now being sent to the Middle-East, but I know a lot of former servicemen who know the truth about war and about
THE BEST military in the history of the galaxy and they are also absolutely horrified.
I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong.
I am now signing off but I will try to update you here as soon as any important info comes in.
The Saker
UPDATE1 : according to the Russian website Colonel
Cassad , Moqtada al-Sadr has officially made the following demands to the Iraqi government:
Immediately break the cooperation agreement with the United States. Close the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Close all U.S. military bases
in Iraq. Criminalize any cooperation with the United States. To ensure the protection of Iraqi embassies. Officially boycott American
products.
Cassad (aka Boris Rozhin) also posted this excellent caricature:
UPDATE3 : al-Manar reports that two rockets have landed near the US embassy in Baghdad.
UPDATE4 :
Zerohedge
is reporting that Iranian state TV broadcasted an appeal made during the funeral procession in which a speaker said that each
Iranian ought to send one dollar per person (total 80'000'000 dollars) as a bounty for the killing of Donald Trump. I am trying to
get a confirmation from Iran about this.
UPDATE5 : Russian sources claim that all Iranian rocket forces have been put on combat alert.
UPDATE6 : the Russian heavy rocket cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" has cross the Bosphorus and has entered the Mediterranean.
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA
Order Now The Essential Saker II: Civilizational
Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire
(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear
who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation
policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please
be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.
(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.
(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:
a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:
a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant
to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more
quickly.
and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in
Name of your link
(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs: You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated. The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will
look like before you send it.
(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdl Mahdi has now officially revealed that the US had asked him to mediate between the US and Iran
and that General Qassem Soleimani to come and talk to him and give him the answer to his mediation efforts. Thus, Soleimani was
on an OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MISSION as part of a diplomatic initiative INITIATED BY THE USA.
If this is true, it makes America's murder of General Soleimani even more outrageous. This would be like the USA sending an
American regime official to some other country for a negotiation only to have him/her drone striked in the process!
America reveals its malign character as even more sick that even its opponents have thought possible.
Perhaps, Iran should request that Mike Pompeo come to Baghdad for a negotiation about General Soleimani 's murder and then
"bug splat" Pompeo's fat ass from a drone!
"For one thing, the US will now become an official and totally illegal military presence in Iraq. This means that whatever SOFA
(Status Of Forces Agreement) the US and Iraq had until now is void."
-I actually read somewhere that the Iraqi government is just a caretaker government and even thought it voted to remove foreign
forces, it is not actually legally binding.
I'm no lawyer. I don't see why that would matter. If a caretaker government is presented with a crisis, why would it not have
the authority to act?
That said, It could be the line the US government chooses to use to insist its presence is still legal. If course the MSM will
repeat and repeat and make it seem real.
Couldn't agree more. When I read that my jaw dropped and I'm sure my eyes went huge. I just couldn't believe they could be that
stupid, or that immoral, that sunk in utter utter depravity. They truly are those who have not one shred of decency, and thus
have no way of recognising or understanding what decency is. Pure psychopath – an inability to grasp the emotions, values, and
world view of those who are normal. This truly is beyond the pale, and this above everything else will ensure the revenge the
heartbroken people of Iran are seeking. May God bless them.
The US Armed Forces do not need to be 'THE BEST". All they need is mountains of second rate ordinance to re-bury Iraq bury Iran
under rubble. They can then keep their forces in tightly fortified compounds and bomb the c**p out of any one who wants to 'steal
their oil', or any one who wants to 'steal the land promised by God to the Chosen People'. The U.S. has always previously been
limited in their avarice for destruction by their desire to be viewed as the 'good guy'. This limitation has now been stripped
away. There is now nothing to stop the AngloZionist entity except naked force in return.
"realistic option we would first see a massive increase in the US troop levels, we are talking several tens of thousands, if not
more (depending on the actual plan)."
Yes, but these are not part of a single force, many of these are more a target than a threat. Besides, they need to be concentrated
into a a few single forces to actually participate in an invasion.
The Saker
To understand troop size and relevance think along these lines. For every US front line soldier there will be 5 others in support
roles, logistics etc. So for every front line fighting Marine there will be 5 others who got him there and who support him in
his work. 10,000 front line fighting troops means 50,000 troops shipping out to the borders of Iran. I think perhaps you would
need 100,000 US front line troops for an invasion AND occupation (because we all know if they go in they aren't going to leave
quickly) We're talking about half a million US troops, this simply isn't going to happen for multiple reasons, not least they
need to amass at some form of base (probably Iraq – yeah right) maybe Kuwait? They'd just be a constant sitting target. Saker
is correct in that if this goes down it's going to be an air campaign (will the Iranians use the S300s they have?) and possibly
Navy supported. the Israelis will help out but in turn make themselves targets at home for rocket attacks. Again I can't see it
happening, it would take too long to arrange plus from the moment it kicks off every US base, individual is just a target to the
majority of anti US forces spread across the whole middle east. I expect back door diplomacy, probably to little effect, and a
ham fisted token blitz of cruise missiles and drone bombs at Iranian infrastructure, sadly this will not work for the Americans,
we will have a long running campaign on ME ground but also mass terrorist activity across the US and some of its allies. Its a
best guess scenario but if that plays out whatever happens to Iran this war will be another long running death by a 1000 cuts
for the US and will guarantee Trump does not get re-elected.
Whoever sold this to Trump (Bolton via Pompeo? Bibi?) has really lit the touch paper of ruin. Yes it stinks of Netanyahoo but
it also reaks of full strength neocon, Bolton style. Trump is dumb enough to fall for it and obviously did.
1. To read the Colonel Cassad website in English or any other language, just go to
https://translate.yandex.com/ and then paste in the Cassad URL, which
is given above but again, it's https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/
The really nice thing is that when you click on links, Yandex Translate automatically translates those links. Two problems, though.
1. For some unknown reason, Yandex always first translates Cassad as English-to-Russian, and then you have to click on a little
window near the top left, to again request Russian-to-English and then it translates everything fine. I do not experience this
problem when using Yandex on any other website. 2. Unlike what Benders-Lee intended when he invented the web browser, the "back
button" almost doesn't work on Yandex Translate. So always right-click to open links in a new tab.
2. The US could probably carry out a large number of air attacks, but the Iranian response would be to destroy all the Gulf
oil facilities AND everything worth bombing in Israel. This potential for offense is Iran's best defense, and, I think, the main
reason why there hasn't been a war. Iran's air defense missiles are probably more effective than the lying MSM will admit, and
might shoot down a large percentage of the humans and aluminum the US would throw at Iran, but it's a matter of attrition, and
Iran would suffer grave damage. We can't rule out that that might be the plan since the Empire is run by psychopaths. A US Army
elite training manual, from 2012 in Kansas, implied that by 2020, Europe would not be a major power. Perhaps they were thinking
that Europe would go out of business from a lack of Persian Gulf oil.
3. As for a ground war against Iran, I don't think the US or even the US with the former NATO coalition, would have any hope
and they know it. A real invasion force would require at least 250,000 troops, probably 500,000, maybe more. 80 million very determined
and united Iranians, many of whom who don't fear martyrdom, would make the Vietnam War look like a bad picnic with fire ants
. Yes, Vietnam had jungle for guerillas to hide behind, but South Vietnamese society was divided and many supported the Americans.
Iran has no such division. Even the Arab province of Khuzestan would stand united, knowing how the Shiite Arabs are mistreated
in the Eastern Province and in Kuwait.
Count me in as part of group two. As a former U.S. Army service member I can assure anyone reading this that this action is an
historic strategic mistake. What the Saker has outlined above is very likely. There is most probably no way to walk back now.
Who in the ME would negotiate with the U.S. Government? Their perfidy is well known. Many citizen in this country feel like they
are held hostage by a government that doesn't represent their interests or feelings. I hope the people in the ME know this.
Since the folks in the ME know that the US is a "pretend democracy" they also realize that the people of the USA are just as oppressed
by the AngloZionist regime as the people abroad. Frankly, I have traveled on a lot of countries and I have never come across anything
like real hostility towards the US American people. The very same people who hate Uncle Shmuel very much enjoy US music, literature,
movies, novel ideas, etc. I believe that the Empire is truly hated across the globe, but not the people of the USA.
Kind regards
The Saker
As long as people of the USA tolerate their government criminal activities around the world, and this is happening for last 70
years, I don't agree with your comment. These crimes are commited in the name of people of the USA, who are doing nothing to prevent
them. As for movies coming from US, most of them are propaganda about 'exceptional nation'. No thanks.
The United States of America is not a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. That being said, the fall elections are going
to be of significant interest.
Couldn't agree with you less Saker. They share the spoils of war, generation after generation. From the killing of indigenous
population to neocolonial resource extraction today, they get their cut. You cannot have it both ways, enjoying the spoils of
war and hiding behind invalid rationalizations, pretending you have no-thingz to do with that.
Russian TV says that there were anti-war demonstrations in 80 (!) US cities.
I don't have the time to check whether this is true, but it sure sounds credible to me.
The Saker
This information is true. I personally took part in the march in Denver, Colorado. I would estimate we had about 500 people,
which is a lot more than most anti-war protests have ever gotten in recent memory.
Do not count out the possibility of a sudden large and massive anti-war movement suddenly springing out of nowhere.
Unfortunately, I do not see how "peaceful" protests will accomplish anything on their own. Rioting may be necessary. The system
needs to be shut down and commerce slow to a crawl so that nobody may ignore this.
I agree that there will first be a period of violent confusion, followed by -- well, what sane person even wants to think about
what possible horrors lie ahead?
The threat of one or more spectacular false flag attacks to further fan the flames would also appear to be a possibility.
Real evil has been unleashed, that is clear. The empire has decided to fight, and to fight very dirty.
Wasn't the Saker working in the employ of the US or NATO when they attacked Srbija without cause? Because that was my understanding.
Actually, no. I was working at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research.
But thanks for showing everybody how ugly, petty and clueless ad hominem using trolls can be!
The Saker
"I can't say which group is bigger, but my gut feeling is that Group Two is much bigger than Group One. I might be wrong."
My personal observation is unfortunately the opposite. I think the population that is over 40 is probably leans 80% toward
the TV-watching imbecile category with zero critical thinking abilities and exposure to four plus decades of propaganda. The population
under 40 is largely too apathetic to have an opinion and unwilling to engage in research.
History will most likely play out in disaster resulting from a corrupt ruling class, systemic institutional rot, and brain-washed
public not realizing what's happened.
I will hazard a guess and say there are far more men than women in Group 1, and many more draft-age young adults of both sexes
in Group 2.
But by and large a disturbing number of people in America regard world events as being akin to a football game, with Team A
and Team B and a score to be kept. If things don't appear to be going well for their "team," they speak and behave irrationally,
with crass statements like "nuke the whole place and turn it into a glass parking lot." Impressive, isn't it? Grown adults, comporting
themselves like overindulged little children, always accustomed to getting their way – and displaying a terrifying willingness
to set the whole house on fire when they don't.
It is a spiritual illness which pollutes the USA. Terrible things will have to happen before the society can become well, again
Even if only 20% of the population join us, that will be enough. Because guess what? The TV-watching imbeciles are fat, lazy,
and they won't do anything to support the government either, and they definitely aren't brave enough to get in the way of an angry
mob
It's interesting to me, this comment of Sakers'. I have been thinking, with these revelations of the utter depravity and total
lack of what was once called "honour " and treating the enemy with respect, of a few instances which seemed to show me that not
all of America was like this.
There is a scene in the much loved but short lived** TV series "Firefly" in which the rebel "outsider" spaceship Captain offers
a doctor on the run a berth with them. The Doctor says "but you dont like me. You could kill me in my sleep" to which the Captain
replies "Son, you dont know me yet, So let me tell you know, If i ever try to kill you, you will be awake, you will be facing
me, and you will be armed"
Exactly I thought. There is a Code of Honour by which battles used to be fought. This latest by US has shown how low it's Ruling
Regime is, that is doesn't not see that. But from examples like the above, I gathered that there are people in America who still
hold to it closely – and that's good to know.
** Short lived because it showed as it's heroes a group of people who lived outside the Ruling Tyrannical Regime, who had fought
for Independence and lost, and now lived "by their wits" and not always according to law. Not surprising that the rulers of US
weren't going to allow that to go to air!!
Unfortunately I believe the largest group in the USA is the "nuke 'em group". All of my friends watch Fox and none have an understanding
of the empire.
Sake thank you as always for your excellent work. What do you think Iran will attack first?
Thanks Saker for this discussion/information space you provide when nothing is very trustworthy and on what is a holiday week
end for you.
Two points:
Never underestimate the perfidy of the Kurds. They held back on the censure/withdrawal vote in the Iraqi\
parliament and are probably offering withdrawal airport space for US military.
And Agreed, about most Americans being absolutely horrified and ashamed.Even Alex Jones had to put Syrian Girl on and to post
her on video.banned. One of his callers demanded that Alex apologize to his listening audience on "bended knee" for his support
of Trump's attack on Iran. When Alex tried to schmooze
the irate caller -- The man started yelling -- "Who cares, Alex, who cares about Iran my neighbors have no jobs
and are dying from drug overdoses. who cares about Israel? Let them take care of themselves."
Trump has sealed his own fate on many levels and ours her in looneylandia. It is said that a nation gets the leadership it
deserves. We are about to become a nation of the yard-sale.
Whew, this is something to chew on and try to digest. That first point jumped right off the page. General Soleimani was on an
official diplomatic mission, requested by the U.S.! They set him up and were waiting for him to get in his car at the airport
and go onto the road.
The entire world will know there is no way to justify this. It is just as ugly as the public murder of JFK. They have zero credibility
in all they say and do. It will be interesting to see who supports what is coming and who have gotten the message from this murder
and have decided they cannot support this beast.
How many missiles does the us have in the middle east?
How many air defense missiles does have iran?
Does iran have the ability to destroy us airbases to prevent aircraft from attacking iranian territory? That would be my first
move: destroying the ennemy s fighter jets while they are still on the ground.
How many missiles does iran can launch ? How far can they hit?
I think these are important questions if we want to make a good assessment of the situation
Thank you for the continuing courageous, fact-based reporting.
All as-yet-unenslaved-minds of the oppressed people living under the auspices of the empire share the horror of what has happened,
made worse so, for I personally, learning the evil duplicity of the 'fake' diplomacy of the masters of the U.S.A. administration.
If there had been any credibility whatsoever, left for the U.S.A. diplomatic integrity, it is now completely murdered.
I should like to point out, yet again, the perverse obviousness of the utter subordination of the utterly testiclesless
america n ' leadership ' by the affiliates, dually loyal extra-nationals, aligned to the quasi-nation of
pychopathic hatred against humanity.
In spite of, and now increasingly because of, the absurd perception management/propaganda agencies, completely controlled by
this aforementioned affiliation, and their ongoing absurd efforts, people are becoming aware of the ultimate source of the hatred
and agenda we re witnessing in the ME, and indeed, in ever country under the auspices of the empire.
It is becoming impossible to cover, even for the most timid followers of the citizens of empire-controlled nation states.
The war continues against the non-subliminated citizens, and will certainly escalate as the traction of the perception-management
techniques have been pushed way over their best-before date.
Even not wanting to know this, people are becoming aware of it.
I urge all those self-identifying with this affiliation of secretive hatred against humanity to disavow either publicly, or
privately, this collective of hatred.
The recusement of the fifth-column will undermine these machinations.
It is now the time to realize that no promise of superior upward mobility, in exchange for activities supporting the affiliation,
is worth the stark prospect of complete destruction of the biosphere.
Saker: what makes you think it will just be a couple of days of bombing? I would have thought they would set up a no fly zone
then fly over that country permanently blowing the shit out of any military thing on the ground until the gov collapses.
Iran doesn't have the ability to prevent this & running a country under these conditions is impossible.
Set up a no-fly zone over Iran? Iran is well aware of American air-power. They have a multi-layer air defense. And I wouldn't
be surprised that the Iranian's are capable of taking out U.S. satellites.
Iran knows their enemy. They have been preparing for conflict with the U.S. for 40 years. This is a sophisticated, and highly
advanced nation, with brilliant leadership. They understand what their weaknesses are, and what their strengths are.
The wild cards are threefold: Russia. China. North Korea. If one wants to think about the possible asymmetrical capabilities
of those three, let alone the pure power their militaries, it boggles the mind.
Prediction: The U.S. stands down on orders of their own military. People like John Bolton quietly pass away in their sleep.
The only no fly zone to be implemented will be on all american warplanes over Iran and Iraq. Do you remember the multimillion
drone that went down? Multipliy it by hundreds of manned planes. God, how delusional can you be?!!!
You have a fighting force that is a disgrace composed by little girls that start screeming once they get bullets flying over their
heads. You have aircraft battle groups that are sitting ducks waitng to go to the bottom of the sea. Wake up and get your pills,
man!
Paul23, from where will the aircraft take off to implement your "no-fly zone"? Any air base within 2,000 km would be destroyed
by a shower of cruise missiles and possibly drones.
It is Group 1 -- loud, reactionary, extremely vulgar, militant parasites -- which defines the US national character. Exceptional
and indispensable simply mean "entitled to other peoples' natural resources and labour output". Trying to reason with these lowlives
is a waste of time. Putin understands this; hence the new Russian weapons. The latter will be needed very soon.
Americans are a good people but America is one of the most heavily propagandized nations in the world. The media is corrupt.
The educational systems teach a sanitized version of history. But that is only a part of it.
Pro-Military propaganda is everywhere. Even before the Superbowl, jet bombers fly over the stadium – as if Militarism constituted
a basic American value. At Airports, "Military Personnel" are given preferential boarding. At retail stores customers are asked
to make donations to "military families." College football games are dedicated to "Military Appreciation Day." High Schools work
in unison with Military Recruiters to steer students into the Military. Even playground facilities for children that have video
displays display pro military messages. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Most of this propaganda is paid for out of the obscene military budget. The average citizen doesn't have a chance.
Americans are a good people, if they really knew what was being done in their name, they would put a stop to it.
Militant parasites do live in a world of total lies, deception, and delusion but never at the expense of their survival
instincts. US imperial coercion, mayhem, and murder globally are absolutely crucial to the American way of life, and the 99% know
it. Their living standards would drop enormously without the imperial loot. Thus, they dearly yearn for all the repression, war,
and chauvinism they vote for and more.
One thing is telling, at least for me. Who the f in the right state of mind kills other state's official and then admits of doing
it?!? The common sense sense tells me that you do something and to avoid bigger consequences you stay quet and deny everything.
Just like CIA is doing. Trump just put US military personnel in grave danger. We know how they accused Manning for showing the
to the world US war crimes. They put him in the jail for what Trump just did. But, I cannot believe that they are that much stupid.
If US does not want war, as Trump is saying, they could have done this and then blame someone else because now it has been shown
that they wanted to "talk" to Iran, as Iraqis PM said. At least, US brought new meaning to the word "talk"
The most damaging, no most devestating, assymetrical attack on the US would be a 'non violent' attack.
Let me quickly explain.
It has been well known since the exposure of the man behind the curtain during the great financial crisis of 2007-08 that all
Human operations – all Human life in fact – is financialised in some way.
Some ways being so sophisticated or 'subtle' that barely 1 person in 1000 is even aware, much less capable of understanding
them, much less the financial control grid (and state / deepstate power base) which empoverishs them and enslaves them to an endless
cycle of aquiring and spending 'money'.
Look deeply and the wise will see how 'Human resources' (as opposed to Human Beings) are herded like cattle to be worked on
the farm, 'fleeced', or slaughtered as appropriate to the money masters.
We have been programmed, trained, and conditioned to call 'currency units' (dollar/euro/pound/yuan, etc) 'money', when they
are actually nothing of the sort, they are state or bank issued money substitutes.
In the middle east and north africa some leaders recognised this determined how to escape slavery and subjegation. They attempted
to field this knowledge like an economic-nuke, but without the massive protection required, and they were destroyed by the empire
– Sadam Hussain with his oil for Gold (and oil for Euros) program, and Col. Gadaffi of Libya with his North African 'Gold Dinar'
and 'Silver Durham' Islamic money program.
To cut a very long story short – the evil empire depends upon all nations and peoples excepting thier pieces of paper currency
units as 'real' money – which the empire print / create in unlimited quantities to fund thier war machine and global progrram
of domination.
All financial markets are either denominated or settled in US Dollars (or are at least convertable).
All Nations Central Banks (except Irans I believe) are linked via various US Dollar exchange / liquidity mechanisms, and all
'settle' in US Dollars.
Currently all nations use US controlled electronic banking communications / exchange / tranfer systems (swift being the most
well known).
Would it therefore not make sence to go for the very beating heart of the Beast – the US financial system?
The most powerful attack against the empire would therefore be against this power base – the global reserve currency – the
US dollar – and the US ability to print any quantity of it (or create digits on a screen and call them 'Dollar Units').
It would be pointless trying to fight an emnemy capable of printing for free enough currency to buy every resource (including
peoples lives) – unless that super ability was destroyed or disrupted.
Example of a massive nuclear equivilent attack on the beast would be an internal and major disrruption of interbank electronic
communications (at all levels from cash machine operation and card payment readers up to interbank transfers and federal banking
operations).
Shut down the US banking system and you shut down the US war machine.
Not only that you shut down the US ability to buy resources and bribe powerful leaders – which means they wont be able to recover
from such a blow quickly.
Shutting down banking and electronic payments of all kinds would cause the US people – particularly those currently enjoying
bread and circus distraction and pacification – to tear appart thier own communities, and each other, as the spoiled and gready
fight for the remaining resources, including food and fuel.
The 'grid' has been studied in great depth by both Russia and China (and Israel as part of thier neo-sampson option) and we
can therefore deduce that Iran has some knowledge of how it works and where the weak links are (and not just the undersea optical
cables and wireless nodes).
I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar.
Reducing the US to an empoverished 3rd world state by taking its check book away would be a worthy and lasting revenge and
humiliation.
" I, and a thousand other people have always said, the best, perhaps only way to defeat the US and end its reign of terror on
this Earth is to take away its ability to create out of thin air the Worlds global reserve currency – the US Dollar. "
No, the best way would be for each nation to ditch the intertwined, privately ( Rothschild ) controlled central banks, and
to return to printing their own money. Anything, short of that will just perpetuate the same system from a different home base
( nation ), most likely China next. This virus can jump hosts and it will given a chance.
Who knows what will happen, but an actual boots on the ground invasion of Iran will not happen. Iran is not Irak and things have
changed since that war.
US does not have 6 to 12 months to gather it's forces and logistics for an invasion (remember, the election is coming), plus
US no longer has the heavy lift assets to do this. Toss in the fact that Iran is now on a war footing and has allies in the general
AO, hired RoRo's and other logistics and supply assets will be targets before they get anywhere near the ports or beaches to off
load. Plus, you can kiss oil goodbye, Iran will close the straights a nanosecond after the first bomb is in the air.
An air assault such as Serbia will be very expensive, Iran will fight back from the first bomb if not before, and Iran has
a pretty viable air defense system and the missiles to make life miserable for any cluster of troops and logistics within roughly
300 kilometers of the borders if not longer. Look at a map. There is a long border between Iran and Irak, but as such and considering
the terrain, any viable ground attack has to come from Irak territory. With millions of Iraki's seething at what Uncle Sugar just
did and millions of Iranians seething at what Uncle Sugar just did, any invading troops will not be greeted with showers spring
blossoms. To paraphrase a quote, 'You will be safe nowhere, our land will be your grave.'
Toss in the fact that an invasion of Irak, if even half successful, will put American troops on a war footing perilously close
to Russian territory and possibly directly on the Russian Lake, aka Caspian Sea, and sovereign territory of Russia. Won't happen,
VVP will not allow it.
Ergo, in spite of all the bluster and chest beating, at best all Foggy Bottom can do is bomb, bomb some more and bomb again.
The cost in airframes and captured pilots will be a disaster and if RoRo's and other logistic heavy lift assets or bases are hit,
the body bags coming back to Dover will be of numbers that can not be hidden as they are today with explanations that the dead
are victims of training accidents or air accidents.
Foggy Bottom, and Five Points with Langley, have painted themselves in to a corner and unfortunately for them, (and it's within
the realm of possibility that Five Points egged Trump on for this deal regardless of their protestations of innocence and surprise)
they are now in a case of put up or shut up. As a point of honor they will continue down the spiral path of open warfare and war
is like a cow voiding it's watery bowels, it splatters far beyond the intended target.
As my friend said a few years ago, damn you, damn your eyes, damn your souls, damn you back to Satan whose spawn you are. Go
back to your fetid master and leave us in peace.
Never The Last One, paper back edition. https://www.amazon.com/dp/1521849056
A deep look in to Russia, her culture and her Armed Forces, in essence a look at the emergence of Russian Federation.
"UPDATE2: RT is reporting that "One US service member, two contractors killed in Al-Shabaab attack in Kenya, two DoD personnel
injured". Which just goes to prove my point that spontaneous attacks are what we will be seeing first and that the retaliation
promised by Iran will only come later."
Saker, Some of us might be curious to know what your experience with the UN Institute for Disarmament Research informs you about
the imminent Virginia gun bans and confiscations planned for this year and next. Can Empire afford to fight an actual shooting
war on two fronts, one externally against Iraq/Iran and the second internally against its own people, some of whom will paradoxically
be called away to fight on the first front? Perhaps the two conflicts could become conjoined as Uncle Shmuel mislabels every peaceful
gun owner who just wants to be left alone as a foreign enemy-sympathizer and combatant by default, thereby turning brother against
brother in a bloody prolonged hell in the regions immediately around Washington DC? Could the Empire *truly* be that suicidal?
'Mr. Trump, the Gambler! Know that we are near you, in places that don't come to your mind. We are near you in places that you
can't even imagine. We are a nation of martyrdom. We are the nation of Imam Hussein You are well aware of our power and capabilities
in the region. You know how powerful we are in asymmetrical warfare You know that a war would mean the loss of all your capabilities.
You may start the war, but we will be the ones to determine its end '
Gen. Soleimani (2018)
Hello Saker,
I would like to ask you a question.
According to the Russian nuclear doctrine "The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the
use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against itself or its allies and also in response to large-scale aggression
involving conventional weapons in situations that are critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies."
In your opinion does Russia consider Iran such an ally? Will Russia shield Iran against USAn / Israeli nuclear strikes? In case
of an imminent nuclear strike on Iran is Russia (and possibly others) going to issue a nuclear ultimatum to the would-be aggressor?
And in case an actual nuclear attack on Iran happens is Russia going to retaliate / deter further attacks with its own nukes?
What is your opinion?
One thing: please do not start explaining why the above scenario is completely unthinkable, unrealistic and why it would never
ever happen. I need your opinion on the possible events if such an attack does take place or it is about to happen. I do not need
reasons why it would not happen; I need your opinion what might take place if it does happen. If you cannot answer my question,
have no opinion or simply do not want to answer it please let me know it.
In case there is a formal commitment by Russia – one I know not of – when, where was it made?
Thanks in advance.
I think USA still has nuclear option.
They will not hesitate to use it on Iran if Israel is in danger.
So, I think Iran shall be defeated anyway, as USA is much stronger.
Wrong. If the US uses nukes, then this will secure the total victory of Iran.
The Saker
How does this secure a total victory, dear Saker? Please help my to understand this: Nukes on every major city, industrial site,
infrastructure with pos. millions dead – how is this a victory?
I think that if Iran were to launch some devastating missiles into Israel, either a US ship/submarine or Israel will launch a
nuclear bomb into Iran. The US knows there is nothing to be gained by a ground invasion. If we [the US] were to start launching
missiles into Iran, Iran would rightfully be launching sophisticated arms back toward US ships and Israel and the US can't stand
for that. We are good at dishing it out, but lousy at receiving it.
I can only believe we assassinated Solieman [apologies] because it is the writhing of a dying petrodollar. The US is desperate.
But I don't understand how going to war is supposed to help?
"Beijing's ties with Tehran are crucial to its energy and geopolitical strategies, and with Moscow also in the mix, a broader
conflagration is a real possibility"
Last but not least, Happy Nativity to all Orthodox Christians (thanks for the beautifully illustrated Orthodox calendar, The
Saker.)
Let us all pray for peace.
Trump is the King of the South. Killing under a flag of parley is a rare thing these days and is the reason why Trump will end
up going to war with no allies by his side just like the path mapped oit for him in Daniel.
It's not a blunder.
Trump's goals pre-assassination:
1) withdraw US troops from the ME ("Fortress America") and
2) placate Israel
This is how it is done. Not a direct "hey guys, we have to bring the boys home." Trump tried that and got smashed by the Deep
State and Israel. Instead, he is going to force the Islamic world to do the talking for him by refusing to host our pariah army
(that's all they have to do, not destroy a major US base or two). Then even the Deep State will admit it's a lost cause. He can
say he did all he could while achieving his goals.
As The Saker pointed out, the troops being sent now are to evacuate, not to conquer Tehran. Next time this year the US will have
its troops home and Trump will be reelected
"... Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country. ..."
"... The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country? ..."
"... What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers. ..."
"... "We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran." Tulsi Gabbard. ..."
"... Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country which does not honor the most basic of international law? ..."
"... Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'. ..."
"... Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary executions...What you make of this? https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some other think tankers.. ..."
"... Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be. On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work. ..."
Qasem Soleimani was an Iranian soldier. He lived by the sword and died by the sword. He met
a soldier's destiny. It is being said that he was a BAD MAN. Absurd! To say that he was a BAD
MAN because he fought us as well as the Sunni jihadis is simply infantile. Were all those who
fought the US BAD MEN? How about Gentleman Johhny Burgoyne? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Sitting
Bull? Was he a BAD MAN? How about Aguinaldo? Another BAD MAN? Let us not be juvenile.
The Iraqi PMU commander who died with Soleimani was Abu Mahdi al Muhandis. He was a member
of a Shia militia that had been integrated into the Iraqi armed forces. IOW, we killed an Iraqi
general. We killed him without the authorization of the supposedly sovereign state of Iraq.
We created the present government of Iraq through the farcical "purple thumb" elections.
That government holds a seat in the UN General Assembly and is a sovereign entity in
international law in spite of Trump's tweet today that said among other things that we have
"paid" Iraq billions of US dollars. To the Arabs, this statement that brands them as hirelings
of the US is close to the ultimate in insult.
Somehow the Ziocons around Trump have forgotten that the present state of Iraq refused to
yield to Obama's demands for a SOFA and in effect expelled the US from the country.
The Iraqi parliament is going to vote in emergency session over the issue of the death of
al-Muhandis. Will they vote to expel the US from their country?
Will we go if they vote that way? We should. If we do not, then we will be exposed as
imperialist hypocrites.
Trump should welcome such a vote. He wants to get out of the ME? What greater opportunity
could we have to do so?
Let us leave if invited to go. Let the oh, so clever locals deal with their own hatreds and
rivalries. pl
What a lot of commentators seem to overlook is that America has basically declared war on
Iraq, while our soldiers are hosted on joint bases with Iraqi soldiers.
But...Elora guesses you are being rhetorical here...because... if he would have died by
the sword...would not have he had the opportunity to defend himself against his
enemy/opponent?
Instead...he was caught on surprise...unarmed...and hit by an overwhelming force...he was
going to some funerals...
"We need to get out of Iraq and Syria now. That is the only way that we're going to prevent
ourselves from being dragged into this quagmire, deeper and deeper into a war with Iran."
Tulsi Gabbard.
Some impressive images worth thousands words...just to remember everybody that this man was
an appreciated human being...doing his duty....for his motherland...and his God....
To better understand the pain of that elderly yazidi woman in the video, some testimony by
Rania Khalek on the role of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ( the other militia commander killed who is
being as well slandered as terrorist along Soleimani ...) in stopping yazidi genocide in Iraq
when nobody else was giving a damn, less any help, for this people...
Assassination of generals, one from an allied country, one from a country with which we have
no declared war, and both assassinations performed on the territory of an allied, sovereign
country without permission? This is piracy. Why should anyone trust the word of a country
which does not honor the most basic of international law?
And am I alone to be disgusted to see the senior members of our government lie blatantly
and constantly, when they're not fellating the nearest likudnik....
We go where we are wanted and appreciated. We have no skin in Iraq. Build the Wall and
protect our own borders. Concentrate our resources on cyber-security.
Tulsi makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately that disqualifies her for the presidency, not
because she couldn't execute the functions of the presidency, but because neither the party
apparatchiks nor the voters would give her the chance. These days either nationalistic
claptrap or promises of more freebies are what carry the day. Quelle domage, eh?
As for the Iraqi parliament voting to expel U.S. forces? That's an interesting question. If
they did, they'd better vote to expel the "den of spies" at the embassy and insist on our
having a normal sized legation (as all countries would be well advised to do). But if they
do, would we leave? I personally doubt it even though it would be best if we did and let the
Iraqis do what they will, which would probably be reverting back to some sort of strongman
govt, of a type more suited to their cultural traditions and inclinations. It's high time we
afforded the rest of the world the type of cultural and political autonomy we claim to revere
so much.
So, we leave? A good thing for us and for them and the world at large.
Or, we don't? Then we expose the truth the rest of the world already knows, but we at least
expose the truth to our own people who have been fed a steady diet of mendacious BS about
what we've been doing over there all these years.
That attack on the "airport limo" vehicles leaving Baghdad airport sure took some nerve on
our part to think that we could sell something like that...
And, did Trump actually order it, or did someone else in the MIC order it first and Trump
laid claim to it afterwards? Uncle Joe, if he had ordered it, would have afterwards announced
the execution of a fall guy and denied any complicity! If Trump didn't order it, he should
throw whoever did under the bus instead of crowing and wrapping himself in the flag. I wonder
about what actually happened in planning this hit job on prominent military people on their
way to a funeral for 31 people who may or may not have had anything whatsoever to do with the
death of a single American mercenary in Iraq in an attack by persons unknown on a small
outpost.
It's times like this I wish I was a fly on the wall, listening to what the Russian General
Staff conversations regarding this assassination are at this moment.
Trump IMHO would do well to seek Putin's counsel on how to exit the corner that Trump has
backed US into. While this spells problems for our US, it also creates additional problems
for Russia in the ways that could cause them MAJOR problem as well as in a full blown Mideast
War with many players in the mix. Not a good mix either.
Israel can't handle a full blown Mideast War, no matter how much their narcissistic
national psyche thinks they can. Israel is a mere postage stamp in a sea of rage, which
tsunami waves could very easily consume them. Sheldon Adelson and his Likud/NEOCON blowhards
have no concept of what is on the short horizon, that can go one way or the other.
I'm glad I'm retired in this instance. My glass of bourbon is more palatable than the
grains of Mideast sand that fixing to get stirred up.
God help us all.
Pat, why does the US military always get left with the shit-storms to clean up after?
Why?
Will we go if they vote that way? I'll go with no. The Neocons desperately want us in Iraq to protect Israel and stick it to
Iran as much as possible. They have a laundry list of prepared arguments and we have the
dumbest, most compliant, state media in recorded history. We also have a President who
believes that intnl law is for weaklings and loves saying 'take the oil'.
I can hear the talking points already ...
1. 'Obama made the same mistake and it created ISIS.'
2. 'Iran has taken over Iraq, it's not a legitimate request' (look at how we selectively
recognize govts in South America and no one blinks).
3. 'Iran will use Iraq as a base to attack us' (yeah, its about 100 miles closer).
I can't stand what we have become, the jackals have taken over and the MSM attacks the
very few who are not jackals.
OK. Who do you think would have had the power to order the strike? Not the CIA, the
military would not accept such an order. Not the chairman of the JCS, he is not in the chain
of command. That leaves Esper, SECDEF. Really? He looks like a putschist to you? You are
ignorant of the American government.
Take a look at this interview to David Petraeus by FP on yesterday´s summary
executions...What you make of this?
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/03 He sounds as if he were the brain behind this operation on summary executions..along some
other think tankers..
Whoever is President we will have war. The President is just a feckless puppet controlled by
the Zionist. I'll never vote again. It's a waste of time and a farce. Hillary or Donald no
different just a matter of timing. Obama destroyed Libya and Syria. Bush II the simpleton and
his fairy tale WMD lie. I've lost all respect for whatever "the republic" is suppose to be.
On top of that the masses are too stupid for democracy to work.
The oil market should be worried. Iran can stop all traffic through the Straight of Hormuz at
will. And that would start a war. Which would keep it closed. It may be a mistake to think Iran's
leadership is more sane than ours.
Iran might also seek to draw Israel into a conflict via Hezbollah in Lebanon. We can't rule
out some sort of grand-scale attack, but an array of smaller-scale activity is our core
bet.
The risk that something bigger will trigger a real war, however, likely will put a premium
on oil prices for the next few months, at least.
Higher oil prices represent a tax on oil consumers and a windfall for producers. World oil
consumption is about 100M barrels per day, so each five dollars on the prices is equivalent to
an annualized tax of about $183B per year, or 0.1% of global GDP. The U.S., however, is both a
huge oil producer and a consumer. Domestic production runs at almost 13M bpd, with consumption
at 21Mbpd. That would seem to suggest that the net effect of higher prices on the U.S. would be
to depress economic growth, but recent experience points in the opposite direction, because oil
sector capex, in the era of shale, is acutely sensitive to prices, even in the short term. When
oil prices collapsed between spring 2014 and early 2016, the ensuing plunge in capital spending
in the oil sector outweighed the boost to consumers' real income from cheaper gasoline and
heating oil, and overall economic growth slowed markedly. This story played out in reverse when
oil prices rebounded in the three years through spring 2018, and economic growth picked up even
as consumers' real incomes were hit.
... ... ...
The wild card is whether turmoil in the Middle East triggers a sustained sell-off in
equities, depressing business and consumer confidence to the point where labor market and
inflation concerns become secondary. We'd be surprised -- the plunge in S&P futures is just
the initial knee-jerk response -- but if Iran takes more drastic action than we are expecting,
it will become a real risk. In that case, the Fed might have no choice but to ease, especially
if credit markets seize-up too. In the meantime, expect defensive stocks to outperform, with
downward pressure on Treasury yields and gains for safe-haven currencies, until Iran's response
becomes clear. To repeat: Iran will respond.
I still can't get any logical explanation as to why this Israeli spy ring, the largest ever
on U.S. soil, was in The U.S. And, why were they dancing after the first plane impact?
News flash. The government in Washington is extremely unpopular as well. More unpopular in
America than the Iranian government is with Iranians. I am saying this because anyone who spent
any time with Impeachment; read how Barr let Epstein and all pedo elites walk away fully
protected, his hideous Operation Guardian, Trump's complete destruction of 1st Amendment rights
to free speech in the guise of "suppressing antisemitism" ... God, how I hate this tyranny
complete with WalMarts and mulatto invaders and LGBT as "normal", the all tranny military,
meaningless laws we are rounded up and shot to death for the slightest traffic infraction
black, white but never Jewish. They get away with everything. Trump made them a protected
class, Judaism a race and a nationality to have special protections at taxpayer expense. What a
wonderful country I just can't get enough of....
No one will miss the US apart frmo the Americans themselves: the polls are clear worldwide
that the world considers the Americans to be ruled by the most aggressive and psychopathic
regimes. They have killed millions since WWII and the world would be a much better place
without the US.
The price of crude oil has jumped over $2 USD on the world markets since the news
I expect the US to fully resist being booted out of Iraq (which would also make it's two
major positions in Syria highly untenable). who could now believe that US troops in Iraq and
Syria won't come under sustained attack now, by the many allies Iran has in the area?
Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Sistani considers "the #US attack against the #BaghdadAirport
is a clear violation of #Iraq sovereignty".
That is clear support for the US withdrawal from #Iraq.
AND
S Sistani condemns the "attack against Iraqi (not Iranian-militia) position on the borders
killing our Iraqi sons to the hateful attack on #BaghdadAirport is a violation and
internationally unlawful (US) act against anti-#ISIS hero(s) leading to difficult times for
#Iraq".
Really, the ball is in Iraq's court. This is an attack on Iraqi sovereignty as much as an act
of war on Iran. We will now see what the Iraqi are made of.
Trump was personally responsible for having the organisation Soleimani led declared a
terrorist organisation. Time to quit the "Trump is a dumbfuck led by others" Trump is around
70 and has been his own boss all his life. He is now commander in chief of the US military.
He gives the orders, nobody else. He doesn't give a shit about the cold war and Europe, hence
people thinking he is a peacenik. What he does care about is enemies of Israel and control of
energy.
The best revenge the Iraninans could have would be the expulsion of US troops from Iraq and
Syria, which by the way was also the overarching goal of Soleimani...
Trump doesn't give a shit about soft power. He believes in hard power. Iraq has no defence
against the US, and Trump intends to attack Iran. He needs a 9 11 to take the American
population with him.
Calls upon Member States that have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures,
in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as
well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law, on the territory under
the control of ISIL also known as Da'esh, in Syria and Iraq, to redouble and coordinate
their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts committed specifically by ISIL also
known as Da'esh as well as ANF, and all other individuals, groups, undertakings, and
entities associated with Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the United
Nations Security Council, and as may further be agreed by the International Syria Support
Group (ISSG) and endorsed by the UN Security Council, pursuant to the Statement of the
International Syria Support Group (ISSG) of 14 November, and to eradicate the safe haven
they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria;
USA have made it very clear that they are not leaving Syria and the same thinking/excuses
likely applies to Iraq.
Some will argue that using UN2249 as justification for over-staying and virtual
occupation is wrong-headed. Nevertheless, USA claims to remain to ensure against a resurgence
of ISIS. Clearly they intend to stay until their goals are met or they are forced out
militarily.
I suspect I'm not the only MoA barfly who thinks the assassination of Hossein Soleymani could
have been planned with Mossad or other organisations and individuals in Israeli society.
The Iraqis are certainly capable of making life for the US very uncomfortable in Iraq and
Syria, even if not force withdrawal. The present US structure and numbers depend on Iraqi
acquiescence, and that's about shot, even before the assassination. If the position is to be
maintained without Iraqi acquiescence, then thousands more troops would be required, and that
wouldn't go down well back home in the States. That's one of the reasons why the act was a
grave miscalculation.
This was not Trump`s decision. Trump had to take responsibilty to show he is in command. He
will soon realize that he was played by the CIA and the Israelis. By then it is too late.
The US and its vassals are speeding up confrontation with the Axis because they know that the
showdown is inevitable. However, It will not happen according to the US timetable.
Keep a good supply of popcorn on hand. The pandora box has plenty of surprises. The question
remains,
I figure Iran will have to retaliate and thus this will likely escalate. The Saker initially
thinks war is 80% certain, I think it's probably a bit higher than that.
Posted by: TEP | Jan 3 2020 10:49 utc | 36
The Iranians would be foolish to allow themselves to be goaded like that.
The other possible replacements include Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, Deputy Secretary of
State Biegun, U.S. ambassador to Germany Ric Grenell, Trump's Iran envoy Brian Hook, and two
hard-liners from the Senate, Marco Rubio and Tom Cotton. Most of these names inspire some
mixture of loathing and dread, and of the seven men being considered Biegun is the only one
remotely qualified to take the job. Hook has
disqualified himself , and he shouldn't even be working at the State Department right now
much less running it. Grenell functions as little more than an international
troll , and he has done a terrible job representing the U.S. in Berlin, so promoting him
would be an equally terrible mistake.
Rubio and Cotton are fanatics with the most toxic foreign policy views, and they would also
likely be very poor managers of the department. In that respect, they are very much like
Pompeo. Mnuchin would likely have great difficulty getting confirmed, and replacing one
sanctions-happy Secretary with the Treasury Secretary who has been enforcing those sanctions is
no improvement at all. As for O'Brien, he was a
bad choice for National Security Advisor , he has done nothing since he took over from
Bolton to suggest otherwise, and so it makes absolutely no sense to promote him. Biegun clearly
has the confidence of the Senate following his overwhelming confirmation vote to be Deputy
Secretary, so having him take over the department for whatever time is left in Trump's term
seems the best available choice.
It is a measure of how chaotic and unsuccessful Trump's foreign policy is that we are
talking about the possible nomination of a third Secretary of State in less than three years.
Pompeo has outlasted many of his administration colleagues to become one of the longest-serving
Cabinet officials under this president, and his tenure is not even two years old. It is no
wonder that the list of likely replacements is so weak. Who would want to join a scandal-ridden
administration with a failed foreign policy?
Pompeo's departure will be good news for the State Department, and the sooner it comes the
better. There has rarely been a Secretary of State as dishonest and political as Pompeo, and
his brief time running the department has been one of the low points in its history.
Considering the damage that Pompeo has done along with the harm done by Tillerson, the next
Secretary of State will have a lot of work to do to rebuild and not much time to do it in.
Pompeo should clear the way for the next Secretary and resign as soon as possible.
"... 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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
"... 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.
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.
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 .
"... "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'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.
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.
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)
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.
"... 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.
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...
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.
"... 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 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.
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 .
"... 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."
"...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.
"... 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.
"... 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.
"... 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..
"... 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.
"... 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.
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.
"... 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.
"... 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
[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.
"... 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 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 déjà 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
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.
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 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.
Bolton power over Trump is connected to Adelson power over Trump. To think about Bolton as pure advisor is to seriously
underestimate his role and influence.
Notable quotes:
"... But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety. ..."
"... A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U. ..."
"... "Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," ..."
"... Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble. ..."
"... The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo, especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas. ..."
"... Tulsi for Sec of State 2020... ..."
"... Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner for failing to "win". ..."
"... You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the last 50 years. ..."
"... I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people and far too many details. ..."
"... Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they could matter. ..."
"... Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central to many of our poor strategic decision making. ..."
"... I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he really does not want one. ..."
"... "Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats." ..."
"... So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks ..."
"... If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee? ..."
It's time for Trump to stop John Bolton and Mike Pompeo from
sabotaging his foreign policy | Mulshine
"I put that question to another military vet, former Vietnam Green Beret Pat Lang.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed," said Lang of Trump.
But Lang, who later spent more than a decade in the Mideast, noted that Bolton has no direct
control over the military.
"Bolton has a problem," he said. "If he can just get the generals to obey him, he can start
all the wars he wants. But they don't obey him."
They obey the commander-in-chief. And Trump has a history of hiring war-crazed advisors who
end up losing their jobs when they get a bit too bellicose. Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley
comes to mind."
" In Lang's view, anyone who sees Trump as some sort of ideologue is missing the point.
"He's an entrepreneurial businessman who hires consultants for their advice and then gets
rid of them when he doesn't want that advice," he said.
So far that advice hasn't been very helpful, at least in the case of Bolton. His big mouth
seems to have deep-sixed Trump's chance of a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. And
that failed coup in Venezuela has brought up comparisons to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion
during the Kennedy administration." Mulshine
--------------
Well, pilgrims, I worked exclusively on the subject of the Islamic culture continent for the
USG from 1972 to 1994 and then in business from 1994 to 2006. I suppose I am still working on
the subject. pl
I don't get it I suppose. I'd always thought that maybe you wanted highly opinionated Type A
personalities in the role of privy council, etc. You know, people who could forcefully
advocate positions in closed session meetings and weren't afraid of taking contrary
positions. But I always figured you needed to keep the blowhards under cover so they wouldn't
stick their feet in their mouths and that the public position jobs should go to the smoothies..You, know, diplomats who were capable of some measure of subtlety.
But these days it's the loudmouths who get these jobs, to our detriment. When will senior
govt. leaders understand that just because a person is a success in running for Congress
doesn't mean he/she should be sent forth to mingle with the many different personalities and
cultures running the rest of the world?
A clod like Bolton should be put aside and assigned
the job of preparing position papers and a lout Like Pompeo should be a football coach at RoosterPoot U.
No. I would like to see highly opinionated Type B personalities like me hold those jobs. Type
B does not mean you are passive. It means you are not obsessively competitive.
"Once he's committed to a war in the Mideast, he's just screwed,"
Not only Trump, at the same time the swamp creatures risk losing control over the Democrat
primaries, too. With a new major war in the Mideast, Tulsi Gabbard's core message of
non-interventionism will resonate a lot more, and that will lower the chances of the
corporate DNC picks. A dangerous gamble.
Interesting post, thank you sir. Prior to this recent post I had never heard of Paul
Mulshine. In fact I went through some of his earlier posts on Trump's foreign policy and I
found a fair amount of common sense in them. He strikes me as a paleocon, like Pat Buchanan,
Paul Craig Roberts, Michael Scheuer, Doug Bandow, Tucker Carlson and others in that mold.
The other day I was thinking to myself that if Trump decides to dismiss Bolton or Pompeo,
especially given how terrible Venezuela, NKorea, and Iran policies have turned out (clearly
at odds with his non-interventionist campaign platform), who would he appoint as State Sec
and NS adviser? and since Bolton was personally pushed to Trump by Adelson in exchange for
campaign donation, would there be a backlash from the Jewish Republican donors and the loss
of support? I think in both cases Trump is facing with big dilemmas.
My best hope is that
Trump teams up with libertarians and maybe even paleocons to run his foreign policy. So far
Trump has not succeeded in draining the Swamp. Bolton, Pompeo and their respective staff
"are" indeed the Swamp creatures and they run their own policies that run against Trump's
America First policy. Any thoughts?
Keeping Bolton and Pompeo on board is consistent with Trump's negotiating style. He is full
of bluster and demands to put the other side in a defensive position. I guess it was a
successful strategy for him so he continues it. Many years ago I was across the table from
Trump negotiating the sale of the land under the Empire State Building which at the time was
owned by Prudential even though Trump already had locked up the actual building. I just sat
there, impassively, while Trump went on with his fire and fury. When I did not budge, he
turned to his Japanese financial partner and said "take care of this" and walked out of the
room. Then we were able to talk and negotiate in a logical manner and consumate a deal that
was double Trump's negotiating bid. I learned later he was furious with his Japanese partner
for failing to "win".
You can still these same traits in the way that Trump thinks about other countries - they
can be cajoled or pushed into doing what Trump wants. If the other countries just wait Trump
out they can usually get a much better deal. Bolton and Pompeo, as Blusterers, are useful in
pursuing the same negotiation style, for better or worse, Trump has used for probably for the
last 50 years.
I have seen this style of negotiations work on occasion. The most important lesson I've learned is the willingness to
walk. I'm not sure that Trump's personal style matters that much in complex negotiations among states. There's too many people
and far too many details. I see he and his trade team not buckling to the Chinese at least not yet despite the intense
pressure from Wall St and the big corporations.
Having the neocons front & center on his foreign policy team I believe has negative
consequences for him politically. IMO, he won support from the anti-interventionists due to
his strong campaign stance. While they may be a small segment in America in a tight race they
could matter.
Additionally as Col. Lang notes the neocons could start a shooting match due to
their hubris and that can always escalate and go awry. We can only hope that he's smart
enough to recognize that. I remain convinced that our fawning allegiance to Bibi is central
to many of our poor strategic decision making.
Just out of curiosity: Did the deal go through in the end, despite Trump's ire? Or was
Trump so furious with the negotiating result of his Japanese partner that he tore up the
draft once it was presented to him?
I agree that this is Trump's style but what he does not seem to understand is that in
using jugheads like these guys on the international scene he may precipitate a war when he
really does not want one.
Mulshine's article has some good points, but he does include some hilariously ignorant bits
which undermine his credibility.
"Jose Gomez Rivera is a Jersey guy who served in the State Department in Venezuela at the
time of the coup that brought the current socialist regime to power."
Wrong. Maduro was elected and international observers seem to agree the election was
fair.
"Perhaps the biggest lie the mainstream media have tried to get over on the American
public is the idea that it is conservatives, that start wars. That's total nonsense of
course. Almost all of America's wars in the 20th century were stared by liberal Democrats."
So what exactly is Pussy John, then, just a Yosemite Sam-type bureaucrat with no actual
portfolio, so to speak? I defer to your vastly greater knowledge of these matters, but at
times it sure seems like they are pursuing a rear-guard action as the US Empire shrinks and
shudders in its death throes underneath them, and at others it seems like they really have no
idea what to do, other than engage in juvenile antics, snort some glue from a paper bag and
set fires in the dumpsters behind the Taco Bell before going out into a darkened field
somewhere to violate farm animals.
If were Lavrov, what would I think to myself were I to
find myself on the other side of a phone call from PJ or the Malignant Manatee?
"... ...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.
"... 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.
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.
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.
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
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Saturday said US sanctions will have no
impact on the policies of the Islamic republic at home or abroad.
"It is obvious that we are facing pressure by the US sanctions. But will that lead to a
change in policy? I can assure you it won't," Zarif told the Doha Forum policy conference in
Qatar.
"If there is an art we have perfected in Iran and can teach to others for a price, it is
the art of evading sanctions," he added.
Sanctions typically fail to change regime behavior, and they are even more likely to fail if
there is no practical way for the targeted regime to get out from under sanctions short of
surrender. The more importance that a regime places on the policies that the outside government
wants to change, the greater the likelihood of failure will be. When the outside government's
goals threaten the regime's security or even its very survival, there is no question of making
a deal.
Because the Trump administration is pursuing regime change in all but name, there is no
chance that Iran will yield to U.S. pressure. The administration's demands are so ambitious and
excessive that no self-respecting state could agree to them without giving up its sovereignty
and independence. It should be clear by now that pressure and coercion inspire defiance and
intransigence. If the U.S. wants to see changes in Iranian international behavior, it would
need to provide assurances and incentives that make taking that risk worth their while. Since
this administration has made a point of reneging on commitments already made to Iran, there are
no assurances that it could make that the Iranian government could trust, and the
administration is allergic to offering any incentives to its negotiating partners for fear of
appearing "weak."
Looks like the recent oil price drop was engineered like in 2014 by the USA
adminsitration...
" Concerns that strict sanctioning of Iranian oil would result in a spike in global oil
prices prompted Trump to grant waivers to eight of Iran's largest purchasers of oil, creating a
situation where Iran's oil-based income will increase following the implementation of sanctions.
The bottom line is that the current round of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran will not achieve
anything. "
Notable quotes:
"... With Iran, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation was an additional justification for sanctions. Here, disarmament concerns eventually trumped regime change desires, to the extent that when the U.S. was confronted by the reality that sanctions would not achieve the change in behavior desired by Tehran, and the cost of war with Iran being prohibitively high, both politically and militarily, it capitulated. It agreed to lift the sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to enhanced monitoring of a nuclear program that was fundamentally unaltered by the resulting agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action, or JCPOA. ..."
"... When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he did so in an environment that was radically different than the one that was in play when President Barack Obama embraced that agreement in July 2015. Today, the U.S. stands alone in implementing sanctions, while Iran enjoys the support of the rest of the world (support that will continue so long as Iran complies with the provisions set forth in the JCPOA.) Moreover, Iran is working with its new-found partners in Europe, Russia, and China to develop work-arounds to the U.S. sanctions. ..."
"... The coalition of support that the U.S. has assembled to confront Iran, built around Israel and Saudi Arabia, is not as solid as had been hoped -- Israel is tied down in Gaza, while Saudi Arabia struggles in Yemen, and is reeling from the fallout surrounding the murder of Jamal Khashoggi ..."
The
imposition of new, more stringent sanctions targeting Iranian oil sales by the Trump
administration has once again raised the question: is this even a viable policy?
The Council on Foreign Relations
defines sanctions as "a lower-cost, lower-risk, middle course of action between diplomacy
and war." In short, sanctions do not represent policy per se, but rather the absence of policy,
little more than a stop-gap measure to be used while other options are considered and/or
developed.
Not surprising, sanctions have rarely -- if ever -- succeeded in obtaining their desired
results. The poster child for successful sanctions as a vehicle for change -- divestment in
South Africa during the 1980s in opposition to the Apartheid regime -- is in reality a red
herring. The South
Africa sanctions were in fact counterproductive , in so far as they prompted even harsher
policies from the South African government. The demise of Apartheid came about largely because
the Soviet Union collapsed, meaning the South African government was no longer needed in the
fight against communism.
Another myth that has arisen around sanctions is their utility in addressing
nonproliferation issues. Since 1994, the U.S. has promulgated non-proliferation sanctions under
the guise of executive orders signed by the president or statutes passed by Congress. But there
is no evidence that sanctions implemented under these authorities have meaningfully altered the
behaviors that they target. Better known are the various sanctions regimes authorized under UN
Security Council resolutions backed by the United States, specifically those targeting Iraq,
North Korea, and Iran.
The Iraq sanctions were, by intent, a stop-gap measure implemented four days after the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait and intended to buy time until a military response could be authorized,
organized, and executed. The nature of the Iraq sanctions regime was fundamentally altered
after Operation Desert Storm, when the objective transitioned away from the liberation of
Kuwait, which was achieved by force of arms, to the elimination of weapons of mass destruction,
which was never the intent of the sanctions to begin with. The potential for sanctions to alter
Iraqi behavior was real -- Iraq had made the lifting of sanctions its top priority, and thanks
to aggressive UN weapons inspections, was effectively disarmed by 1995.
This potential, however, was never realized in large part to the unspoken yet very real
policy on part of the U.S. that sanctions would not be lifted on Iraq, regardless of its level
of disarmament, until which time its president, Saddam Hussein, was removed from power. Since
the sanctions were not designed, intended, or capable of achieving regime change, their very
existence became a policy trap -- as the sanctions crumbled due to a lack of support and
enforcement, the U.S. was compelled to either back away from its regime change policy, which
was politically impossible, or seek regime change through military engagement. In short,
American sanctions policy vis-à-vis Iraq was one of the major causal factors behind the
2003 decision to invade Iraq.
One of the flawed lessons that emerged from the Iraq sanctions experience was that sanctions
could contribute to regime change, in so far as they weakened the targeted nation to the point
that a military option became attractive. This is a fundamentally flawed conclusion, however,
predicated on the mistaken belief that Iraq's military weakness was the direct byproduct of
sanctions. Iraq's military weakness was because its military had been effectively destroyed
during the 1991 Gulf War. Sanctions contributed significantly to Iraq being unable to
reconstitute a meaningful military capability, but they were not the cause of the underlying
systemic problems that led to the rapid defeat of the Iraqi military in 2003.
The "success" of the Iraq sanctions regime helped guide U.S. policy regarding North Korea in
the 1990s and 2000s. Stringent sanctions, backed by Security Council resolutions, were
implemented to curtail North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile
delivery systems. Simple cause-effect analysis shows the impotence of this effort -- North
Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile capability continued unabated, culminating in
nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. soil being tested
and deployed. The notion that sanctions could undermine the legitimacy of the North Korean
regime and facilitate its collapse was not matched by reality. If anything, support for the
regime grew as it demonstrated its willingness to stand up to the U.S. and proceed with its
nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.
The Trump administration labors under the fiction that it was the U.S. policy of "maximum
pressure" through sanctions that compelled North Korea to agree to denuclearization. The
reality, however, is that it is North Korea, backed by China and Russia, that has dictated the
timing of the diplomatic breakthrough with the U.S. ( the
so-called "Peace Olympics" ), and the pace of associated disarmament. Moreover, North
Korea's insistence that any denuclearization be conducted parallel to the lifting of economic
sanctions demonstrates that it is in full control of its policy, and that the promise of the
lifting of economic sanctions has not, to date, prompted any change in Pyongyang's stance.
While President Donald Trump maintains that the U.S. will not budge from its position that
sanctions will remain in place until North Korea disarms, the fact of the matter is that the
sanctions regime is already collapsing, with China opening its border, Russia selling gasoline
and oil, and South Korea engaged in discussions about potential unification.
The U.S. has lost control of the process, if indeed it was ever in control. It is doubtful
that the rest of the world will allow the progress made to date with North Korea to be undone,
leaving the U.S. increasingly isolated. Insisting on the maintenance of a sanctions regime that
has proven ineffective and counterproductive is not sustainable policy. As with Iraq, U.S.
sanctions have proven to be the problem, not the solution. Unlike Iraq, North Korea maintains a
robust military capability, fundamentally altering the stakes involved in any military solution
the U.S. might consider as an alternative -- in short, there is no military solution. One can
expect the U.S. to alter its position on sanctions before North Korea budges on
denuclearization.
Iran represents a far more complex, and dangerous, problem set. The United States has
maintained sanctions against Iran that date back to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that overthrew
the Shah, and the seizure of the U.S. embassy and resultant holding of its staff hostage for
444 days. The U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran has been one where the demise of the ruling
theocracy has been a real, if unstated, objective, and every sanctions regime implemented since
that time has had that outcome in mind. This is the reverse of the Iraqi case, where regime
change was an afterthought to sanctions. With Iran, the issue of nuclear non-proliferation
was an additional justification for sanctions. Here, disarmament concerns eventually trumped
regime change desires, to the extent that when the U.S. was confronted by the reality that
sanctions would not achieve the change in behavior desired by Tehran, and the cost of war with
Iran being prohibitively high, both politically and militarily, it capitulated. It agreed to
lift the sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to enhanced monitoring of a nuclear program
that was fundamentally unaltered by the resulting agreement, known as the Joint Comprehensive
Program of Action, or JCPOA.
When Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, he did so in an environment that was radically
different than the one that was in play when President Barack Obama embraced that agreement in
July 2015. Today, the U.S. stands alone in implementing sanctions, while Iran enjoys the
support of the rest of the world (support that will continue so long as Iran complies with the
provisions set forth in the JCPOA.) Moreover, Iran is working with its new-found partners in
Europe, Russia, and China to develop work-arounds to the U.S. sanctions.
The coalition of support that the U.S. has assembled to confront Iran, built around
Israel and Saudi Arabia, is not as solid as had been hoped -- Israel is tied down in Gaza,
while Saudi Arabia struggles in Yemen, and is reeling from the fallout surrounding the murder
of Jamal Khashoggi .
Concerns that strict sanctioning of Iranian oil would result in a spike in global oil prices
prompted Trump to grant waivers to eight of Iran's largest purchasers of oil, creating a
situation where Iran's oil-based income will increase following the implementation of
sanctions. The bottom line is that the current round of U.S. sanctions targeting Iran will not
achieve anything.
For the meantime, Iran will avoid confrontation, operating on the hope that it will be able
to cobble an effective counter to U.S. sanctions. However, unlike Iraq, Iran has a very capable
military. Unlike Korea, however, this military is not equipped with a nuclear deterrent.
If history has taught us anything, it is that the U.S. tends to default to military
intervention when sanctions have failed to achieve the policy goal of regime change. Trump,
operating as he is under the influence of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security
Advisor John Bolton, is not immune to this trap. The question is whether Iran can defeat the
sanctions through workarounds before they become too crippling and the regime is forced to lash
out in its own defense. This is one race where the world would do well to bet on Iran, because
the consequences of failure are dire.
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 of Dealbreaker:
Donald Trump and the Unmaking of the Iran Nuclear Deal (2018) by Clarity Press.
It's interesting that Clapper is against abandoned by Trump Iran deal.
Tramp administration is acting more like Israeli marionette here, because while there a
strategic advantage in crushing the Iranian regime for the USA and making a county another Us
vassal in the middle East, the cost for the country might be way to high (especially if we count
in the cost of additional antagonizing Russia and China). Trump might jump into the second
Afghanistan, which would really brake the back of US military -- crushing Iran military is one
thing, but occupying such a county is a very costly task. And that might well doom Israel in the
long run as settlers policies now created really antagonized, unrecognizable minority with a high
birth rate.
Vanishing one-by-one of partners are given due to collapse of neoliberalism as an ideology.
Nobody believes that neoliberalism is the future, like many believed in 80th and early 90th. This
looks more and more like a repetion of the path of the USSR after 1945, when communist ideology
was discredited and communist elite slowly fossilized. In 46 years from its victory in WWII the
USSR was dissolved. The same might happen with the USA in 50 years after winning the Cold
War.
Notable quotes:
"... a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program. ..."
"... The United States risks losing the cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security interests around the world, far beyond Iran. ..."
Only well calibrated multilateral political, economic and diplomatic pressure brought to
bear on Iran with many and diverse partners will produce the results we seek.
"Then there were none" was Agatha Christie's most memorable mystery about a house party in
which each guest was killed off one by one. Donald Trump's policy toward Iran has resulted in
much the same: a vanishing one by one of American partners who were previously supportive
of U.S. leadership in curbing Iran, particularly its nuclear program.
Dozens of states, painstakingly cultivated over decades of American leadership in blocking
Iran's nuclear capability, are now simply gone. One of America's three remaining allies on
these issues, Saudi Arabia, has become a central player in American strategy throughout the
Middle East region. But the Saudis, because of the Jamal Khashoggi killing and other reasons,
may have cut itself out of the action. The United Arab Emirates, so close to the Saudis, may
also fall away.
Such paucity of international support has left the Trump administration dangerously
isolated. "America First" should not mean America alone. The United States risks losing the
cooperation of historic and proven allies in the pursuit of other U.S. national security
interests around the world, far beyond Iran.
... ... ...
European allies share many of our concerns about Iran's regional activities, but they
strongly oppose U.S. reinstitution of secondary sanctions against them. They see the Trump
administration's new sanctions as a violation of the nuclear agreement and UN Security Council
resolutions and as undermining efforts to influence Iranian behavior. The new sanctions and
those applied on November 5 only sap European interest in cooperating to stop Iran.
... ... ...
The United States cannot provoke regime change in Iran any more than it has successfully in
other nations in the region. And, drawing on strategies used to topple governments in Iraq and
Afghanistan, the United States should be wary of launching or trying to spur a military
invasion of Iran.
Lt. Gen. James Clapper (USAF, ret.) is the former Director of National Intelligence.
Thomas R. Pickering is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Russia and
India.
Also if administration really wants war, Iran is not Ieaq and will fight more efficiently,
while the US army despite technological supreiority is demoralized. nobody believe into the the
building of global neoliberal empire any longer.
Notable quotes:
"... The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do. ..."
"... If a foreign power waged an economic war against your country, would you be likely to respond to that foreign coercion by effectively taking their side against your own government? Of course not. The idea that Iranians will do the work of their country's enemies by rising up and toppling the regime has always been far-fetched, but it is particularly absurd to think that Iranians would do this after they have just seen their economy be destroyed by the actions of a foreign government. ..."
"... People normally do not respond to economic hardship and diminishing prospects by risking their lives by starting a rebellion against the state. ..."
"... Making Iranians poorer and more miserable isn't going to encourage them to be more politically active, much less rebellious, but will instead force them to focus on getting by. That is likely to depress turnout at future elections, and that is more likely to be good news for hard-line candidates in the years to come. ..."
"... Iran hawks typically don't understand the country that they obsess over, so perhaps it is not surprising that they haven't thought any of this through, but their most glaring failure is not taking into account the importance of nationalism. ..."
Originally
from: The Futility of Trump's Iran Policy By Daniel LarisonNovember
6, 2018, 10:54 AM • The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its
own terms, and it is also the wrong thing to do.
The Trump administration's plan to throttle
the Iranian economy is as poorly-conceived as it is cruel:
"For ordinary people, sanctions mean unemployment, sanctions mean becoming poor, sanctions
mean the scarcity of medicine, the rising price of dollar," said Akbar Shamsodini, an Iranian
businessman in the oil and gas sector who lost his job six months ago as European companies
started to pull out of Iran in fear of US sanctions.
" By imposing these sanctions, they want to force Iranians to rise up in revolt against
their government but in practice, they will only make them flee their country [bold
mine-DL]," he said, adding that ironically it would be Europe that would have to bear the
burden of such a mass migration.
"We're being squashed here as an Iranian youth who studied here, worked here, the only
thing I'm thinking about now is how to flee my country and go to Europe."
If a foreign power waged an economic war against your country, would you be likely to
respond to that foreign coercion by effectively taking their side against your own government?
Of course not. The idea that Iranians will do the work of their country's enemies by rising up
and toppling the regime has always been far-fetched, but it is particularly absurd to think
that Iranians would do this after they have just seen their economy be destroyed by the actions
of a foreign government.
People normally do not respond to economic hardship and diminishing prospects by risking
their lives by starting a rebellion against the state. As Mr. Shamsodini says above, it is
much more likely that they will leave to find a way to make a living elsewhere. All that
strangling Iran's economy will manage to do is push young and ambitious Iranians to go abroad
while inflicting cruel collective punishment on everyone that remains behind. Making
Iranians poorer and more miserable isn't going to encourage them to be more politically active,
much less rebellious, but will instead force them to focus on getting by. That is likely to
depress turnout at future elections, and that is more likely to be good news for hard-line
candidates in the years to come.
Iran hawks typically don't understand the country that they obsess over, so perhaps it
is not surprising that they haven't thought any of this through, but their most glaring failure
is not taking into account the importance of nationalism. When a foreign power tries
dictating terms to another nation on pain of economic punishment, this is bound to provoke
resentment and resistance. Like any other self-respecting nation, Iranians aren't going to
accept being told what to do by a foreign government, and they are much more likely to band
together in solidarity rather than start an uprising against their own government. The stronger
the nationalist tradition there is in a country, the more likely it is that the reaction to
foreign threats will be one of defiance and unity. It simply makes no sense to think that the
U.S. can pressure a proud nation to capitulate like this.
The administration's policy seems sure to fail on its own terms, and it is also the wrong
thing to do. President Washington exhorted his countrymen in his Farewell Address : "Observe good
faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all." The
administration's Iran policy represents the total rejection of that advice. If the U.S.
followed Washington's recommendations, it would not be abrogating an agreement that it had just
negotiated a few years earlier, and it would not be punishing an entire country for the wrongs
of a few. Instead, the U.S. would have built on the success of the earlier negotiations and
would have sought to reestablish normal relations with them.
Alastair Crooke (former UK dip and MI6) knows more about ME than any other white man. He
describes how Jared Kushner became Trump's stovepipe of disinformation on behalf of Netanyahu
and MBS.
The economic sanctions on Iran will be much tighter, beyond what they were, before the
nuclear agreement was signed. "Hit them in their pockets", Netanyahu advised Trump: "if you
hit them in their pockets, they will choke; and when they choke, they will throw out the
ayatollahs"".
This was another bit of 'stovepiped' advice passed directly to the US President. His
officials might have warned him that it was fantasy. There is no example of sanctions alone
having toppled a state; and whilst the US can use its claim of judicial hegemony as an
enforcement mechanism, the US has effectively isolated itself in sanctioning Iran: Europe
wants no further insecurity. It wants no more refugees heading to Europe.
However, the primary problem would not even be the doubtful profitability, but rather
logistics. Iran's oil fields are in the south. To reach Russia, the oil would have to make its
way to Caspian ports in the north. Iran has no main pipelines connecting its southern oil
fields with northern ports. These ports do have the infrastructure for oil, but they were built
to receive oil from swap deals with Kazakhstan, Russia and Azerbaijan. They were never meant to
export oil.
Consequently, before any exports could begin, Moscow and Tehran would have to invest in
creating the necessary storage and loading infrastructure at the Iranian ports. Iran would also
need to upgrade its transport infrastructure to deliver oil from the south to the Caspian
seashore -- that would also present a challenge.
Finally,
Russia and Iran would have to substantially increase their tanker fleets in the landlocked
Caspian Sea to exchange large quantities of oil, as the local geography does not allow for the
use of large tankers. In this situation, a planned railroad connection between Russia and Iran via
Azerbaijan could increase the volume of oil moved from Iran to Russia, but this project has not
been completed.
Under these circumstances, Russian officials are demonstrating far greater interest in
resuming the so-called oil-for-products program, under which Russia would broker Iranian oil
abroad in exchange for Iran buying Russian industrial machinery and providing investment
opportunities to Moscow.
Russia and Iran have discussed an oil-for-products initiative for years. Initially, it was
supposed to help Tehran evade the oil trade embargo imposed by the United States, European
Union (EU) and their partners. When those sanctions were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear
deal, the initiative was expected to compensate for Iran's lack of financial reserves, which
kept Tehran from paying for imports of Russian equipment in hard currency. However, after US
President Donald Trump
withdrew from the deal in 2018 and began reimposing sanctions, the oil-for-products deal
again gained importance as a way to evade sanctions.
In November 2017, Moscow received 1 million barrels from Iran as payment for railroad
equipment imported from Russia, and arrangements were in the works for Russia to buy an
additional 5 million tons of oil in 2018. Indeed, in January and February there were reports of
some oil dispatches transferred from Iran to Russian companies. Yet, by March, they stopped . Moscow still plans
to revive the deal in 2019, though it might never happen.
On the one hand, Russia has had problems finding buyers for Iranian oil.
Concerned about the US sanctions, potential clients refused to purchase it. On the other hand,
Iran's main hopes for sanctions relief are more connected to the EU than Russia. There is a
strong belief in Tehran that Europeans will be able to offset the negative influence of US
economic pressure on Iran. The EU wants to salvage as much of the nuclear deal as possible. Yet
the strength of Tehran's belief is hard to explain: Large EU companies have already pulled out
of Iran. The EU officials Al-Monitor interviewed openly said that Tehran should not expect a
lot from Brussels.
Though Russian and Iranian officials have an on-again, off-again marriage of convenience,
Iran's general public and its elite strongly oppose any substantial deals with Moscow. Russia
is not trusted or welcomed by Iranians and the countries have a long history of
differences . A well-informed and respected Iranian expert on Tehran's foreign policy told
Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that a Russian oil-for-products initiative would be
difficult to implement.
"A large part of Iranian society believes that giving our oil to Russia -- especially at the
discounted prices -- is no better than agreeing to Trump's demands," he said.
The U.S. is going for the jugular with new Iran sanctions intended to punish those who trade
with Teheran. But the U.S. may have a fight on its hands in a possible post- WWII
turning-point...
The next step in the Trump administration's "maximum pressure" campaign against Iran has
begun, with the most severe sanctions being re-imposed on the Islamic Republic. Crucially, they
apply not only to Iran but to anyone who continues to do business with it.
It's not yet clear how disruptive this move will be. While the U.S. intention is to isolate
Iran, it is the U.S. that could wind up being more isolated. It depends on the rest of the
world's reaction, and especially Europe's.
The issue is so fraught that disputes over how to apply the new sanctions have even divided
Trump administration officials.
The administration is going for the jugular this time. It wants to force Iranian exports of
oil and petrochemical products down to as close to zero as possible. As the measures are now
written, they also exclude Iran from the global interbank system known as SWIFT.
It is hard to say which of these sanctions is more severe. Iran's oil exports have already
started falling. They
peaked at 2.7 million barrels a day last May -- just before Donald Trump pulled the U.S.
out of the six-nation accord governing Iran's nuclear programs. By early September oil exports
were averaging a million
barrels a day less .
In August the U.S. barred Iran's purchases of
U.S.-dollar denominated American and foreign company aircraft and auto parts. Since then the
Iranian rial has crashed to
record lows and inflation has risen above 30 percent.
Revoking Iran's SWIFT privileges will effectively cut the nation out of the
dollar-denominated global economy. But there are moves afoot, especially by China and Russia,
to move away from a dollar-based economy.
The SWIFT issue has caused infighting in the
administration between Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and John Bolton, Trump's national security
adviser who is among the most vigorous Iran hawks in the White House. Mnuchin might win a
temporary delay or exclusions for a few Iranian financial institutions, but probably not much
more.
On Sunday, the second round of sanctions kicked in since Trump withdrew the U.S. from the
2015 Obama administration-backed, nuclear agreement, which lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange
for stringent controls on its nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency has
repeatedly certified that the deal is working and the other signatories -- Britain, China,
France, Germany and Russia have not pulled out and have resumed trading with Iran. China and
Russia have already said they will ignore American threats to sanction it for continuing
economic relations with Iran. The key question is what will America's European allies
do?
Europeans React
Europe has been unsettled since Trump withdrew in May from the nuclear accord. The European
Union is developing a trading mechanism to get around U.S. sanctions. Known as a
Special Purpose Vehicle , it would allow European companies to use a barter system similar
to how Western Europe traded with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
Juncker: Wants Euro-denominated trading
EU officials have also been lobbying to preserve
Iran's access to global interbank operations by excluding the revocation of SWIFT privileges
from Trump's list of sanctions. They count
Mnuchin,who is eager to preserve U.S. influence in the global trading system, among their
allies. Some European officials, including Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European
Commission, propose making the euro a global trading currency
to compete with the dollar.
Except for Charles de Gaulle briefly pulling France out of NATO in 1967
and Germany and France voting on the UN Security Council against the U.S. invading Iraq in
2003, European nations have been subordinate to the U.S. since the end of the Second World
War.
The big European oil companies, unwilling to risk the threat of U.S. sanctions, have already
signaled they intend to ignore the EU's new trade mechanism. Total SA, the French petroleum
company and one of Europe's biggest, pulled
out of its Iran operations several months ago.
Earlier this month a U.S. official confidently
predicted there would be little demand among European corporations for the proposed barter
mechanism.
Whether Europe succeeds in efforts to defy the U.S. on Iran is nearly beside the point from
a long-term perspective. Trans-Atlantic damage has already been done. A rift that began to
widen during the Obama administration seems about to get wider still.
Asia Reacts
Asian nations are also exhibiting resistance to the impending U.S. sanctions. It is unlikely
they could absorb all the exports Iran will lose after Nov. 4, but they could make a
significant difference. China, India, and South Korea are the first, second, and third-largest
importers of Iranian crude; Japan is sixth. Asian nations may also try to work around the U.S.
sanctions regime after Nov. 4.
India is considering purchases of Iranian crude via a barter system or denominating
transactions in rupees. China, having already said it would ignore the U.S. threat, would like
nothing better than to expand yuan-denominated oil trading, and this is not a hard call: It is
in a protracted trade war with the U.S., and an oil-futures market launched in Shanghai last
spring already claims roughly 14 percent of the global market for "front-month" futures --
contracts covering shipments closest to delivery.
Trump: Unwittingly playing with U.S. long-term future
As with most of the Trump administration's foreign policies, we won't know how the new
sanctions will work until they are introduced. There could be waivers for nations such as
India; Japan is on record asking for one. The E.U.'s Special Purpose Vehicle could prove at
least a modest success at best, but this remains uncertain. Nobody is sure who will win the
administration's internal argument over SWIFT.
Long-term Consequences for the U.S.
The de-dollarization of the global economy is gradually gathering momentum. The orthodox
wisdom in the markets has long been that competition with the dollar from other currencies will
eventually prove a reality, but it will not be one to arrive in our lifetimes. But with
European and Asian reactions to the imminent sanctions against Iran it could come sooner than
previously thought.
The coalescing of emerging powers into a non-Western alliance -- most significantly China,
Russia, India, and Iran -- starts to look like another medium-term reality. This is driven by
practical rather than ideological considerations, and the U.S. could not do more to encourage
this if it tried. When Washington withdrew from the Iran accord, Moscow and Beijing immediately
pledged to support Tehran by staying with its terms.If the U.S. meets significant resistance,
especially from its allies, it could be a turning-point in post-Word War II U.S.
dominance.
Supposedly Intended for New Talks
All this is intended to force Iran back to the negotiating table for a rewrite of what Trump
often calls "the worst deal ever." Tehran has made it clear countless times it has no intention
of reopening the pact, given that it has consistently adhered to its terms and that the other
signatories to the deal are still abiding by it.
The U.S. may be drastically overplaying its hand and could pay the price with additional
international isolation that has worsened since Trump took office.
Washington has been on a sanctions binge for years. Those about to take effect seem
recklessly broad. This time, the U.S. risks lasting alienation even from those allies that have
traditionally been its closest.
"... The fact that the US dollar remains the overwhelming dominant currency for international trade and financial transactions gives Washington extraordinary power over banks and companies in the rest of the world. That's the financial equivalent of a neutron bomb. That might be about to change, though it's by no means a done deal yet. ..."
"... German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Handelsblatt, a leading German business daily, "Europe should not allow the U.S. to act over our heads and at our expense. For that reason, it's essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an independent SWIFT system ." ..."
"... In addition to the recent statements from the German Foreign Minister, France is discussing expanding the Iran SPV to create a means of insulating the EU economies from illegal extraterritorial sanctions like the secondary sanctions that punish EU companies doing business in Iran by preventing them from using the dollar or doing business in the USA. ..."
"... F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook." https://journal-neo.org/2018/10/23/the-eu-russia-china-plan-to-avert-iran-oil-sanctions/ ..."
It may well be that the unilateral wrecking ball politics of the Trump Administration are
bringing about a result just opposite from that intended. Washington's decision to abandon the
Iran nuclear agreement and impose severe sanctions on companies trading Iran oil as of 4
November, is creating new channels of cooperation between the EU, Russia, China and Iran and
potentially others. The recent declaration by Brussels officials of creation of an unspecified
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to legally avoid US dollar oil trade and thereby US sanctions,
might potentially spell the beginning of the end of the Dollar System domination of the world
economy.
According to reports from the last bilateral German-Iran talks in Teheran on October 17, the
mechanisms of a so-called Special Purpose Vehicle that would allow Iran to continue to earn
from its oil exports, will begin implementation in the next days. At end of September EU
Foreign Policy chief Federica Mogherini confirmed plans to create such an independent trade
channel, noting, "no sovereign country or organization can accept that somebody else decides
with whom you are allowed to
do trade with ."
The SPV plan is reportedly modelled on the Soviet barter system used during the cold war to
avert US trade sanctions, where Iran oil would be in some manner exchanged for goods without
money. The SPV agreement would reportedly involve the European Union, Iran, China and
Russia.
According to various reports out of the EU the new SPV plan involves a sophisticated barter
system that can avoid US Treasury sanctions. As an example, Iran could ship crude oil to a
French firm, accrue credit via the SPV, much like a bank. That could then be used to pay an
Italian manufacturer for goods shipped the other way, without any funds traversing through
Iranian hands or the normal banking system.A multinational European state-backed financial
intermediary would be set up to handle deals with companies interested in Iran transactions and
with Iranian counter-parties. Any transactions would not be transparent to the US, and would
involve euros and sterling rather than dollars.
It's an extraordinary response to what Washington has called a policy of all-out financial
war against Iran, that includes threats to sanction European central banks and the
Brussels-based SWIFT interbank payments network if they maintain ties to Iran after November 4.
In the post-1945 relations between Western Europe and Washington such aggressive measures have
not been seen before.It's forcing some major rethinking from leading EU policy circles.
New Banking Architecture
The background to the mysterious initiative was presented in June in a report titled,
Europe, Iran and Economic Sovereignty: New Banking Architecture in Response to US Sanctions.
The report was authored by Iranian economist Esfandyar Batmanghelidj and Axel Hellman, a Policy
Fellow at the European Leadership Network (ELN), a London-based policy
think tank .
The report proposes its new architecture should have two key elements. First it will be
based on "gateway banks" designated to act as intermediaries between Iranian and EU commercial
banks tied to the Special Purpose Vehicle. The second element is that it would be overseen by
an EU-Office of Foreign Asset Controls or EU-OFAC, modeled on the same at the US Treasury, but
used for facilitating legal EU-Iran trade, not for blocking it. Their proposed EU-OFAC among
other functions would undertake creating certification mechanisms for due diligence on the
companies doing such trade and "strengthen EU legal protections for entities engaged in Iran
trade and investment ."
The SPV reportedly is based on this plan using designated Gateway Banks, banks in the EU
unaffected by Washington "secondary sanctions," as they do not do business in the US and focus
on business with Iran. They might include select state-owned German Landesbanks, certain Swiss
private banks such as the Europäisch-Iranische Handelsbank (EIH), a European bank
established specifically to engage in trade finance with Iran. In addition, select Iran banks
with offices in the EU could be brought in.
Whatever the final result, it is clear that the bellicose actions of the Trump
Administration against trade with Iran is forcing major countries into cooperation that
ultimately could spell the demise of the dollar hegemony that has allowed a debt-bloated US
Government to finance a de facto global tyranny at the expense of others.
EU-Russia-China
During the recent UN General Assembly in New York, Federica Mogherini said the SPV was
designed to facilitate payments related to Iran's exports – including oil –so long
as the firms involved were carrying out legitimate business under EU law. China and Russia are
also involved in the SPV. Potentially Turkey, India and other countries could later join.
Immediately, as expected, Washington has reacted. At the UN US Secretary of State and former
CIA head Mike Pompeo declared to an Iran opposition meeting that he was "disturbed and indeed
deeply disappointed" by the EU plan. Notably he said ""This is one of the of the most
counterproductive measures imaginable for regional and global peace and security." Presumably
the Washington plan for economic war against Iranis designed to foster regional and global
peace and security?
Non-US SWIFT?
One of the most brutal weapons in the US Treasury financial warfare battery is the ability
to force the Brussels-based SWIFT private interbank clearing system to cut Iran off from using
it. That was done with devastating effect in 2012 when Washington pressured the EU to get SWIFT
compliance, a grave precedent that sent alarm bells off around the world.
The fact that the US dollar remains the overwhelming dominant currency for international
trade and financial transactions gives Washington extraordinary power over banks and companies
in the rest of the world. That's the financial equivalent of a neutron bomb. That might be
about to change, though it's by no means a done deal yet.
In 2015 China unveiled its CIPS or China International Payments System. CIPS was originally
viewed as a future China-based alternative to SWIFT. It would offer clearing and settlement
services for its participants in cross-border RMB payments and trade. Unfortunately, a Chinese
stock market crisis forced Beijing to downscale their plans, though a skeleton of
infrastructure is there.
In another area, since late 2017 Russia and China have discussed possible linking their
bilateral payments systems bypassing the dollar. China's Unionpay system and Russia's domestic
payment system, known as Karta Mir, would be
linked directly .
More recently leading EU policy circles have echoed such ideas, unprecedented in the
post-1944 era. In August, referring to the unilateral US actions to block oil and other trade
with Iran, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told Handelsblatt, a leading German business
daily, "Europe should not allow the U.S. to act over our heads and at our expense. For that
reason, it's essential that we strengthen European autonomy by establishing payment channels
that are independent of the US, creating a European Monetary Fund and building up an
independent SWIFT system ."
A Crack in the Dollar Edifice
How far the EU is willing to defy Washington on the issue of trade with Iran is not yet
clear. Most probably Washington via NSA and other means can uncover the trades of the
EU-Iran-Russia-China SPV.
In addition to the recent statements from the German Foreign Minister, France is discussing
expanding the Iran SPV to create a means of insulating the EU economies from illegal
extraterritorial sanctions like the secondary sanctions that punish EU companies doing business
in Iran by preventing them from using the dollar or doing business in the USA. French Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman, Agnes Von der Muhll, stated that in addition to enabling companies to
continue to trade with Iran, that the SPV would, "create an economic sovereignty tool for the
European Union beyond this one case. It is therefore a long-term plan that will protect
European companies in the future from the effect of illegal extraterritorial
sanctions ."
If this will be the case with the emerging EU Special Purpose Vehicle, it will create a
gaping crack in the dollar edifice. Referring to the SPV and its implications, Jarrett Blanc,
former Obama State Department official involved in negotiating the Iran nuclear agreement noted
that, "The payment mechanism move opens the door to a longer-term degradation of US sanctions
power."
At present the EU has displayed effusive rhetoric and loud grumbling against unilateral US
economic warfare and extraterritorial imposition of sanctions such as those against Russia.
Their resolve to potently move to create a genuine alternative to date has been absent. So too
is the case so far in other respects for China and Russia. Will the incredibly crass US
sanctions war on Iran finally spell the beginning of the end of the dollar domination of the
world economy it has held since Bretton Woods in 1945?
My own feeling is that unless the SPV in whatever form utilizes the remarkable technological
advantages of certain of the blockchain or ledger technologies similar to the US-based XRP or
Ripple, that would enable routing payments across borders in a secure and almost instantaneous
way globally, it won't amount to much. It's not that European IT programmers lack the expertise
to develop such, and certainly not the Russians. After all one of the leading blockchain
companies was created by a Russian-born Canadian named Vitalik Buterin. The Russian Duma is
working on new legislation regarding digital currencies, though the Bank of Russia still seems
staunchly opposed. The Peoples' Bank of China is rapidly developing and testing a national
cryptocurrency, ChinaCoin. Blockchain technologies are widely misunderstood, even in government
circles such as the Russian Central Bank that ought to see it is far more than a new "South Sea
bubble." The ability of a state-supervised payments system to move value across borders,
totally encrypted and secure is the only plausible short-term answer to unilateral sanctions
and financial wars until a more civilized order among nations is possible.
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:16pm Last week the Trump Administration
ranted
against OPEC because the Iranian sanctions are driving up
oil prices .
That's called blowback.
Today we see the next level of
blowback.
The State Department says the U.S. consulate in the southern Iraqi city of Basra is being
evacuated following attacks blamed on Iran-backed militias. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad will
provide full consular services for Basra and the surrounding area, the State Department said.
What's most notable is the reaction by US
secretary of state Mike Pompeo.
US secretary of state Mike Pompeo directly threatened retaliation against Iran on Friday,
after accusing Iranian forces of repeatedly directing attacks against US diplomatic
facilities in Iraq.
"Iran should understand that the United States will respond promptly and appropriately to
any such attacks," Mr Pompeo said in a statement, adding both the US consulate general in
Basrah and the US embassy in Baghdad had been targeted.
Recently, #Iran -supported
militias in Iraq launched rocket attacks against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and our
consulate in Basra. We'll hold #Iran 's regime
accountable for any attack on our personnel or facilities, and respond swiftly and decisively
in defense of American lives. pic.twitter.com/nqbmogbeCA
What is happening in Iraq could lead directly to a proxy war with Iran in Iraq.
The Pentagon says U.S. forces will
stay in Iraq "as long as needed". There are about 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq, versus about
100,000 Shia militiamen.
Pompeo is working with Saudi Arabia to form an anti-Iran
coalition known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance.
As recently as April, the U.S. was telling those Shia militias were welcome in
Iraq.
Last month those Shia militias threatened to attack foreign
troops in Iraq if they didn't leave.
span y Amanda Matthews on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:59pm
" Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good
neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."
"Iran-backed militias." That would be Iraqis, no? Is the ultimate plan then to, um,
eliminate Iraq's Shia? I expect to hear, soon, that Iraqi Shia test their chemical weapons on
children.
The UN Charter calls for nations to "live together in peace with one another as good
neighbors." Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a
good neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."
Why the leaders of the rest of the world didn't walk out on Trump when he threatened other
countries is beyond my comprehension. How much longer will they waste their citizen's lives and
their money just because we told them to jump?
Remember when Obama said that "no country should have to tolerate bombs dropping on them
from outside their borders?
I think those measure have implicit blessing from Washington, which realized how dangerous
withdrawal of Iraq oil from the market can be for the USA economy
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York is a place where world leaders are able to hold
important meetings behind closed doors. Russia, China, the UK, Germany, France, and the EU
seized that opportunity on Sept. 24 to achieve a real milestone.
The EU, Russia, China, and Iran
will create a special purpose vehicle (SPV), a "financially independent sovereign channel,"
to bypass US sanctions against Tehran and breathe life into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) , which is in jeopardy. "Mindful of the urgency and the need for tangible
results, the participants welcomed practical proposals to maintain and develop payment
channels, notably the initiative to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate
payments related to Iran's exports, including oil," they announced in a
joint statement. The countries are still working out the technical details. If their plan
succeeds, this will deliver a blow to the dollar and a boost to the euro.
The move is being made in order to save the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. According to Federica
Mogherini , High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy, the SPV will facilitate payments for Iran's exports, such as oil, and imports so that
companies can do business with Tehran as usual. The vehicle will be available not just to EU
firms but to others as well. A round of US sanctions aimed at ending Iranian oil exports is to
take effect on November 5. Iran is the world's seventh-largest oil producer. Its oil sector
accounts for 70% of the country's exports. Tehran has warned the EU that it should find new
ways of trading with Iran prior to that date, in order to preserve the JCPOA.
The SPV proposes to set up a multinational, European, state-backed financial intermediary to
work with companies interested in trading with Iran. Payments will be made in currencies other
than the dollar and remain outside the reach of those global money-transfer systems under US
control. In August, the EU passed a blocking statute to guarantee the immunity of European
companies from American punitive measures. It empowers EU firms to seek compensation from the
United States Treasury for its attempts to impose extra-territorial sanctions. No doubt the
move will further damage the already strained US-EU relationship. It might be helpful to create
a special EU company for oil exports from Iran.
Just hours after the joint statement on the SPV, US President Trump defended his unilateral
action against Iran in his
UNGA address . US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned the EU initiative ,
stating:
"This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional global peace
and security."
To wit, the EU, Russia, and China have banded together in open defiance against unilateral
steps taken by the US. Moscow and Beijing are in talks on how to combine their efforts to fend
off the negative impacts of US trade tariffs and sanctions. A planned Sept 24-25 visit by
Chinese Vice-Premier Liu, who was coming to the United States for trade talks, was cancelled as
a result of the discord and President Trump added more fuel to the fire on Sept. 24 by imposing
10% tariffs on almost half of all goods the US imports from China. "We have far more bullets,"
the president
said before the Chinese official's planned visit. "We're going to go US$200 billion and 25
per cent Chinese made goods. And we will come back with more." The US has recently imposed
sanctions on China to punish it for the purchase of Russian S-400 air-defense systems and
combat planes. Beijing refused to back down. It is also adamant in its desire to continue
buying Iran's oil.
It is true, the plan to skirt the sanctions might fall short of expectations. It could fail
as US pressure mounts. A number of economic giants, including Total, Peugeot, Allianz, Renault,
Siemens, Daimler, Volvo, and Vitol Group have already left Iran as its economy plummets, with
the rial losing two-thirds of its value since the first American sanctions took effect in May.
The Iranian currency dropped to a record low against the US dollar this September.
What really matters is the fact that the leading nations of the EU have joined the global
heavyweights -- Russia and China -- in open defiance of the United States.
This is a milestone event.
It's hard to underestimate its importance. Certainly, it's too early to say that the UK and
other EU member states are doing a sharp pivot toward the countries that oppose the US
globally, but this is a start - a first step down that path. This would all have seemed
unimaginable just a couple of years ago - the West and the East in the same boat, trying to
stand up to the American bully!
So what does Trump do before the midterms? Live with higher prices? Quietly drop the
sanctions ? Find a way to get Iranian oil on the market while pretending there are sanctions?
Accept the high prices and blame Obama?
Oil price can rise some, now. It's only a month and a half to go. Gasoline stocks are high,
so it will take some trickle down time. Raiding the SPR is overkill.
I'm betting they don't. Saudi production in September is more likely to be down than up. But
if it is up it will only by a tiny amount, not near enough to affect prices. Saudi Arabis is
just not interested in increasing production by any significant amount. They would like to
keep production steady .if possible.
"Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the
turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil
production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference Prices to high! He has
agreed!" the tweet read.
And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going
to do any of that shit." The Saudis, just like Trump's staff, know he is an idiot.
"And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do
any of that shit."
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm. My guess
is that Trump has turned up the heat on Iran because of requests from KSA & Israel.
The USA has been helping MbS with is Yemen war, as well as proxy war in Syria. If KSA want
the US to economically crush Iran, than KSA will need to help but increasing its Oil exports.
Perhaps KSA as some oil stashed in storage that it could release for a short period. My guess
KSA would delay using its storage reserves until there is a price spike that might force the
US to back off on Iran.
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm.
You doubt what happened? The quote was a tweet directly from the President. He sent it out
to the world, you don't need an inside contact to the White House. Trump's tweets go out to
the public.
Yes, it did happen. Of course, the part about what the King did afterward was just
speculation on my part. But he did not increase oil production as Trump requested. That much
we do know.
Not arguing the tweet Trumpet made, but your reasoning that the MbS will ignore the
request.
I am reasonably sure MbS wants the USA to go after Iran, and thus has a motive to try to
comply with Trumpet's request for more Oil. That said, I very much doubt KSA can increase
production, but they may have 50 to 150 mmbl in storage they could release if Oil prices
spike.
FYI:
"Why The U.S. Is Suddenly Buying A Lot More Saudi Oil"
" the Saudis are responding to the demands of their staunch ally U.S. President Donald
Trump, who has repeatedly slammed OPEC for the high gasoline prices, urging the cartel in
early July to "REDUCE PRICING NOW!""
"Saudi Arabia cut last week its official selling price (OSP) for its flagship Arab Light
grade for October to Asia by US$0.10 a barrel to US$1.10 a barrel premium to the Dubai/Oman
average"
So it appears that KSA is trying to comply with Trumpet's request. At least by trying to
lower the oil prices via selling their oil at a discount.
** Note: Not trying to be a PITA, just providing an alternative viewpoint. I do value what
you post. Hope you understand.
"... Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. ..."
Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic
growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political
situation. September 12th, 2018
Despite the Trump administration's "
maximum pressure " campaign targeting the Iranian economy, Iran's crude oil and oil product
revenues
jumped a surprising 60 percent from March 21 to July 23. In addition, figures provided by
Iran's Central Bank show that Iran's revenues from oil sales soared by 84.2 percent over that
same period, setting a new record.
The increased revenues seem to have resulted from a jump in oil prices this year as well as
Iran's high oil export volume during part of that period. Notably, the increased revenues were
reported despite the United States' announcement in May that it
would sanction those purchasing Iranian oil starting in early November, with the ultimate
goal of reducing Iranian oil sales to zero in order to place pressure on the Iranian
government.
The U.S.' efforts have had some noticeable effects on Iranian oil exports, as the country's
exports for the month of August were
significantly lower than those of July. However, the drop has only seen exports fall to
near March 2016 levels , when the U.S. was not pursuing a sanctions policy against Iran and
the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was
in effect.
Further dashing U.S. hopes of crushing Iranian oil exports have been recent announcements
from Iran's top two customers,
China and
India , that they would continue to import Iranian crude despite the looming threat of U.S.
sanctions. India, along with some other countries, has sought " waivers
" from Washington that would allow them to continue to import Iranian oil and avoid retaliation
from the U.S. for a certain period of time.
In addition, the European Union, which had previously joined the U.S. in targeting Iranian
oil exports in 2012, has shown its unwillingness to follow Washington's lead this time around,
openly
vowing to rebel against the U.S. sanctions regimen and increasing the likelihood that
Europe will continue to buy some Iranian oil despite U.S. threats.
Risks for U.S. and
global economies
Another indication that efforts to curb Iranian oil exports are backfiring for the Trump
administration is
the jump in oil prices that has resulted from concerns about the U.S. sanctions on Iran's
oil exports. The increase in oil prices is likely to be felt domestically in the U.S., the
world's largest consumer of oil, potentially posing a political risk to Trump and his fellow
Republicans ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. In addition, further oil price increases
could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate
the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation.
Such concerns have prompted
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to meet his Saudi and Russian counterparts in an effort to
convince those two countries to keep oil output high in order to offset a reduction in future
Iranian oil exports. While Saudi Arabia
has already stated it would increase output, Russia is unlikely to comply, given its
relationship with Iran and Washington's threat to impose new sanctions on Moscow. The U.S.,
Saudi Arabia and Russia
are currently the world's three largest oil producers, accounting for about a third of
global crude oil output.
While the Trump administration may have assumed that U.S. oil producers – and the U.S.
economy in general -- would benefit from the elimination of Iranian oil exports, the growing
rejection of the impending U.S. sanctions by other countries shows that these nations are
unwilling
to pay for more expensive American oil or even Saudi oil,
preferring less expensive Iranian oil despite potential future consequences. Furthermore,
efforts to increase U.S. crude production
have fallen short of government expectations, further complicating the U.S.' efforts to
offset an increase in oil prices resulting from Iranian oil sanctions.
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann's Truth
in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century
Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently
lives with her family in southern Chile.
@82 There is some logic to the Iranians fielding a jet fighter of any sort, even if it is
based on a relic of the 1970s.
An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets
loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like
an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.
If that is all those Iranians do that then they will have achieved their purpose.
Alternatively, the Israelis could use fighter escorts but then you have to consider that
each escort represents one less bomb-laden F-16 (or, put another way, twice as many
sorties).
Simply put: Absent any Iranian jet fighters then the Israelis can commit ALL of their jets
to the task of bombing Iranian targets, and do so from the very beginning. But once Iranian
fighters are in the mix then the job becomes much harder: the Israelis either have to take
out those jets first before committing to a bombing campaign, or they have to commit half
their force to escort duties from the very start.
Sure, SU-35s would be much better, but an F-5 is still way better than nothing.
"... The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests. ..."
The US is prepared to use sanctions to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero, the US
national security adviser, John Bolton, has said.
"Regime change in Iran is not American policy, but what we want is massive change in the
regime's behaviour," Bolton said on a visit to Israel, as he claimed current sanctions had been
more effective than predicted.
Donald Trump took the US out of Iran's nuclear deal with the west in May and is imposing
escalating sanctions, both to force Iran to renegotiate the deal and to end Tehran's perceived
interference in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
Complete removal of Iranian oil from world markets would cut oil supply by more than 4%
probably forcing up prices in the absence of any new supplies.
SNIP
Fuller US sanctions, including actions against countries that trade in Iranian oil are due to
come into force on 5 November, 180 days after the initial Trump announcement to withdraw.
The measures against Iranian oil importers, and banks that continue to trade with the Central
Bank of Iran, will ratchet the pressure to a higher level.
Pompeo has set up an Iran Action group inside the US State Department to coordinate US leverage
on companies and countries that cannot show that their trade, including in oil, has fallen
significantly by November.
Measures may also be taken against firms that insure ships carrying Iranian crude.
It is expected some of the major Iranian oil importers, such as Russia, China and Turkey, will
either ignore the threat of US sanctions, or, possibly in the case of Iraq, Japan and South
Korea, seek exemptions.
China takes a quarter of all Iran's oil exports, and with Chinese banks little exposed to the
US it can avoid the impact of Trump's sanctions.REPLY
I wonder if China could just take all of Iran's oil? I imagine at the right price they
would be happy to do so. China imports about 8 Mb/d, Iran exports about 2.5 Mb/d of oil,
seems possible.
Also note that if this does occur and there is no drop in Iranian output, the impact of
the Iranian sanctions on the World Oil market will be effectively zero.
I wonder what the capacity is of the Chinese and Iranian oil tanker fleet is? If nobody
else will buy it or ship it then the tanker fleet will have to be owned/insured by either
Iran or China.
I'm interested in knowing if Chinese oil tankers are even capable of hauling 2.5 million
barrels a day home from Iran. It seems doubtful that anybody else will be doing it for them.
I can't find much info on the size of the Chinese owned tanker fleet and it's
capabilities.
While US forces have been known to seize North Korean oil tankers hauling Libyan oil, I
find it doubtful that they will seize Chinese ones, for the reason you mentioned; China
punches back. Nothing spells the end of hegemony like getting your ass kicked.
One would assume its easy for the chinese to buy used oil tankers if they offer a bit over
current market prices. This is a very long term conflict, and they could buy tankers,
reregister them Chinese or Iranian or say Russian and start moving that oil.
The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose
main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out
for US interests.
Analysts told RT that what Khamenei said is not really surprising given the worsening
economic situation inside the country after the relations with the US went on a downward
spiral. The supreme leader has been trying to keep Iranian society balanced by taking a neutral
position between the liberal and conservative parts of the establishment. Now the former,
including President Hassan Rouhani, are finding themselves in a weaker position, according to
Irina Fedorova from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
"The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop
up his regime," Fedorova told RT. She said that "the opponents of the
conservatives," and Rouhani in particular, who supported the JCPOA, will fall victims of
this approach. But it will not lead to his resignation, the researcher noted. However, this
means the conservatives' positions, such as those of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are to
strengthen significantly.
The statement may also mean a reshuffling of the political elite as well as some economic
changes, Jamal Wakeem, professor of history and international relations at Lebanese University
in Beirut, told RT. He said that "reformists" and those who pressed for the deals with
the West are to be targeted, while the leadership is going to seek alternatives to the West,
including a partnership with Russia and China.
The US reinstated certain economic sanctions against Iran last week, with President Trump
promising more to come in November. The restrictive measures had been lifted under the historic
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but Washington unilaterally withdrew from the
landmark deal despite international condemnation, including from its EU allies. The 2015
agreement placed tight controls on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of
international sanctions. Iran's commitment has been confirmed by the IAEA since then.
Tehran has repeatedly blasted the US for the move, vowing to restart its nuclear program in
retaliation against any foreign restrictions. While the US has been pressing its allies to
completely refuse Iranian oil imports, the Islamic Republic has threatened to close the Strait
of Hormuz, effectively blocking all the oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, should they accede
to American demands.
The row between the US and Iran escalated last month, when their respective leadership
exchanged a barrage of threats. Back then, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that a
conflict with Iran would be "mother of all wars," provoking Trump's harsh response
when he promised "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will
take all the oil business, leaving Western companies sitting on the sidelines. On the other
hand, I wonder if US O&G companies are waiting for other Western competitors to go
bankrupt.
Uncoy @22:
US sanctions have already failed. Other nations will give lip service, then turn around to
continue on whatever they were doing.
Washington cannot dictate trade rules to others, Germany's economy minister said, adding
that his country should be more assertive and defy American sanctions – particularly
by investing more in Iran.
"We don't let Washington dictate [their will] on trade relations with other countries,"
German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told Bild newspaper on Saturday. He said the US
sanctions on Iran are one instance in which America's neglect of its partners are clearly
shown.[.]
Only 1/3 of US debt is owed to foreigners and that is denominated in their own currency.
They just print whatever is due.
A country with the land and natural resources the US has to go along with with its
agricultural, human and military capital can never go bankrupt, especially when they control
the debt collectors
As for Germany they are an occupied country, as are many countries. Between the military
bases and CIA controlled NGO's they dance to whatever musuc is played. Some squawking is
permitted for appearances sake so people can maintain their illusions of nationalist
control.
I dont rule out a major financial adverse event in the US (and global) soon so the elite
can profit off the collapse and shrink the wealth of the bottom 90%, but that wont affect
much at all and much of the world will suffer in much the same way
When one looks at the major financial disasters over the last century, many seem to come
in the 8th-9th year of the decade. After the elections we should see a great fall as bubbles
are burst and the 17 trillion dollar + investment firms that maintain liquidity will swoop in
and buy low. This time around the banks wont need a government bail out as the laws have
authorized them to seize deposits like what was done in Greece.
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit:
Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson
chide Trump for his dangerous Iran obsession:
The United States' treatment of Iran as a serious strategic competitor is deeply
illogical. Iran imperils no core U.S. interests.
Trump's Iran obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it
is also the most irrational. The president's reflexive hostility to Iran is one of the few
constants in his view of the world, and it is one that aligns him most closely with his party's
hawks and parts of the foreign policy establishment. This has been clear for several years ever
since
Trump declared his
opposition to thenuclear
deal and surrounded
himself with hard-liners .
The Iran obsession is among the worst aspects of Trump's presidency, but it is also one of the
least surprising. Over the last eighteen months, Trump's Iran obsession has become more of a
derangement ,
and it is putting the U.S. and Iran on a collision course at the expense of our relations with
many other states and our own economic interests. The risk of unnecessary war continues to rise
because the president and his allies insist on making maximalist demands of Iran while imposing
stringent sanctions on the country without justification.
As Simon and Stevenson capably explain, there is no valid reason to view Iran as a major
threat to the U.S. Contrary to the fevered warnings about Iranian "expansionism," Iranian
military power in the region is quite limited:
Yet Iran's foreign policy has evolved essentially on the basis of opportunistic realism
rather than especially aggressive revisionism, and, as noted, it has a sparse military
presence in the region.
There is certainly no reason for our government to treat Iran as if it were a major
competitor. Our government's fixation on Iran as the source of all the region's problems
exaggerates Iran's influence and puts the U.S. at odds with a regional power whose interests
are sometimes aligned with our own. The obsession simply makes no sense:
Casting Iran as a major strategic rival simply doesn't make sense in terms of traditional
international relations considerations such as threat- and power-balancing.
The authors list a number of causes for the unwarranted obsession with Iran, including
"pro-Israel" influence and the influence of the Saudis and Emiratis in Washington, and I agree
with them. Our political leaders' enthusiasm for engaging in threat inflation and credulously
accepting the threat inflation of others would has to figure prominently in any explanation as
well. Obsessing over a non-existent Iranian threat to U.S. interests obviously has nothing to
do with American security, and it represents an unhealthy subordination of American interests
to those of its reckless regional clients. Indulging those clients in their paranoia about Iran
will only stoke more regional conflicts and ensure that the U.S. becomes more deeply involved
in those wars, and the result will be greater costs for the U.S. and greater turmoil,
instability, and loss of life throughout the region.
Obama's Yemen obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it
is also the most irrational.
Cluster bombs, drone strikes, covert kill teams and, most importantly, the backing for
Saudi Arabia and the UAE to cross the blood-red line and commence an aggressive illegal
bombing campaign, invasion and occupation of Yemeni territory did not start with Trump.
Direct participation of US military logistics personnel and US military assets in this
military aggression – while other US forces operate in the same territory under the
"separate but equal" Authorization To Use Military Force – did not start with
Trump.
Trump might apply his Reverse Midas Touch to this aspect of Obama's legacy as well, but
just because Obama manufactured another transient executive "achievement" in JCOPA does not
mean that his policy with respect to Yemen was any more irrational than Trump's policy
towards Iran, or that Obama's willingness to hire out US military forces to support Saudi
aggression for 100 billion dollars in blood money is any less venal, corrupt and despicable
than Trump's willingness to do the same.
Mattis didn't become fixated on Iran when he joined the Trump administration either,
although he might just be blaming – in the absence of conclusive evidence – Iran
today for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeting Reagan's negligent use of the Marine
Corps. That is even less of a defensible foundation for foreign policy and military
aggression that profiteering.
It is a good guess that Obama's obsession with Yemen was rooted in printer cartridges,
shoe bombs, and the fear to have any terrorist attack "succeed". For Obama & Co. the fear
of the Next Big Blowback led them to Yemen. It would appear that Pence has supplied the Trump
administration with a Grand Unified Theory that all campaigns in the Great War On Terror
ultimately lead to Tehran – or the Trump administration made him their willing
mouthpiece.
Pence is so desperate to connect terrorism to Iran that he has to reach back almost 40yrs to
pin an at best Hezbollah pre-cursor organization on them. Isn't it more telling that
Hezbollah has avoided attacking U.S. troops during their entire existence? Pence doesn't seem
alarmed about the 3,000+ Americans who died on U.S. soil in NYC that we can attribute to the
Saudis and their cohorts.
BTW the Khobar tower bombings was Al Qaeda. The Saudis extracted confessions in their
torture chambers. There was no corroborating evidence that it was a branch of Hezbollah.
1. Iraq is run by a pro-Iran Shite government that tolerates the US occupation due to the
money provided. Before the USA attacks Iran, it should remove all its 10,000 troops and
10,000 civilians and close its massive embassy there and write that country off. Otherwise,
we'll have thousands of American POWs. Meanwhile, the Kurds will get crushed as the Turks and
Iraqis use the chaos to destroy them.
2. The oil-rich British puppet state of Kuwait is hated by all Iraqis and Iranians. If the
USA attacks Iran, one should expect Iranian and maybe Iraqi units crossing the border, while
Kuwait's army flees as expected. The USA keeps an army brigade there, but that may not be
enough to fend off an invasion, even with air superiority.
3. In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits. The insurers
(mostly Lloyds of London) and others announced they would not cover losses, and unionize ship
crews refused to enter the war zone. So even if the USA keeps the straits open, all that oil
will not flow forth.
4. Iran has a fortified island in the Gulf whose guns cannot be silenced with just air
power. A major amphibious landing is required to clear that island, and it will be bloody.
Note the ship channels in the map. Supertankers are huge, so while the Straits of Hormuz are
large, these big ships can only pass thru these two narrow channels, which are easily
blocked. Iran could park its own tankers in these channels to block them and hope the USA
foolishly sinks them, thus really blocking the entire channel.
These four issues are of more importance than air battles over Iran.
War with Iran? I can not imagine a more foolish thing to do.
Of course they will rally with their own Countrymen, everyone hates the USA.
The World economy will be in a complete tailspin, the US will likely finally go broke over it
and chances are pretty good that Israel will be flattened and paved [one positive thing].
You fight Iran you fight China, you don't go messing with their road. Likely not bombs and
guns either most likely money, something America has not much of.
The faster America dumps this crazy fascination with the Jews the faster it will get it's
act together and become a Country again.
What can that possibly mean? We can bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, but Iran does not
need a modern economy or military to close Hormuz. All they need do is fire a few land-based
artillery and anti-ship missiles at a defenseless freighter or tanker. The insurance
companies would do the rest–remove all commercial shipping from the Persian and Oman
Gulf regions. That eliminates 20% of the World's oil supply, and it would collapse the
World's economy, including our own.
Asymmetric warfare would engulf the entire Middle East, including Israel, with its large
native Arab population and its occupation of large Arab populations in Gaza and the West
Bank.
Iran has the upper hand here. We need to be very careful.
Let's face it-when we impose sanctions on Iran, we are already at war with them. Just like we
are already at war with Russia. Imbeciles, all who run this country.
Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran
would imperil, not secure, that interest.
The American Empire's only strategic three letter word interest in the Middle East is O --
I –L.
The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative
faction in the Republican Party wants to elevate the three letter word J -- E –W to
paramount importance in the Middle East.
OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in
the Middle East.
"... "They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," ..."
"... "If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," ..."
"... "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security." ..."
"... "behaves like a normal country." ..."
"... "require enormous change" ..."
"... "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales." ..."
"... "the mother of all wars." ..."
"... "confronting possible threats." ..."
"... "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" ..."
Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be the biggest mistake Iran has ever made, the US
president's national security advisor John Bolton said. He urged Tehran to sit down for talks
on its nuclear and missile programs with the US. Dismissing Tehran's threats to block the
strait if its oil exports are stopped, Bolton on Monday said the Iranians were
"bluffing." He then quickly changed his tone saying that Iran should actually engage in a dialog with the US instead of
issuing threats.
"They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their
ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the
onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," Bolton told
Fox News, referring to the US President Donald Trump's demands to "re-negotiate" the
2015 Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
"If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are
or not," Bolton added. The White House national security advisor's remarks came less than
a day before the first round of renewed US sanctions take effect on Tuesday after midnight US
Eastern time. The harshest restrictions are expected to be re-imposed by early November.
Washington decided to reinstate the penalties following Trump's decision to unilaterally
withdraw from the JCPOA in May. Shortly after exiting the agreement, the US penned a 12-point
ultimatum to Iran, which, among other things, demanded that Tehran end its ballistic missile
program, a condition it has repeatedly rejected. The move was then widely condemned by the EU
and other signatories of the deal, including Russia and China, which still consider the
agreement to be an effective means of non-proliferation and have vowed to keep their part of
the deal.
Earlier on Monday, the EU said that starting August, it is enforcing its so-called Blocking
Statute aimed at protecting the European companies doing business in Iran from the
extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. The bloc said that maintaining the nuclear deal with
Iran is a "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international
security."
Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed to "rigorously" enforce the
sanctions on Iran until it "behaves like a normal country." He added that it would
"require enormous change" on Iran's part for the US to review its increasingly hostile
approach to Tehran.
In July, Brian Hook, the US State Department's director of policy planning, said that
Washington's goal is to "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its
revenue from crude oil sales."
Iranian leaders repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and stop the Persian
Gulf oil exports if its own oil exports are blocked. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also
cautioned Washington against launching a war against Tehran by saying that it would be "the
mother of all wars." Iran's Revolutionary Guards have recently admitted that its warships
took part in a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to hone skills in "confronting possible
threats."
Earlier, the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has slammed Donald Trump's recent proposal
to enter into talks with Iran by calling it nothing but a PR stunt. "The hours of our
negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and
say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this
[negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" he said.
The Trump administration has reportedly requested a meeting with
Rouhani eight times, but the Iranian side refused to participate.
As Iran is preparing for the first wave of returning US sanctions that could largely hamper
its foreign trade, the country's banks appear to have already created a mechanism for imports
of essential goods from
Russia .
Bank Saderat Iran (BSI) announced in a statement on Sunday that it had sealed a deal with
the Moscow offshoot of Bank Melli Iran (BMI) over a re-financing scheme that envisaged
providing €10 million to fund imports of essential commodities, medicines, medical
equipment and the raw materials for industrial units.
New restrictions aim to protect currency from further falls
With US sanctions against Iran officially going back into place on August 6, the Iranian
government is scrambling to take some last minute measures to shore up their economy, and
particularly their currency, before the sanctions start to hit.
Iran wants to make sure that what foreign currency does flow overseas is strictly
allocated to a handful of important industries. The fall of prices for the rial has been
heavy related to the surge in the price of gold, as economic uncertainty has many Iranians
running to precious metals, and gold imports surged in recent weeks.
US sanctions aim to limit, if not totally eliminate, Iran's access to foreign markets.
That also has Iran trying to make some last-minute purchases while they know they still can.
Five new planes were purchased from ATR for the state airline. It's far short of the new
fleet of airliners Iran initially sought, but the best they can do with the US blocking
Boeing and Airbus from fulfilling contracts.
Since the August 6 date has been known for months, it's likely much of the market reaction
to the sanctions is already factored in to Iran's currency pricing. China's refusal to comply
with US sanctions, likewise, is a sign that Iran won't be totally cutoff from world markets.
Still, it will take awhile before the full extent of the US attempt, and its effectiveness,
is known.
"... President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything, Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military – with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil? ..."
"... Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with you-know-who. Never. ..."
"... Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond. ..."
"... Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from unconditional and continuous US subsidies. ..."
"... In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors (including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD. ..."
President Trump is finding that his threats and heated rhetoric do not always have the
effect he wishes. As his Administration warns countries to stop buying Iranian oil by November
or risk punishment by the United States, a nervous international oil market is pushing prices
ever higher, threatening the economic prosperity he claims credit for. President Trump's
response has been to demand that OPEC boost its oil production by two million barrels per day
to calm markets and bring prices down.
Perhaps no one told him that Iran was a founding member of OPEC?
When President Trump Tweeted last week that Saudi Arabia agreed to begin pumping additional
oil to make up for the removal of Iran from the international markets, the Saudis very quickly
corrected him, saying that while they could increase capacity if needed, no promise to do so
had been made.
The truth is, if the rest of the world followed Trump's demands and returned to sanctions
and boycotting Iranian oil, some 2.7 million barrels per day currently supplied by Iran would
be very difficult to make up elsewhere. Venezuela, which has enormous reserves but is also
suffering under, among other problems, crippling US sanctions, is shrinking out of the world
oil market.
Iraq has not recovered its oil production capacity since its "liberation" by the US in 2003
and the al-Qaeda and ISIS insurgencies that followed it.
Last week, Bloomberg reported that "a complete shutdown of Iranian sales could push oil
prices above $120 a barrel if Saudi Arabia can't keep up." Would that crash the US economy?
Perhaps. Is Trump willing to risk it?
President Trump's demand last week that OPEC "reduce prices now" or US military
protection of OPEC countries may not continue almost sounded desperate. But if anything,
Trump's bluntness is refreshing: if, as he suggests, the purpose of the US military –
with a yearly total budget of a trillion dollars – is to protect OPEC members in exchange
for "cheap oil," how cheap is that oil?
At the end, China, Russia, and others are not only unlikely to follow Trump's demands that
Iran again be isolated: they in fact stand to benefit from Trump's bellicosity toward Iran. One
Chinese refiner has just announced that it would cancel orders of US crude and instead turn to
Iran for supplies. How many others might follow and what might it mean?
Ironically, President Trump's "get tough" approach to Iran may end up benefitting
Washington's named adversaries Russia and China – perhaps even Iran. The wisest approach
is unfortunately the least likely at this point: back off from regime change, back off from
war-footing, back off from sanctions. Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring this
advice may be higher than he imagined.
Trump may eventually find that the cost of ignoring [the advice to back off from Iran]
may be higher than he imagined.
Perhaps he's counting on not being President by then. Another case of IBGYBG (I'll be
gone, you'll be gone), an attitude that seems to be infecting bankers, Wall Street, and the
rest of the U.S. élite lately. A cataclysm is coming, and they can see it.
Why is Zio-America treating Iran with such hostility?
Iran and Israel are locked in a vicious cold war. Their animosities date back to mythical
antiquity. One alleged episode is even celebrated in the Jewish celebration of 'Purim'.
Take a look at the breathtaking insight that Gilad Atzmon has to offer about Purim:
In any case, Iran and Israel's antipathies for one another shouldn't concern superpower
America. Except that it does.
Like American television, Washington happens to be Israeli-held territory. Haven't you
heard?
This is why Zio-Washington invariably sides with Israel in all of its disputes, even when
1) Israel is the aggressor, 2) even when Israel is slaughtering powerless civilians who are
protesting their subjugation, and 3) even when US interests are not at stake or even in play.
And this uniform deference from Washington is thoroughly bipartisan. It is 'business as
usual'. It's basically unanimous. Both Parties. No dissent.
Many just call it 'US Mideast policy'. Ironclad. 'Unshakable'. But don't laugh or smirk.
Doing so might be seen as 'anti-Semitic'.
Exactly how traditional 'US Mideast policies' benefit the average American however
remains a mystery. Many of these questionable policies are never critically examined in the
open – at least not the big ones involving that 'special relationship' with
you-know-who. Never.
These rigid policies help explain how Crypto-Israelis in America – using Washington
as their proxy – have successfully brought the US into Israel's cold war against
Iran.
Zionist operatives have not only orchestrated the decades-long freeze of billions of
dollars in Iranian assets that belong to the Iranian people, but they have launched a global
(and crypto-Zionist) 'Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions' campaign against the relatively
peaceful nation of Iran.
Iran's crime? That nation's alleged 'sponsorship of terrorism' in support of the
Palestinian struggle against Zionist occupation, as well as other anti-Zionist resistance
movements in Lebanon, Syria and beyond.
Yet it is Israel that is foremost occupying power in that region and it is Israel that
is the expanding nuclear power. Meanwhile, the Zionist-lead BDS campaign against Iran is
nothing less than a full-blown economic war. At the same time, Israel benefits from
unconditional and continuous US subsidies.
Politicians who dare question this phenomena – or who wander off the Zionist
plantation in Washington – tend to disappear. Rapidly. Journalists, too.
In no small way, Israel sees its mission to dominate the region and expand its borders
as a religious duty. Destiny. This puts Israel in a class by itself. And unlike its neighbors
(including Iran) Israel has nuclear WMD.
Due to Israeli influence here, Americans are not only actively supporting various Zionist
war efforts, but they are also paying billions more for their gasoline since Zionists have
managed to prohibit the purchase Iranian oil throughout the West. These economic 'choices'
are what Americans unwittingly make – even though the 'average Joe' remains totally
unaware of them.
Indeed, even though Iran wants to be a trading partner with America and bring its oil onto
the world market, Zio-Washington says 'NO!' US consumers be damned. The Iranian people be
damned.
This is not the first time that US economic interests have taken a back seat to Israel's.
Please recall the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Zio-Washington's intervention on behalf of Israel
during that conflict, the ensuing Arab oil embargo, and the disastrous recession that
followed.
But Zio-America never turned it back on Israel, even though American citizens never had
the opportunity to determine their allies or policies one way or another. US support of
Israel is mandatory. It's been this way since LBJ.
Today, Israel is maneuvering Zio-Washington to do to Iran what it did to Iraq, Libya and
Syria; namely, spread destabilization and impose 'creative destruction' upon all nations that
pose any long-term threat to the Zionist State.
With the US and China contemplating their next moves in what is now
officially a trade war, a parallel narrative is developing in the world of energy where Asian
oil refiners are racing to secure crude supplies in anticipation of an escalating trade war
between the US and China, even as Trump demands all US allies cut Iran oil exports to zero by
November 4 following sanctions aimed at shutting the country out of oil markets.
Concerned that the situation will deteriorate before it gets better, Asian refiners are
moving swiftly to secure supplies with South Korea leading the way. Under pressure from
Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil, according to sources, even as
it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China tit-for-tat on trade.
"As South Korea's economy heavily relies on trade, it won't be good for South Korea if the
global economic slowdown happens because of a trade dispute between U.S and China," said Lee
Dal-seok, senior researcher at the Korea Energy Economic Institute (KEEI).
Meanwhile, Chinese state media has unleashed a
full-on propaganda blitzkrieg , slamming Trump's government as a "gang of hoodlums", with
officials vowing retaliation, while the chairman of Sinochem just become China's official
leader of the anti-Trump resistance, quoting Michelle Obama's famous slogan "
when they go low, we go high. " Standing in the line of fire are U.S. crude supplies to
China, which have surged from virtually zero before 2017 to 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) in
July.
Representing a modest 5% of China's overall crude imports, these supplies are worth $1
billion a month at current prices - a figure that seems certain to fall should a duty be
implemented . While U.S. crude oil is not on the list of 545 products the Chinese government
has said it would immediately retaliate with in response to American duties, China has
threatened a 25% duty on imports of U.S. crude which is listed as a U.S. product that will
receive an import tariff at an unspecified later date.
And amid an escalating tit-for-tat war between Trump and Xi in which neither leader is even
remotely close to crying uncle, industry participants expect the tariff to be levied, a move
which would make future purchases of US oil uneconomical for Chinese importers.
"The Chinese have to do the tit-for-tat, they have to retaliate ," said John Driscoll,
director of consultancy JTD Energy, adding that cutting U.S. crude imports was a means "of
retaliating (against) the U.S. in a very substantial way".
In an alarming sign for Washington, and a welcome development for Iran, some locals have
decided not to see which way the dice may fall.
According to
Japan Times , in a harbinger of what's to come, an executive from China's Dongming
Petrochemical Group, an independent refiner from Shandong province, said his refinery had
already cancelled U.S. crude orders .
"We expect the Chinese government to impose tariffs on (U.S.) crude," the unnamed executive
said. " We will switch to either Middle East or West African supplies ," he said.
Driscoll said China may even replace American oil with crude from Iran. " They (Chinese
importers) are not going to be intimidated, or swayed by U.S. sanctions."
Oil consultancy FGE agrees, noting that China is unlikely to heed President Trump's warning
to stop buying oil from Iran. While as much as 2.3 million barrels a day of crude from the
Persian Gulf state at risk per Trump's sanctions, the White House has yet to get responses from
China, while
India or
Turkey have already hinted they would defy Trump and keep importing Iranian oil. Together
three three nations make up about 60 percent of the Persian Gulf state's exports.
Under pressure from Washington, Seoul has already halted all orders of Iranian oil,
according to sources, even as it braces from spillover effects from the U.S.-China
tit-for-tat on trade.
I think that the potential threat of what happens if there is a hot war are more extensive
than just having the Strait of Hormuz being closed. If you look at that map you can see that
Saudi Arabia is just across the Strait. And as luck would have it, Saudi Arabia's oil fields
are mostly in the east which means that they are within close missile range of Iran. Nice oil
fields you have there Saudi Arabia. Shame if something happened to it. The United Arab
Emirates are also within missile range as well. If both countries think that Patriot
batteries will protect them then they must have been disillusioned to find that those
Patriots couldn't even defend against wonky Houthi missiles.
Then there is the fact that Iran shares a border with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Remember how
the CIA shipped all those anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) and ManPads to the Syrian
Jihadists via countries like Saudi Arabia? Be a real shame if captured stock got passed on to
the Taliban via all those borders and started targeted US/Coalition forces in Afghanistan.
Just these two possibilities show how Iran has a whole range of options to use if it came to
a military confrontation. And it should be remembered. If a US/Coalition could not
successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million, then how can Iran with a population
of 80 million be occupied?
Another factor is that even if a US/Coalition managed to somehow suppress all those missiles
the Iranians are using to guard those Straits, you would never be sure that you got them all.
Who really want to risk their oil tankers going down those Straits and wanting to risk that
bottleneck beig turned into a flaming sea? The trouble there is no way that there would be a
quick campaign possible with everybody home by Christmas. This has the potential of still
being fought during the 2020 US elections and I do not think that the US establishment wants
to risk that one. What they do want is to strangle Iran economically and turn the place into
one of grinding poverty but if pushed too far may go the Sampson option.
Local kids could also be trained to fire rockets across the water. The straits are not
straight and cut into Iran, so there's a good vantage point for Iran.
> probably already is.
>> China is still officially stating that it will not end its Iranian oil imports and
operations.
China's investment of billions into the deep port of Gwadar should not be discounted.
While China has ceded the ocean surface to the US navy, the wei qi way is to surround and not
engage directly. By now the Gulf of Oman should be a sensory organ for information critical
to Iran, and passive systems are much harder to detect & destroy.
We're now three years out from Qiao Liang saying China "thinks that Washington will not
fight Beijing for the next ten years". China doesn't want the fight (and I mean high
explosives, not 'fighting for') yet, but they've been preparing. And let us not forget the
rooster tails on the American fleet fleeing the Persian Gulf in October 2015 when Russia
launched cruise missiles at Syria. That was three months after the 'One Belt, One Road'
speech.
While the Saud's are working out their family disputes they cannot afford to have the
petrodollar disabled. But the US is materially capable of weathering energy disruptions
better than the EU, which would become even more dependent on Russia. Long term, the
petrodollar is gone and climate migrations are coming, so the when of Fortess America could
depend on relative and not absolute 'cui bono, ciu malo'.
tldr: the fight is inevitable, there's more than two in the ring, and there's no
referee.
I doubt if it is mined at this time, but mines would be a logical way to quickly shut the
Strait down. A couple of small fast ships dropping mines at night could shut it down very
quickly. They could drop mines along the far shore which would force ships towards the Iran
side where they would be vulnerable to shore-based anti-ship missiles.
BTW, the standing NATO minesweeping group is three ships (two Lithuanian and one British).
Historically minesweeping is one of the roles carried out by other countries that the US is
currently working hard to alienate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_NATO_Mine_Countermeasures_Group_1
Mine sweeping ships generally are not heavily armored to avoid magnetic and acoustic
signatures that can trigger mines. So they can struggle in contested waters and would be very
vulnerable to anti-ship missiles.
"Rouhani, considered by European politicians to be a reformist, appears to be showing a
hardline streak that is nearer the strategy of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah
Khamenei. "
Everybody becomes a hardliner when faced with an existential threat, which Trump's threats
are now creating for Iran.
There's no need to sink any oil tankers to stop all oil shipping. Those tankers don't sail
without full insurance for the cargo, and no maritime insurer will back shipping through the
Strait of Hormuz while the Iranians are on the warpath. Hence, no oil tanker.
That is why a few mines would be very effective. All oil shipping would cease immediately.
Because mines can be redeployed very easily, including by air or fishing boats, insurers
would probably not be assuaged by naval assurances that mines have been swept.
In the 1980's when the Iranians mined the Straits the tankers still moved. What was the
insurance deal then? Did it the US pick it up for that part of the trip?
"If a US/Coalition could not successfully occupy Iraq with a population of 37 million,
then how can Iran with a population of 80 million be occupied?"
Iran is also mostly Persian. Yes, there are Arabs, Armenians, Baluchis, etc., but the vast
majority are Persian and are proud to be Persian. Unlike Iraq, where you have a country with
3 groups you can play off each other.
I visited Iran over 5 years ago and was able to speak to some regular Iranians (English is
not uncommon amongst men and women). They will fight to the last man, woman, and child if
anyone came into their country. And that's what the secular ones who hate their government
say.
Every town has lamppost flags showing the pictures of all the young men who died in the
Iran-Iraq War. It was humbling to see the generational devastation wrought on that country.
Even the youth view that war as a world war, since people from over 25 countries were found
to be fighting on the Iraq side ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
– Remember the Soviet Union was ALSO on Iraq's side!). They faced destruction and
survived. They view themselves as an ancient, sophisticated people as well as the greatest
survivors in the world (all with good reason as they are an amazing people with a rubbish
government).
I do not see this ending well if the US thinks they can put the Iranians into a corner and
get compliance. It is an amazingly ahistorical understanding of the geopolitics of Iran.
These are the people we should be allying with not Saudi Arabia. But this is the same group
who think blundering into Iraq or Syria was a good idea, so I really can't be surprised.
Just to add that the people living above the main Saudi oil fields, Eastern Province, are
mainly Shiites. Shiites are also to be found in the south along the ill defined border with
Yemen. Both communities are disaffected and have been for decades, although the BBC, which
advertises its "unparalled global expertise" (sic) between news bulletins and other
programmes, reckons the Arab Spring caused the restiveness in Saudi Arabia.
This said, the Saudis and their Pakistani poodles can foment (Sunni) Arab and Baluch
disorder in Khuzestan and Sistan / Iranian Baluchistan.
I always wonder to myself when, on the BBC News Channel, they pan across the alleged
newsroom in New Broadcasting House and you see all those desks -- rows upon rows of them --
where people are sat, or, occasionally, get up and have a wander around, what the heck are
they doing there? It can't be producing news reports because you see the same half a dozen
so-called news "stories" stripped endlessly across the schedule throughout the day.
Every so often we get "business" news, which is someone from a spread betting company
piffling on about some rot or other then "a look at the markets", not, unfortunately, a view
of Covenant Garden or something, that would be more interesting, but rather some mysterious
figures from world indices and forex rates splayed across the screen like some inscrutable
hieroglyphs.
Then a bit of sport, with a dash of added jingoism.
Finally, some rally round the flag update on "the forces" with some top brass on the poop
deck of an aircraft carrier looking for an F35 ("F35 coming real soon"). Maybe Sophie
Rayworth in a tank.
Or alternatively it's Jenny Hill from Berlin with something about sausages and Merkel with
stock footage of people drinking beer from unfeasibly large glasses wraps it all up apart
from a sky diving granny then the weather.
It could be worse. We all could work in one of these places. It would not matter how great
a story you found, it would all have to get through the editors who report directly to their
owners like with the Murdoch press. The stuff you talk about is just the stuff that gets the
editorial nod i.e. pure pap.
Some of the stuff that I have seen on Australian TV, however, is nothing less than out and
out propaganda. I watch some of this stuff and I compare it with what I read on this site or
what a commentator chips in with and I wonder what these newsreaders actually are thinking as
they read some of these stories. Probably their steady pay packets.
I wish to god I knew. I have seen this creeping in the past decade or more. I suspect that
a lot of bad practices are imported from overseas. There are international conferences for
conservative political parties so you would have American Republicans, British Conservatives,
Australian Coalition, etc. all mixing together and swapping idea and techniques. They even
work together when there is an election in their country.
Just the other day I heard one Coalition member describe another as a "patriot" which you
NEVER hear in Oz. Kinda like a Republican describing another Republican as a good Communist.
You just never hear it. We even have an ex-Prime Minister that sounds like he could be a good
buddy to Mark Rubio running around trying to blow up his own party (currently in power)
saying that we should build as many coal power stations as possible because climate change is
not real.
Historically our governments have been ruled by pragmatism and past US governments have
labelled us as "socialist" due to adopting such things as single-payer health. The past few
years I am noting more and more ideologues going into politics who want to drag the country
into their way of thinking whether it is to pick fights with China (our major trade partner)
or send the Australian military to the ends of the earth as if they were Mercenaries-r-us.
The times they are a changing.
It all reminds me of C S Lewis' description of H -- as a giant bureaucracy. "The Screwtape
Letters" were written at the end of WW-2 and still come across as 'fresh.'
Supposedly the KSA funded development of the Pakistani bomb. There probably is some
agreement to hand some over (if it hasn't already been done) for "existential threats" This
could turn very bad very fast.
Iran has lots of options. Their Navy wouldn't last very long in a hot war but they have
lots of asymetric options. They have reverse engineered Russian torpedoes and these could be
launched from land or from mini-subs in shallow waters (where they are far harder to detect),
making life very difficult for opponents, let alone tankers. They can strike the UAE and much
of Saudi Arabia using a wide variety of ballistic missiles. To prevent this, the US would
have to strike Iranian territory, and this would cause a massive escalation. In almost any
scenario, the Straits would be shut down for many months, and this would be catastrophic for
the world economy. Asia would come off worse as they are most dependent on LNG and oil from
that region.
As you say, the great 'unsaid' is the Taliban. If Iran decided it was in their interest to
supply them with a few dozen trained operators with a few thousand anti-tank missiles and
manpads, then its goodbye Kabul.
The Iranians hate the Taliban and Al Quaeda and ISIS a lot more than we do since we are on
Saudi Arabia's side. They also seem to follow their principles. Don't forget our allies and
proxies in Syria are the headcutters and madmen ..all Sunnis ..although our government does
not want to admit it. They would be a lot smarter to trigger a Shiite uprising in Saudi
Arabia and shut the country down. The Shiites in Saudi are downtrodden and abused.
To escalate a carrier sinking to nuclear war is, I believe a lose/lose proposition. Let
say the Iranians sunk a carrier and the US Nuked Tehran.
The Iranians would not be in a forgiving mood at that point, and it would do little to
remove the somewhat irritated Iranians along the northern side of the Persian Gulf. The
irritated Iranians would initiate incidents over the impact of irradiated Iranians.
The US could nuke the Iranian Coast along the Persian Gulf, but, the gulf is not wide, and
the result would be poor prospects for the US allies on the South side of the Gulf. In
addition one does not know if nuking Shea would provoke a Sunni backlash against "the
infidels, the Christian US."
One could argue that Christians and Nukes cannot be mentioned in the same sentence.
The Prologue of Robert Baer's "Sleeping With the Devil" outlines a potential scenario of a
Shiite attack on the eastern Saudi oil fields. The sub-title is The Doomsday Scenario.
The book is about the US-Saudi relationship by a retired CIA officer. A very good read and
part of trying to understand this entire mess.
Exactly right. Logic dictates that if Iran is attacked, Iranian missiles will soon
thereafter attempt to destroy all of the oil producing capacity selling to Europe, Japan and
the US within range of its missiles. This means ships, oil fields, pipeline, ect. Oil prices
would skyrocket, plunging the US, Japan and Europe into a deep economic downturn.
Why people ignore the outcome you provided is beyond me. If I were Iran, I'd do the same
if Israel attacked too.
Your guess is that nobody will attack the Iranians after they attack the shipping to close
the straits?
In the 1987 Iran attacked about 91 ships in the Gulf. The oil still flowed. On April 18,
1988 the US attacked and severely damaged a number of Iranian ships and bases. After that
things started winding down. Then on July 3, 1988 the US shot down that Iranian airliner.
Then things really quieted down.
What are the differences now? Iran: ballistic missiles and subs?
There's Lt. General Riper, who played the Iranian side in the 2002 Millennium Challenge war
games, "killing" 20,000 Navy personnel and "sinking" 16 American warships
on the first day, so he knows better than to even start such a bottlenecked battle.
There's always General Farnsworth, the great grandson of Colonel Armstrong Custer.
Farnsworth has worked for two decades in the Purchasing & Planning wing of the Pentagon
-- three levels below daylight -- but his confidence in an immediate American victory Over
There is indubitable.
In similar vein, MI5's Eliza Manningham Buller is a descendant of Redvers Buller, British
commander in the second Boer War, but much more of a realist and moderate.
Redvers Buller? Seriously? I have read a lot about his role in the Zulu War of 1879.
Intriguing character being hard-fighting and hard-drinking and yet refused to wear his 1860
China medal on the grounds that it was an unnecessary war. And a descendant of his is head of
MI5?
Here's a little character sketch of Redvers Buller, from " On the Psychology of
Military Incompetence ", by Norman Dixon:
The leading character was the commander-in-chief, General Sir Redvers Buller. According
to a contemporary description there could be no finer choice for our South African
adventure: 'There is no stronger commander in the British Army than this remote, almost
grimly resolute, completely independent, utterly fearless, steadfast and vigorous man.
Big-boned, square-jawed, strong-minded, strong-headed Smartness sagacity administrative
capacity He was born to be a soldier of the very best English type, needless to say the
best type of all.
Unfortunately this assessment was at variance with the facts in all but two particulars.
Firstly, he was indeed big. Secondly, though sadly lacking in moral courage, he was
undoubtedly brave when it came to physical danger. In this respect, as in many others, he
was not unlike Raglan of the Crimean War, and indeed some other commanders of subsequent
years.
Of Sir 'Reverse' Buller, as he came to be known by his troops, Rayne Kruger writes: 'At the
risk of marring [the] contemporary description it should be mentioned that his big bones
were particularly well covered, especially in the region of the stomach, and that his
square jaw was not especially apparent above a double chin. He had entered the army with no
disadvantage, his mother being a Howard and niece of the Duke of Norfolk, and he was very
wealthy, which was fortunate in view of his preference for a diet of ample good food and
champagne.
Such examples of the Peter Principle, wherein people are raised to their own level of
inefficiency, was never better illustrated than in the case of Sir Redvers Buller, who has
been described as 'a superb major, a mediocre colonel and an abysmal general'. In this
case, high-level military incompetence must be laid at the door of heroic leadership, for
this was the quality which eventually put him where he could do the most damage to his own
side.
The US response will be that this unprovoked aggression is an act of war, etc. This
ignores our own unprovoked act of aggression, the embargo.
In case any has forgotten, those dastardly Imperialist Japanese launched an "unprovoked"
attack on Pearl Harbor because the US put Japan under an embargo.
Embargoes themselves are not acts of war, but blockades are. But this is all technical
blather. The US is attempting to strangle Iran. Iran will attempt to strangle the Gulf Arabs
and the US. If Iran starts firing missiles or blockading the straits, the US will attack
Iran. Iran will in turn launch attacks on the Gulf states. This could drive oil over $200,
perhaps higher.
If Iran were clever, they would institute some sort of quarantine or inspection in their
territorial waters. Indeed, they should claim jurisdiction over the entire strait in the
interest of international security (they could certainly find some US document somewhere and
just change the names). Then they could stop every ship going in and out and spend a week or
so inspecting each one for contraband, disease, etc. This would not be an act of war but
would certainly provoke the US into striking first anyway.
Iran has already extended its territorial waters to 12 miles, as did Oman. Given that the
strait is 29 miles at the narrowest, and that to deal with the amount of shipping, pretty
much all of it passes through either Omani or Iranian territorial waters. Technically,
Iran/Oman has right to stop any non "innocent" (read unarmed) shipping trough it territorial
waters. Not sure what is Omani relationship with the US/Saudis at the moment, wasn't paying
much attention to the Gulf.
Once the US decides to strike first, we're going to be on our own. The Saudis will be
completely useless as they always were, understandably not wanting to be cannon fodder for US
interests. And with most of Europe and Asia relying on gulf oil, our 'coalition of the
willing' is going to be a bit shy of members.
But $200 a barrel and the US a solid producer? Seems to be some win-win money to be made for
both Raytheon and Exxon-Mobil.
No Saudi just like no rich American will give his life for his country .in the military.
Life is just too good for them .why fight in the desert when you can cool it at a cafe in
Munich ..why are all the Syrian men of fighting age in Munich and Hamburg? They don't want to
fight for their country.
Considering the restraint Iran has shown regarding Israeli attacks in Syria, it's safe to
assume they want to avoid war at all cost. Don't expect any acts of aggression from them.
Talk of closing the strait is trying to see if there is any spark of independence left in
Europe's political elite. Unfortunately the Europeans only care about money – what they
get personally from the US to run their countries and what their corporations get from doing
business with America. There just isn't enough business between Iran and Europe to offset
that. Now the more unreasonable Washington becomes the more uncomfortable its allies become,
however they will still hold their noses and answer the call to duty. I'm afraid Iran's
courting Europe will produce little to help them. Luckily China and Russia, even Turkey and
India, are far more important.
The nice thing for Iran's hardliners – assuming the MSM narrative that they are
nasty terrorists always looking to cause trouble – is that they don't need to take
aggressive action to start a war. They've got America/Israel and that's the cause of every
war in the 21st century. That pairing will decide if and when there is to be a war. Russia
and China might have the ability to provoke caution but Iran doesn't.
Do not expect any actions from the Iranians to provoke a war. It's a war they cannot win
and they know it. it's also a war they can't lose but the price they could pay by surviving
might be really horrific. I'm not sure they'd close the strait even in a shooting war because
that would risk further escalation. The moment America starts bombing Iran the law of
diminishing return kicks in. The US will be looking for any excuse to go nuclear. Therefore I
doubt Iranian resistance will be more than defensive. Hopefully Russia is providing them with
air defences to be able to shoot down some US planes. Just lay low and ride out the storm.
That's been the philosophy of US/Israeli opponents in the Middle East this decade. It's why
the Russians take so much crap and keep turning the other cheek. They understand that either
they lose such a war or, if they are winning they risk the US going nuclear. Iran can't win a
war with America. Iran, however, can inflict unacceptable casualties but then they run the
same risk of Washington going nuclear in retaliation. In Asian capitals you have rational
players who understand that a nuclear war must be avoided if possible. Thus they avoid any
aggressive actions which they fear could lead to such a war. The problem humanity has is that
we're not sure if there are any rational players in Washington or Tel Aviv.
"The problem humanity has is that we're not sure if there are any rational players in
Washington or Tel Aviv."
+1
Given our belief in being an "exceptional nation" hasn't this been humanity's problem since
the end of WW2?
Will the sanctions pull Iran enough to such an escalation? Would other countries (apart
from Turkey) thing that this is troubling enough to risk US sanctions and disobey? There has
been an escalation in language between the UE and US regarding Iran sanctions but it is still
too soon to know what will be the EU position. We migth know after tomorrow's meeting in
Vienna. I don't know what could happen but be sure the US is running out of "natural allies"
by stepping up too much it's support for Saudi Arab. Trump is inaugurating a new era and it
doesn't look pretty.
The Army might be in trouble but the Marine Corps WILL BE IN A HURT LOCKER FROM HELL if
its ever called on to face Russian forces if they follow thru with published planning.
It is as clear as day that President Trump is obsessed with regime change in Iran. What is
not made clear is how much his gambit is damaging to Americans and American interests.
Without cause or justification, Mr. Trump pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of
Action (JCPOA), striking a hard blow to America's European allies – and its own
credibility. Moreover, he threatened European countries with secondary sanctions should they
continue to trade with Iran.
To top it all, in his latest move, he has called for all Iranian oil exports to be cut off
by November. Or in practical terms, he is imposing an economic blockade on Iran. This is a
similar scenario that was played out by the British in 1951 against Iran and Dr. Mossadegh
– who was later overthrown in the 1953 British-US coup. But today, the IR of Iran is not
the Iran of 1953, and the brunt of American demands and actions will not be borne by Iran
alone.
Demanding that no country purchase oil from Iran is in fact an economic blockade. It is an
illegitimate use of power to force a sovereign nation to surrender. It must be made clear
however, that it is not just Iran that is the target here. The Trump administration's demands
arean offensiveexercise of extraterritorial authority with no regard for sovereign equality
between states. All states involved in trade with Iran will either have to cower to his demands
or be punished.
But there is more than state sovereignty and indignation that is involved. These actions
will have a dire effect on the economy of allies, and they will hit Americans in the wallet
– hard. If Mr. Trump is giving a November deadline, he hopes to postpone the impact this
will have on the November elections. He wants total rule over America before totally
bankrupting it.
To fully appreciate how Mr. Trump intends to make 'America great again' where his policy
regarding Iranian oil is concerned, one must take a look at some numbers and empirical
evidence.
The oil strikes leading up to the toppling of Iran's Shah were felt around the world. During
the 1978-79 revolution, Iranian oil production dropped 3.8 million barrels per day for 3
months. Although outside production increased by 1.8 million barrels to make up for the loss,
the net loss to the world was 150 million barrels of oil. However, the compounding results of
the production loss were significant around the globe.
Many Americans may recall the lines at the fuel pumps, but that was just what met the eyes.
The increase in oil prices impacted farming, production, transportation of goods and services,
and so on. At that time, China, currently the second biggest oil consumer behind America, was a
net exporter of oil. The loss to U.S. economy was estimated at many billions of dollars in 1979
and 1980 (Deese and Nye 308-309) [i]
.
More recent studies show that Iranian oil has a major impact on the U.S. economy even though
America does not import a single barrel of oil from Iran. In 2008, economists Dean DeRosa and
Gary Hufbauer presented a paper in which they claimed that if the United States lifted
sanctions on Iran, the world price of oil could fall by 10 percent which would translate into
an annual savings of $38-76 billion for the United States [ii] .
But sanctions alone were not responsible for oil price hikes in 2008 and beyond. In July
2008, oil had reached a peak of $142.05/bbl (see chart HERE ). This price hike
came on the heels of some important events. In May, President Bush sent a ' warning message' to Iran on
the same day that additional aircraft carriers with guided-missile destroyers were sent to the
Persian Gulf.
In June of the same year, the New York
Times reported that: "Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that
American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities."
In July, then presidential candidate Barak Obama asked for
tougher sanctions to be imposed on Iran.
It was not until September 2008 when President
Bush declined to help Israel attack Iran that oil prices started to relax. They hit a low
of just over $53 /bbl in December 2008.
Oil prices continued to rise again under Obama's sanctions and reached well past the $100
mark. The prices climbed down once again during the JCPOA negotiations reaching an all time low
of $30.24/bbl in January 2016 – after the signing of the JCPOA.
Today, oil prices stands at $74.30/bbl. A fact not lost on any American who has filled up
his/her gas tank lately– and paid for groceries. The deadline for Iran oil cut off is yet
months away, but the impact has started.
Given that other countries may step in to compensate for some of the Iranian oil
loss, other factors which effect prices must be considered – the most important of which
is the security of the Strait of Hormuz. As mentioned previously, the British oil blockade
scenario of 1951 will have far different consequences in 2018 should America impose an economic
blockade or oil embargo.
In the 1950's, Iran did not have the military might to retaliate to the oil embargo and the
naval blockade was aimed at crushing the economy in order to bring about regime change. This
economic blockade, should it be allowed to happen, would crush the economy of much of the
world.
As it stands, 35% of seaborne oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz 85% of which goes to
Asian markets. As the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) has stated: "The blockage of
the Strait of Hormuz, even temporarily, could lead to substantial increases in total energy
costs."Today, Iran not only has the military might to block the Strait of Hormuz in
retaliation, but it also has the legal right.
The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) stipulates that vessels
can exercise the right of innocent passage, and coastal states should not impede their passage.
Under UNCLOS framework of international law, a coastal state can block ships from entering its
territorial waters if the passage of the ships harms "peace, good order or security" of said
state, as the passage of such ships would no longer be deemed "innocent" [iii] .
Saudi Arabia and the UAE export oil through Iran's territorial waters. Should they help America
choke Iran's economy, their passage is not deemed 'innocent'.
Even if Iran simply chooses to merely delay the passage of tankers by exercising its right
to inspect every hostile oil tanker that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, such inspections
and subsequent delays would contribute to higher oil prices.
No doubt, the Iranian navy is no match for the formidable US navy. However, the shallow,
narrow waters of Hormuz do not allow for the maneuvering of US battleships. The very presence
of warships can lead to incidents. At its narrowest point, the Strait of Hormuz is 21 miles
wide – hardly wide enough for a naval battle to take place and allow the passage of oil
tankers at the same time. In recent years (2012), the USS Porter, a US navy destroyer,
collided with an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz. The collision left a big whole in the
navy destroyer.
American officials and oil companies have attempted to assuage the concern of over oil
shortages by stating that America is one of the top oil producers. Some fact checking is in
order.
According to EIA's latest available data, America's total exports in 2018
(thousands of barrels/month) was 7,730 bblin April. The same governmental body stated that
total imports for the same month was 310,295. According to the EIA: "In 2017, the United States
producedabout 15.4 million barrels of petroleum per day (MMb/d), and it consumed about 19.9
MMb/d. Imports from other countries help to supply demand for petroleum." (Click HERE for
explanation of imports and exports).
These facts do not stop the spread of such news. As recently as June 4, 2018, Offshore Technology announced America is marching toward being the biggest oil
producer. Important factors to bear in mind are that 1. America is the largest oil consumer and
continues to have a deficit, and 2. Shale oil production is up thanks to higher oil prices.
While environmentalists objected to shale oil production, oil companies halted the
extraction of oil when prices dropped. Anything above $50/bbl makes shale oil production
feasible – which also makes it more expensive of the consumer. Although Mr. Trump and his
administration have no regard for the environment, many states and countries have banned shale
oil production (see LINK for list as of December
2017).
So the American people (and much of the rest of the world) is left with a stark choice.
Either cave in to Mr. Trump's demands, accept loss of business, pay much higher oil prices at
the pump and for consumer goods, prepare for a potential war, and sacrifice the environment
– especially water, and mortgage the future of the earth more than we already have, or,
don't heed Trump's demands – even if means a short term loss.
Either way, messing with Iran's oil exports is not an alternative that the world can afford.
It may well be that Mr. Trumpis beholden to Mr. Netanyahu. He may well feel comfortable enough
to subject the American people – and their allies to financial hardship; but the question
is will Americans and the rest of the world sacrifice themselves at the Trump-Netanyahu
altar?
* Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on
U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
"... The Iranians will lose marketspace, sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling. ..."
Oil will continue to flow from Iran, there simply isn't a significant supply stemming from
the Saudi-Russia alliance or US shale to fill the gap.
The Iranians will lose marketspace,
sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And
anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to
energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling.
And when there's less appetite for oil; the price of oil crashes resulting in another big
financial crash (due to bad dept) followed by another round of austerity measures which
spells political turmoil in a number of countries. And the landscape gradually changes.
So Trump asked the Saudis to pump 2 million more barrels per day to offset Iranian exports?
Daffy!. Saudis do not have a spare barrel, let alone 2 million. Ask Simmons. Oh wait, he
has been offed:
LONDON(Reuters) - The leader of Saudi Arabia has assured U.S. President Donald Trump that
the Kingdom can raise oil production if needed and the country has 2 million barrels per
day of spare capacity that could be deployed to help cool down oil prices to compensate for
falling output in Venezuela and Iran.
In a tweet on Saturday, Trump said Saudi Arabia had agreed to increase output by up to
this amount, although a subsequent statement from the White House rowed back on this
assertion.
Either way, the kingdom, OPEC's biggest member, can barely raise output by 1 million bpd
to 11 million bpd and even that would be difficult, according to industry analysts who
forecast a further oil price rally due to a lack of new supply.
Below are comments from some leading OPEC analysts:
[ED: one of several cited below]
"The Saudis do not have 2 million bpd of spare capacity as it would imply production of 12
million bpd. They can likely produce a maximum of 11 million and even that will be running
their system at stress levels," said Ross.
He added that with a potential output fall of up to 1.5 million bpd in Iran and
further outages in Venezuela and Libya, the world could be short of 2 million bpd of oil
output without an increase in Saudi output by the end of the year."
Pepe declares US shale to be a myth, but then says KSA and Russia have teamed up to fight. Us
production figures also left out. Disappointing piece from Pepe, especially this glaring
contradiction where KSA and Russia has to team up to fight what he calls a myth.
Pepe's referring to the assumed longevity of shale which is proven to be a gross lie. I can
provide documentation about that but it will have to wait until I have more time to work.
karlof1
Ok so according to Pepe Russia and KSA are joining forces to fight this gross lie.
either shale is a real and major threat, or Russia and KSA are not joining forces. That is
the glaring contradiction in Pepes piece. the other option is that both Russia and KSA both
of which have some knowledge of oil are mistaken about US shale.
Already have Syria? Not really. Heard of the SDF occupying the North-Eastern third of
Syria. If Trump & Putin can't come to an agreement on Iran what's the bet Trump decides
to pump money, weapons and US troops into North-Eastern Syria to fully support the Kurds?
NordStream II? Sure, it will be built, but Trump can sanction Germany and German industry
- ie automakers - heavily if he so wishes. He might do. He can blame NordStream II. He's
certainly been talking about it.
There are certainly ways and means Trump can create huge trouble for Germany/Russia in
regards to NordStream II even if it is built.
Crimea? Yeah, Russia has it but it is also used as the bludgeon to impose sanctions on
Russia. Perhaps recognising Crimea as part of Russia and dropping all sanctions on Russia
will be offered to Putin in return for Russia staying out of any conflict regarding Iran in
2019.
I'd hardly say Trump has nothing to bargain.
Besides, why would Putin select Medvedev as Prime Minister again despite Medvedev being
obviously a Euro-Atlanticist?
I'd also add - who do you think Russia fears in the future decades.
Is it a decaying Europe/EU who nevertheless can buy lots of Russian goods including oil
& gas obviously?
Or do Russia fear a rising China that always has one eye on the Russian Far East as a
possible place for expansion to take care of their oil & gas & mineral needs?
I suspect - and you can look to the history of Russia/China relations for this - that
Russia retains a more existential fear of China than anyone else.
Russia always clearly seeks to balance Europe/EU/US/Atlantic against China and others.
Where does Iran fit in all this? If Iran is taken out who benefits? Doesn't Iran being
taken out strengthen Russia's hand vis-a-vis China in terms of oil & gas? I'd say it
does. Certainly. Without Iranian oil & gas China becomes more dependent on who?
RUSSIA!
So I bet Russian thought would tend to say to China. Look, we are not going to put
ourselves on the line to defend Iran. But hey, if you want to do that we'll support you doing
so, afterall, Iran is of a more of a vital strategic interest to you than us.
We defended Syria, we can't defend anyone and you can't expect us to defend everyone. If
you want a country to retain its independence you have to step up to the plate every now and
then rather than just relying on the Russian military.
And look - we defended Syria - what did you do in Syria's defence?
Just to finish this comment.
In case you haven't noticed the US has put a date of November 4 on stopping the
export/import of Iranian oil. Which is? It is 2 days before the November 6 Mid-Terms...
It's a clear set-up for 2019.
My prediction.
There will be military action against Iran in the first half of 2019.
I suspect March-April-May being the most likely.
At that time you also have Brexit, European Elections (dominated by populists), Ukrainian
Presidential Elections, South African Elections, Indian Elections... It's a big few
months.
My advice? Buy oil & gas in the second half of this year - it's value is likely to
skyrocket in 2019.
What will Iran's response be? I'd say if you are in any of Saudi Gulf Coast, UAE (Dubai
& Abu Dhabi), Kuwait or Bahrain - get out before New Year's!!!
Re: Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 1, 2018 11:14:41 PM | 27
I'm not judging one way or another on what Putin will necessarily do, but clearly Trump's
gambit is to wean Iran off Russian support.
Will it work? Who knows. But Iran clearly has less strategic importance to Russia than
Syria.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia prefers Iranian-Qatari oil & gas
pipelines through Iraq-Syria-Turkey to Europe or would Russia prefer Saudi-UAE-Qatari oil
& gas pipelines to Europe??
Any effort to understand US foreign policy from actual US interests is a futile exercise in
frustration. US foreign policy is driven by two things:
1. The interests of international financiers (heavily Jewish)
2. The Israeli government.
At consideration for actual US interests is secondary if such things considered at all.
That should be obvious enough to everyone by now.
The one thing that Russia and/or China could do that would do more to avoid another major
power war, is to loudly, clearly and publicly inform the Israelis (the people as well as the
government) that any attack upon Russia, China, or their forces by the US or NATO will be
treated as a direct attack upon Russia/China by the state of Israel and the Jewish people and
these will be utterly destroyed in the first salvo of the Russian/Chinese response.
The second thing that could/should be done, is for Russia to implement a covert campaign
of targeted assassinations of Jewish figures who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine
Russian interests. This would include people like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, key players in
international finance, etc. No Jew anywhere in the world should feel that they are beyond the
reach of Russian retaliation. This is precisely how the Israelis conduct their foreign policy
and Russians should not shirk from engaging fire with fire.
@Julian
I think you underestimate the long term benefit of a stable and prosperous Iran in the
greater Eurasian gambit (Infrastructure Node, stability for the region) vs the short term
gains Russia may achieve from a destroyed and fractured Iran that is in disarray. Russia
doesn't just export energy after all. Exploding oil prices will end up hurting consumer
nations, which in turn affects the global economy and by extension oil producers, there is
always a delayed feedback loop.
Just because someone competes with you in the energy realm doesn't automatically mean you
want that actor weak or destroyed. If that was the case, then why does Russia maintain good
relationships with Azerbaijan, a direct competitor to Russian Gas? Similarly Central Asian
countries are competitors in the gas market for China, yet Russia would never allow these to
be subverted by radical Islamists without acting.
2018-06-26 (Rudaw) When US sanctions were placed on Iran in 2012, the four Asian countries
were given a waiver, requiring them to reduce their business with Iran by 20 percent each six
months rather than halt trade immediately.
The Asian oil buyers are less likely to receive a similar waiver from the Trump
administration Iran may need to resort to a bartering system to continue selling its oil.
Under the 2012 US sanctions, India imported $10.5 billion worth of goods, mainly crude oil,
and exported commodities worth $2.4 billion.
The barter system will be inefficient, as Iran's oil sales are greater than the value of
what it imports from these countries. It also cannot use the currencies of these countries
for international business transactions. http://www.rudaw.net/english/business/250620181
2018-06-26 (Bloomberg) U.S. presses allies to cut Iran oil imports to *zero* by November
* U.S. isn't granting waivers on Iranian oil imports ban
(State Department Official)
"The global economy looks like the Titanic right now. The iceberg is the incoming oil price
spike and the complacent investment community won't even know what hits them. "
-Baby Domer
So, an important question for this board is, could we have reached peak oil production this
year? The Permian will increase substantially into 2020. However, that will be partially
offset by the Venezuelan drop. Add in other declines, and the drop could easily offset any US
production. At some point, OPEC will see that extra production will never meet demand, and
not just waste what they have.
It depends totally on political scenarios, not technical and not financial.
There's still a lot of growth potential to offset the declines:
– Permian
– Other US shales to a degree
– Kanada with it's vast heavy oil ressources
– Venezuela
– Russia
– Iraq
– Iran
– SA (nobody knows), at least they can call to their spare capacity
– Kuwait
– UAE
-Brasil
That's 10 locations, some are politically knocked out ( Ven, Iran partly) from growth.
The more important thing for world economy is: How long can they support the consumption
growth, additional to the decline of all other countries.
I think peak oil is somewhat more melodramatic: When Ghawar finally dries up, we have
reached peak oil. It will dry fast, due to all these horizontal tapping keeping the oil
flowing until the last feed of oil column. And replacing these 5 mb/d will require an
additional fully developed Permian – something not in sight at the moment.
Libya's Tripoli-based NOC Says Exports from Benghazi-based NOC in the east are "illegal"
2018-05-26 BENGHAZI, Libya/TUNIS (Reuters) – Eastern Libyan commander Khalifa
Haftar's forces have handed control of oil ports to a National Oil Corporation (NOC) based in
the east, a spokesman said on Monday, a move the internationally recognized NOC in Tripoli
dismissed as illegal.
If implemented, the transfer of control would create uncertainty for buyers of Libyan oil who
normally go through NOC Tripoli.
In comments later confirmed to Reuters, Ahmed Mismari, spokesman of Haftar's Libya National
Army (LNA), said on television that no tanker would be allowed to dock at eastern ports
without permission from an NOC entity based in the main eastern city, Benghazi.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-oil/east-libyan-forces-say-oil-ports-handed-to-eastern-based-noc-idUSKBN1JL2DQ
Tripoli-based NOC https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgkrEMeXUAADLGS.jpg
Some kind of summary with some details from Libya (from comments section in HFIR article
above – Game Over – Oil Prices Are Going Higher).
Nigeria and Libya are also becoming disruption hotspots. Three of Nigeria's main crude
streams (Forcados, Bonny Light and Qua Iboe) are either halted or severely disrupted, but
violence in Libya grabbed the recent headlines. Militias led by Ibrahim al Jathran, former
head of the local Petroleum Facilities Guard, attacked and briefly seized the 0.35 mb/d Es
Sider and 0.22 mb/d Ras Lanuf terminals from Khalifa Haftar's Libyan National Army (LNA).
Although the LNA are back in control, Libyan oil output has collapsed from 0.95 mb/d to
around 0.55-0.60 mb/d because of the fighting and NOC has declared force majeure at the two
ports (along with apparently unrelated technical issues undermining production at AGOCO-run
fields in the east).
After around 10 days of fighting, the extent of the damage at the two terminals remains
unclear. There is currently no information about the status of Es Sider, which exported
around 0.30 mb/d in the previous three months. The destruction of two storage tanks at Ras
Lanuf, which was exporting around 0.10 mb/d before the clashes, has reduced storage capacity
from 0.95 mb to 0.55 mb. Seven tanks at the terminal had already been damaged in previous
clashes and the destruction of another two leaves only four tanks capable of operating. Once
the fighting is over (and there is a considerable risk of further clashes over the next few
weeks), it will take several days to evaluate the status of Es Sider and Ras Lanuf. This
would be followed by emergency repairs, which could take a week or two, with export capacity
recovering only gradually. Consequently, we expect output to remain at 0.55-0.60 mb/d until
early/mid-July, even as NOC studies options to bypass Ras Lanuf and possibly divert exports
to the Zueitina terminals.
In conclusion: Libya is good for no more than 0.8 Mb/d, but likely less than that in
2018.
The debate seems to be around what effect the risk of secondary sanctions from US
government for international companies will have. Some argue that the US allies and their
companies will not pick a fight over this with the US right now. In either case, it certainly
is not good for the Iranian economy which contracted after the last round of sanctions and
boomed when they were lifted afterwards. Also the Iranians want western equipment and
competence to develop their oil and gas fields (some of their oilfields are somewhat
complicated to develop), and it is not certain Lukoil and russian service companies can be a
good enough replacement.
There are some hurdles with switching customers for large oil volumes. Tanker freight and
insurance services now done by western companies afraid of sanctions will have to be replaced
or the obstacles overcome somehow. But I agree with you that China, while also having a
futures market trading in yuan, will look to Iran when shortage arrives. However the
perception of shortage has still not arrived in oil markets today. Some reduction of export
from Iran is likely both initially and for some time further. Hard to say how much, some
argue that it takes 6-12 months to see the full effects of US sanctions. And once sanctions
now are in place, even if it was untimely given the supply situation in the oil market, it
will not be practical and too confusing as a political move to see them lifted soon (less
than 1 year).
From the Bloomberg article: "The U.S. plans to speak with the governments of Turkey, India
and China, all of which import Iranian oil, about finding other supplies."
Iranian condensate will most likely replace US condensate to China as much as possible.
China is the key to if/when this harsh "embargo" of Iran will ease. They have the strength to
stand up against the US and then others will follow suit (e.g. India). A barter system (goods
vs. goods trade) or payment in yuan could probably be a good enough way to avoid american
banking sanctions. But if China wants to stand up against US at this point is uncertain. If
this strangling of Iran is highly successful, it is hard to see the rewards. A high oil price
that will be the tipping point for the global economy in the wrong direction or indirectly
(hopefully not directly – who needs another war now?) overthrow the Iranian government
and thus the creation of new political problems in the country; a repeat of the Iraq
experience almost. I almost forgot that there is the nuclear issue there as well, maybe that
is also a driver
"We have a lot of diplomatic muscle memory for urging, cajoling, negotiating with our
partners to reduce their investments to zero," the official added.
(This official infers that EU countries will soon capitulate to US demands, but does he
believe that, say, India will agree to this? The CNN reporters don't ask.)
I've told you that once you start down the Trade War path forever it will dominate your
destiny.
Well here we are. Trump slaps big tariffs on aluminum and steel in a bid to leverage Gary
Cohn's ICE Wall
plan to control the metals and oils futures markets . I'm not sure how much of this stuff I
believe but it is clear that the futures price for most strategically important commodities are
divorced from the real world.
But today's edition of "As the Trade War Churns" is about China and their willingness to
shift their energy purchases away from U.S. producers. Irina
Slav at Oilprice.com has the good bits.
The latest escalation in the tariff exchange, however, is a little bit different than all
the others so far. It's different because it came after Beijing said it intends to slap
tariffs on U.S. oil, gas, and coal imports.
China's was a retaliatory move to impose tariffs on US$50 billion worth of U.S. goods,
which followed Trump's earlier announcement that another US$50 billion in goods would be
subjected to a 25-percent tariff starting July 6.
It's unclear as to what form this will take but there's also this report from
the New York Times which talks about the China/U.S. energy trade.
Things could get worse if the United States and China ratchet up their actions
[counter-tariffs] . Mr. Trump has already promised more tariffs in response to China's
retaliation. China, in turn, is likely to back away from an agreement to buy $70 billion
worth of American agricultural and energy products -- a deal that was conditional on the
United States lifting its threat of tariffs.
"China's proportionate and targeted tariffs on U.S. imports are meant to send a strong
signal that it will not capitulate to U.S. demands," said Eswar Prasad, a professor of
international trade at Cornell University. "It will be challenging for both sides to find a
way to de-escalate these tensions."
But as Ms. Slav points out, China has enjoyed taking advantage of the glut of U.S. oil as
shale drillers flood the market with cheap oil. The West Texas Intermediate/Brent Spread has
widened out to more than $10 at times.
By slapping counter tariffs on U.S. oil, that would more than overcome the current WTI/Brent
spread and send Chinese refiners looking for new markets.
Hey, do you know whose oil is sold at a discount to Brent on a regular basis?
Iran's. That's whose.
And you know what else? Iran is selling tons, literally, of its oil via the new Shanghai
petroyuan futures market.
Now, these aren't exact substitutes, because the Shanghai contract is for medium-sour crude
and West Texas shale oil is generally light-sweet but the point remains that the incentives
would now exist for Chinese buyers to shift their buying away from the U.S. and towards
producers offering substitutes at better prices.
This undermines and undercuts Trump's 'energy dominance' plans while also strengthening
Iran's ability to withstand new U.S. sanctions by creating more customers for its oil.
Trade wars always escalate. They are no different than any other government policy
restricting trade. The market response is to always respond to new incentives. Capital always
flows to where it is treated best.
It doesn't matter if its domestic farm subsidies 'protecting' farmers from the business
cycle or domestic metals producers getting protection via tariffs.
By raising the price above the market it shifts capital and investment away from those
protected industries or producers and towards either innovation or foreign suppliers.
Trump obviously never read anything from Mises, Rothbard or Hayek at Wharton. Because if he
did he would have come across the idea that every government intervention requires an
ever-greater one to 'fix' the problems created by the first intervention.
The net result is that if there is a market for Iran's oil, which there most certainly is,
then humans will find a way to buy it. If Trump tries to raise the price too high then it will
have other knock-on effects of a less-efficient oil and gas market which will create worse
problems in the future for everyone, especially the very Americans he thinks he's
defending.
"... Several years ago Putin made a speech at the UN in favor of upholding International Law I thought at the time this "diplomatic statesmanship" was going to be Putin's way of bring Russia back into equal power with the Europeans and the US. Some have wondered and been asking about Putin not being as aggressive as he could be in defending Syria and Iran. Putin's holding off on tough talk/action could be amassing more power in the end. Putin comes off as the voice of sanity..exactly what the Europeans want to hear and see. ..."
Several years ago Putin made a speech at the UN in favor of upholding International Law I
thought at the time this "diplomatic statesmanship" was going to be Putin's way of bring
Russia back into equal power with the Europeans and the US. Some have wondered and been
asking about Putin not being as aggressive as he could be in defending Syria and Iran.
Putin's holding off on tough talk/action could be amassing more power in the end. Putin comes
off as the voice of sanity..exactly what the Europeans want to hear and see.
As Europe turns away from the US they turn to Putin.
If anyone remembers all the Jew rags making fun of "old Europe" during the Iraq war run up
and urging that the US break with them as outdated relics no longer needed in the new modern
age -- this is what it was all about -- separating the US from its traditional allies who
were not as subservient to Israel as the US. So .now we are down to the Jew plan Europe and
sanity vr the US Orange Clown and his allies of midget Nazi Israel, Saudi and the UAE.
Germany begs Russia to pick up the torch that US has dropped
"Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who has a history of expressing anti Russian
rhetoric relevant to Russia's presence in Syria as well as an alleged cyber attack on the
German Foreign Ministry which Maas says that he 'has to assume stemmed from Russia', has
turned an about face. He has traveled, for the first time, to Moscow to discuss international
diplomacy, the Iran nuclear deal, peace talks on Ukraine, and Syria.
Maas met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, where he encouraged Russia to
leverage its influence with Iran to help spur the Middle Eastern state in remaining committed
to the nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned earlier in the week.
Germany's Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, who has a history of expressing anti Russian
rhetoric relevant to Russia's presence in Syria as well as an alleged cyber attack on the
German Foreign Ministry which Maas says that he 'has to assume stemmed from Russia', has
turned an about face. He has traveled, for the first time, to Moscow to discuss international
diplomacy, the Iran nuclear deal, peace talks on Ukraine, and Syria.
Maas met with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, where he encouraged Russia to
leverage its influence with Iran to help spur the Middle Eastern state in remaining committed
to the nuclear deal, which Trump abandoned earlier in the week.
Maas then declared that Germany was interested in bringing back the peace talks on the
Ukraine, together with other European partners. Maas also pointed out that the Syrian
conflict can't be settled without Russia, before contributing a wreath to the tomb of the
unknown soldier, which is a dedication to Russian soliders who died fighting the Germans in
WW2.
Deutsche Welle reports:
Germany's top diplomat Heiko Maas and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov both called
for the nuclear deal with Iran to be upheld on Thursday, during Maas' first official visit
to Russia. The appeal marks a rare moment of unity between Moscow and Berlin just days
after US walked out on the 2015 accord.
In Moscow, Maas urged Russia to influence Tehran and make it stick to the deal, which
aims to limit Iran's alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The German foreign minister also
said he was seeking details from the US on its plans for future sanctions against Iran
US President Donald Trump has shrugged off pressure from allies to keep the deal in place
and called the accord "defective at its core." However, leaders of the UK, France, and
Germany all contacted Iranian President Hasan Rouhani in the attempt to salvage the
accord.
Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel called Rouhani on Thursday to reaffirm Germany's
commitment to the deal "as long as Iran continues to fulfil its obligations," said Merkel's
spokesman Steffen Seibert. Merkel also said she was ready to negotiate about Iran's
ballistic missiles and involvement in Syria and Yemen.
Angela Merkel is also set to visit Russia next week.
Visiting Moscow on Thursday, Germany's top diplomat Maas suggested reviving the peace
talks between Germany, France, Ukraine and Russia on the conflict in eastern Ukraine.
Lavrov responded by saying Russia was "ready to consider" this offer.
Maas also called for "honest dialogue" with Moscow and for Russia to be included in
global diplomacy, despite its differences with Berlin. Maas admitted that the conflict in
Syria "cannot be solved without Russia."
The German diplomat also laid a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Moscow,
which is dedicated to the Soviet soldiers killed during World War II.
Also in a bid to get Russia to assume a leadership position relative to preserving the
nuclear deal, and by extension, the European economy, Merkel got on the phone with Russian
President Vladimir Putin, where he mutually voiced his concern over Trump's action, and
where Merkel also came forward about the situation in Syria.
TASS reports:
BERLIN, May 11. /TASS/. Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Energy Peter Altmaier
has confirmed that he will visit Moscow at the beginning of the next week, he said in an
interview with German radio station Deutschlandfunk released on Friday.
"I will follow my colleague [German Foreign Minister Heiko] Maas, who attended
negotiations in Moscow yesterday. I will be there on Monday and Tuesday, and Chancellor
[Angela Merkel will visit Sochi -- TASS] during the week," Altmaier said.
Simultaneously, it has managed to develop fairly profitable, albeit at times tense
relationships with other major or rising world powers. Those include Russia, China and Turkey.
At the same time it is engaging a large number of European countries, South Korea, India, and
others in assorted trade agreements. Iran has managed to place itself front and center –
not only as a bad actor bent on colonization of the "Shi'a Crescent" and possibly beyond
– it has also gained increasing political and economic legitimacy among its former
adversaries.
Iran has even managed to get the United States under the Trump administration to wage
limited war against ISIS, first in Iraq and Syria and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan,
despite conflicts and occasional confrontations between US forces and the terrorist group's own
militias. While Iran's various financial deals are to some extent being tracked, what remains
noteworthy is the issue of energy control in the region, a factor that fuels the numerous
conflicts, or at least finances them.
... ... ...
The US has miscalculated by believing other countries are incapable of pursuing independent
interests without its involvement, or by thinking such nations cannot use energy markets
effectively to marginalize any state that is not already in an active leadership position. The
US should take stock of the way the energy assets are being played by various states. It should
either separate the authoritarian regimes which only grow stronger with the greater access and
interconnections such valuable assets provide, or by outplaying those states at their own
game.
An attack on Iran would probably result in the oil supplies through the Persian Gulf being
blocked.
That wouldn't just affect the ability of westerners to drive. Their holidays would be
wrecked, industry would go on short time, food supplies would be disrupted. We live in a very
complex world with most businesses reliant on just-in-time delivery. This is not 1917 or
1940.
Effect of Trump move on energy market remains to be seen... Might well be another step toward fiscal
collapse...
Notable quotes:
"... Better refresh. The United States is by definition, an empire. Has been since December 10, 1898. Not all empires have or have had emperors. At least, as an official title. We even still possess a few de facto colonies, Puerto Rico being the most populous. The Philippines were part of the American empire from December 10, 1898 to July 4, 1946. ..."
"... The Philippines' colonial history has been described by one historian as "500 years in a convent, followed by 50 years at Disneyland." ..."
"... This is the result of our long string of wars since Reagan took on Grenada. Then Bush in Panama. And on and on until today. We've chosen to do battle with small weak countries that don't have a hope in hell of winning or even inflicting major harm. ..."
Saudis bought 15 billion dollars antirocket system. Its one deal only. Just to get Trump to
stop messing around and crash the Persians they also bought Russian system.
"A peculiar pattern of Trumpian behavior is emerging. First, his fragile ego forbids
him to ever take responsibility for anything. Ever. Second, because he craves the adulation
of his base, he will to shift blame or throw any and all supporters and allies under the bus."
He also has a tendency to want to take revenge for any imagined or real slight that bruise
his fragile ego. Not a statesman or leader by any strength of the imagination.
Yes laughable and tragic all at the same time. Even the guy whose nickname actually is "Mad
Dog" (James Mattis) has gone on record with some intelligent comments on why the Iran nuclear
deal should be kept in place.
I'm not surprised you got so much hate on that comment board. The Neo-Nazis seem to loiter
where they know they can get away with crap that isn't monitored properly.
America's been piling on the bad karma since Vietnam. It could well cause the world egregious
trauma, but no one will shed a tear when the beast is brought low by its episodic-tho-predictable
bouts of cluster-fuck. Methinks they've hit the Big One.
And aren't its politicians infinitely grateful for a citizenry so simply and quickly distracted
by Hollywood shenanigans (as awful as they are in this instance) whilst a) 3 million of its own
have been blown into third world living standards; b) 528 took a bullet from a shooter in the
span of less than 10 minutes; and c) Californians are being roasted alive in the latest indication
that something's gone screwy in our biosphere? The Oaf and Chief considers Weinstein as nothing
more than relief.
Riddle: What's the difference between a President and a leader?
A: There shouldn't be difference, but now there is.
I know enough of Iran to respectfully disagree. In many respects, Iran is similar to China,
30 years ago. Under the right leadership, it has the potential of becoming an economic engine
for the South-West Asia, helping economic growth of itself and many of its neighboring countries.
Iran has a well-educated population that does not like the US, mainly because of the past US
behaviour both in their country and in the surrounding region. The people there revolted against
a US-installed government and used religion as a unifying ideology. Now they should be left alone
to sort out the problems that religion has brought to them.
In case of China, Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted to say:
Let China Sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world
As the journal Economist once suggested, it is also better to leave the Persian Lion alone.
Indeed, the Bonaparte's quote can be restated to apply to Iran; it could read:
Let the Persian Lion Sleep, for when it wakes, it will never live like a sheep
For those interested in military mind-set, it is worth mentioning here that Afghans and Iranians
are in fact the same people and approach war and fighting in the same manner. The difference between
the two is the cunning and sophistication of the latter.
Mr. McLean's analysis is largely on the mark. Indeed much of it is supported by Mr. Trump's
behavioral pattern, which has been witnessed by the world public during the past 11 months. There
is, however, an area where - like many others - Mr. McLean tries to play safe. When he says::
But he promised his loyal base, Fox News and Steve Bannon, he would dump the accord
he is apparently leaving out an important - and probably the most critical - constituency of
Mr. Trump. When Mr. McLean says:
He has Bannon and Breitbart howling on his heels, along with most of the rabid rightwing
noise machine.
he is getting close; but, then then he shies away from identifying who are the people behind
that "rabid rightwing noise machine.".
Many believe that Mr. Trump decisions are influenced by this "rabid rightwing machine" more
than anything or anyone else. He has been reported to call many of the machine's "operators" after
hours, from the WH as well as his Mar-a-Lago palace, in every opportunity he gets. As examples
of the power of this machine, they refer to its ability:
1. To undo the harm of Pope Francis condemnation of candidate Trump, clling him "not being
Christian", after his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants and build a wall between US and
Mexico. The machine undermined Vatican's moral authority by overnight flooding of the world media
with the old story of Pope John Paul II having a close relationship with a Polish women;
2. To pump out billions of dollars into the US futures market on the night of Mr. Trump's election
victory to reverse its steep drop of almost 1000 points .
Now the "rabid rightwing machine" wants US decertification of the nuclear treaty with Iran.
Mr. Trump is a businessman and no doubt understands how transactional relationships work. He is
indebted to this machine, and has to reciprocate its favours in order to receive more of the same
in future. Note that he has already registered as a canadidate, to be re-elected the US president
for his second term!
The facts don't support this assumption. Clearly and without a doubt by far the most dangerous,
the most destructive, the most deadly player in the region has been the United States. This fact
is indisputable to the sincere.
Better refresh. The United States is by definition, an empire. Has been since December
10, 1898. Not all empires have or have had emperors. At least, as an official title. We even still
possess a few de facto colonies, Puerto Rico being the most populous. The Philippines were
part of the American empire from December 10, 1898 to July 4, 1946.
The Philippines' colonial history has been described by one historian as "500 years in
a convent, followed by 50 years at Disneyland."
Trump makes a big medicine show of cancelling "the worst deal ever" (Man! Trump can go from
0 - Hyperbole in no time flat, eh?) but that's easier said than done. The United States simply
cannot arbitrarily walk away from the deal. Not legally. Aside from that Trump no longer enjoys
the support of the GOP to cancel the agreement.
Oh! Make no mistake. These very same Republicans were all for walking away from the deal when
Obama made it and they didn't control all three branches of government (although I'm not sure
who or what controls the executive at the moment). Now that they do, having nothing but
years of obstructionism to bring to the table, the GOP, lacking any governing skills whatsoever,
is as impotent as ever and tearing itself apart from the inside besides.
I tell ya'. The GOP, already severely weakened by the Koch Brothers'-funded grassroots
Tea Party movement, may very well just not survive the cancer of Trump.
Again, not the topic. The question is asked: Is Iran in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action? The answer, of course, is yes. Trump's entire domestic and foreign policy decisions
appear to be based entirely on if Obama had anything to do with it, then it has to go. Bad
or good. Right or wrong . This is not a viable method of sound government. It is petty, however.
Childish and puerile, to say the least.
At any rate, if Trump renegades on this deal as he has on so many since he's been in office,
then it will be the United States which will be in noncompliance with the treaty and it
will be the reputation of the United States which will suffer yet another blow delivered by none
other than our Buffoon-in-Chief.
Besides, Iran is not the only other nation muckraking about in the region. There are other
players in the game. I hear rumors of another, more powerful, more destructive, far more deadlier
entity stomping about the place, making a mess of just about everything. Been doing it for decades
now. Just keeps making matters worse.
North Korea might just decide that it's own best interests would be served by selling Iran
a working bomb. With Trump's sanctions interfering with North Korea obtaining oil, Iran might
just pay the tab that way. The world could very quickly become a much more dangerous place because
of Trump's antics.
This is the result of our long string of wars since Reagan took on Grenada. Then Bush in
Panama. And on and on until today. We've chosen to do battle with small weak countries that don't
have a hope in hell of winning or even inflicting major harm.
With each new painless war the American people have been conditioned to believe that because
it hasn't caused personal suffering that war is somehow painless. Now we've worked our way up
to North Korea and Iran. Both of them a whole different ball game. War with either or both would
likely result in a return of the draft.
Trump's scumbag supporters would quickly be singing a different tune as soon as they found
themselves being forced to participate.
As one commenter aptly said: " 'Moron', as Tillerson would say." and as another noted "Don the Neocon..
We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades,
STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al Qaeda offshoot" everywhere
on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about
every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory."
Notable quotes:
"... the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies? ..."
"... This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter. ..."
"... Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements. ..."
"... Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really? ..."
"... Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say. ..."
"... "Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore." ..."
"... It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us. ..."
"... And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years? ..."
"... We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support. ..."
"... it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants. ..."
"... Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic. Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country. Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pm One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald ..."
Making war in other people's countries is what an American government captured by globalist financial
elites is all about. For elites, such wars, paid for by the deplorable ordinary Americans they
loathe, have no downside and carry no risk to them. Lose-lose for the American public is win-win
for them, they cannot lose, especially since wars that can't be won will never end, perfect profit
streams.
"Cotton was among the fiercest and loudest opponents of the agreement before it was made,
and he has continued to look for ways to sabotage it."
Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really
whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly
pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to
think of him as an American senator anymore.
He's more like a member of the Netanyahu government who somehow ended up in one of Arkansas's
US Senate seats.
Does anyone here know any real Americans who are pushing for this policy against Iran? My family
and friends are nearly all real Americans, and not one of them has any interest in ending the
deal with Iran. Most of them wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether.
So the
question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working
for foreign lobbies?
This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against
a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N.
charter.
We are doing this while condemning other countries for not following a 'liberal, rules based
world order' (whatever that is, oh, wait, it is following Caesar's decrees). Our Hubris will catch
up to us, whether it will be by the Almighty that the Haley's and Cotton's claim to serve or just
the law of reciprocity, I don't know. No one is more blind than those corrupted by power.
John Quincy Adams, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy She well knows
that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign
independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication The fundamental maxims
of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress
of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."
He was able to see this because we were not yet intoxicated by power.
Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going
to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every
aspect of our Middle East entanglements.
Now he's creating a new mess of his own. And
this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really?
Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on
crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding
of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say.
What seem to be missing here is anybody talking about Israel nuclear capability. That's the "dirty
little secret" that nobody talks about. Imho, as long as Iran is in compliance the deal should.
Of course Trump and the Hawks in Congress are going to do everything to scuttle it and bring about
a war with Iran which will end up being a World War and will necessitate the US returning to a
military draft to fight this war. It will be a sad way to "wake up" America to what is being done
militarily in their name. But perhaps when they see their little "Johnny and Jill" marched off
to war, they'll see what has been done in these endless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East.
[Tom Cotton gets] "Really whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified."
He got a $700,000 check from a single Israel donor in 2014. You think anybody in Arkansas not
named "Walton" can match that? No sir. Tom Cotton does what Israel tells him to do. Scuttle the
Iran deal? No problem.
It's time that my fellow Arkansans did for Tom Cotton what those upstanding Virginians did
for Eric Cantor back in 2014, and for the same reason: we want our government back from corrupt
politicians working for foreign interests.
" the president made clear over the summer, he didn't "believe" Iran was in compliance and
would not certify again."
Wait, what?! What does Trump know that the IAEA has been unable to learn and at the risk of
compromising intelligence sources, why has he not shared that knowledge? As with many of the man's
"beliefs", such attitudes do not make issues remotely true. We don't need to stir the Iran pot,
for goodness sake. Has not this man kicked enough hornets nests around the world?
"Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really
whopping contributions – "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly
pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense
to think of him as an American senator anymore."
Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers
of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk
in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is
a must in GOP primaries.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, like his dad, is good on foreign policy, but doesn't get the
immigration issue. People like me who want a non interventionist FP and low immigration seldom
have candidates that believe in both to support. I had high hopes for Trump, but he seems to have
too many generals around him telling him the wrong things.
"Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers
of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk
in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel
is a must in GOP primaries. "
No it's not. It was a litmus test for the old neocon Establishment GOP, and it's gone the way
of Eric Cantor. You have to go to New York, DC, or some left coastal city to find anyone who gives
a goddamn about it, and those places don't vote Republican anyway.
Politicians who take the Israel dollar care about it a lot, naturally. And Cotton's near the
top of the list.
Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan
for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al
qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like
US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water
in a US territory.
"NO KIN IN THE GAME": STUDY FINDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITHOUT DRAFT-AGE SONS
WERE MORE HAWKISH"
1. Even though Iran and Iraq are 4 letter words and share the first 3, they are very, very
different animals. Iran is an industrial state of 85 million capable of designing and building
effective rockets. It is highly unlikely the US can defeat Iran in a conventional war on its own
turf.
2. Even if we did defeat them, there is nobody there yearning for American style pseudo-democracy.
While they are not perfectly happy with their own government, they'll be dammed if they're going
to accept one from us. So you'd have to put millions of American troops in harms way against the
civilian population essentially forever.
And a note on the President. I don't believe he knows or cares a thing about Iran or their
capabilities. What he does know, after watching Fox News for the last 8 years is: Obama bad. So
the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative.
It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he
can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked
us.
And how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has
Israel invaded in the last 80 years?
As I recall we made a regime change in the Iranian government when we had the CIA along with
the English intelligence by replacing the elected Prime Minister of Iran with the despotic, tyrannical
Shah.
As an American, Trump has desecrated our flag with his flat out lies, not the NFL athletes
who simps knelt during the National Anthem.
We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator
who votes for new sanctions against Iran – a country that poses virtually no threat to the United
States – exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics
the Saudis support.
"So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama
initiative."
I've heard this before, but if it were true than why is Trump helping the Saudis wreck and
starve Yemen? That was an Obama initiative too. That's why I now think that it's not really the
Obama connection so much as the Netanyahu connection that drives Trump. In other words, it's
less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants.
Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all
that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected
the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate
in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic.
Cotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others,
there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is
different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage
to our country.
One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah
regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done Donald
Regarding the 25th amendment option: how far down the line of succession must one go to find someone
who has solid, bona fide cred to stop this inanity?
The Economist today opines that Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump.
And I read on TAC that Trump is p***ing away our wealth and power doing favors for Israel and
Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, like scuttling the Iran deal and picking fights with the Iranian
government. And I conclude that the reason that the Economist may be right about Xi Jinping is
because Trump is doing what I read about in TAC, wasting our time, blood, money, and focus on
appeasing a bunch of goddamn foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.
In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the interview
Kerry did with Reuters,
https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm
that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy
is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when weighing
the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:
"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have
our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that argument
on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that are working
that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is strong enough,
our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what
we want them to.'
"Well, look – a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The United
States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because
we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to do even
though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?
"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are
already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many cases
to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We – it was Obama who went
out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By – I went to China.
We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and other countries to step back.
"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased sanctions
to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the table but they
made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going to have to obey
our rules on the sanctions anyway?
"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American
dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world – which is already bubbling out there
.." (Bold italics in original.)
The immediate costs of decertification for the USl include the loss of the trust of allies,
increased tensions with Iran, and much greater skepticism from all other governments. It also
create additional difficulties the next time America wants to negotiate a major international
agreement as some countries will view the USA as a rogue nation which is unable to keep its word.
If decertification leads to the U.S. breaching its obligations under the nuclear deal, as seems
likely, that the costs will increase even more, and so will the chances of war with Iran.
It might well be that Trump made a step increasing the probability of his removal from the
current position by cabinet members.
Looks like Trump focus on appeasing a bunch of foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi
lobbies.
President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979
hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of
Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations,"
and announcing new sanctions.
The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating
things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's
fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and
Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11
attackers.
The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant
that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were
"factual."
When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose
with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's
violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after
Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock
grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there
aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.
In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a
substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in
recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites
right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been
the source of repeated false accusations in the past.
And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with
comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be
able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its
neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and
stability" across the Middle East.
"... By handing off any real decision to Congress, [Trump] can avoid having to make a hard decision himself. And by picking a fight with Corker, he has a scapegoat if his supporters grow frustrated with a lack of action in Congress. It seems plausible that Trump's allies are simply being prepared for another legislative failure. ..."
For Trump's critics, including virtually all Iran policy experts at the moment, this attempt
at scuttling the world's most sophisticated arms control agreement sends absolutely the wrong
signal to Iran. Trump is essentially saying, "It doesn't really matter whether you have adhered
to the letter of the agreement, we're still going to break our commitment because, honestly, we
just don't like you. And by the way, you can't count on the United States to keep its word in
the future."
Trump is sending an even more damaging message to the rest of the world: "We as a country
suffer from mood swings so severe and delusions so enduring that we can no longer be a
responsible member of the international community."
After deep-sixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and pulling the United States out of the
Paris climate agreement, the Trump administration is making good on this one campaign promise
even as all the others stall in Congress or the courts. Trump will make America First even if
it means going against obvious American national interests, even those defined by the Chamber
of Commerce.
This is not the first time that other countries have witnessed the political instability of
the United States. But in the past, some underlying continuity provided a measure of
reassurance to other countries. Voters might choose vanilla or chocolate, but the world still
expects in the end to get some variety of ice cream.
What makes the Trump era different is the lack of that underlying continuity.
... ... ...
It's not just the North Koreans. The democratic world, for instance, found the transition to
the George W. Bush years particularly bewildering. Even before the attacks of September 11,
2001, the Bush administration announced that it wouldn't implement the Kyoto Protocol on global
warming. After the attacks, the administration broke with international law by embarking on a
"preventive" war, violating the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured combatants, and
engaging in torture. The administration also backed away from the Rome statute establishing the
International Criminal Court in May 2002 and withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
with the Russia in June 2002. All of these actions profoundly troubled America's allies.
... ... ...
In other words, even with its sharp turn toward unilateralism, the Bush administration held
to a bipartisan consensus in favor of multilateral initiatives that benefit the United States.
In some ways Bush offered only a variation on the Clinton theme of "a la carte multilateralism"
in which the United States picks and chooses the international structures with which it wants
to cooperate.
This kind of Bush-style unilateralism wrapped in a-la-carte multilateralism
has returned to the White House. It's represented by most of the top administration officials
involved in foreign affairs: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Pentagon chief James Mattis, and
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. These are the so-called adults in the room .
But Trump is something different. And that's what has thrown Republicans like Bob Corker
(R-TN) into a tizzy.
... ... ...
Bob Corker is not a moderate Republican. He has an 80 percent ranking from
the American Conservative Union for 2016 (by comparison, Susan Collins of Maine clocks in at 44
percent). He's no softie on Iran, either. Last year, he continued to try to pile on additional
sanctions against Iran. Ultimately, he had to content himself with an extension of the Iran
Sanctions Act for another 10 years. During the presidential campaign, Corker advised Donald
Trump on foreign policy and was even in the running for secretary of state.
Corker is cut from the same cloth as Rex Tillerson. They're conservative Republicans who
believe in "America First." But they're also committed to preserving a measure of
professionalism, if nothing else, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. They want to preserve
U.S. alliances. They want to advance the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
They're not isolationists, and they're not exactly internationalists either. They occupy the
right wing of the underlying foreign policy consensus that encompasses the think tanks, lobby
shops, and mainstream media in DC. They play ball whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in
the White House and whichever party controls Congress. They are part of the continuity in
American foreign policy that transcends the elections.
So, when Bob Corker takes aim at Donald Trump, it represents a serious breach not just
within the Republican Party but within the foreign policy establishment. Over the weekend,
Corker
charged that Trump was making threats toward other countries that could send the United
States reeling toward "World War III." Later, Corker
tweeted in response to Trump, "It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care
center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." Having decided not to run for
re-election, Corker is now free to speak truth to power.
... ... ...
So, why pick a fight with Corker just when the president will need him most
on the congressional battle over any new Iran sanctions? Writes Adam Taylor in The
Washington Post :
By handing off any real decision to Congress, [Trump] can avoid having to make a hard
decision himself. And by picking a fight with Corker, he has a scapegoat if his supporters
grow frustrated with a lack of action in Congress. It seems plausible that Trump's allies are
simply being prepared for another legislative failure.
In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal lieutenant Steve
Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state." They want to
dismantle the foreign policy establishment that has presided over America's engagement in the
world. A progressive might find much to rejoice in this attack, given that America's engagement
with the world has often been through war and corporate penetration. But the establishment is
more than that, and Trump/Bannon also want to unravel everything of diplomatic and humanitarian
value as well.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian
novel
Splinterlands .
However, in the wake of the president's speech on Friday, the JCPOA's survival
looked tenuous.
In the speech, Trump declared: "I am directing my administration to work
closely with Congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so
the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons."
He noted that congressional leaders were already drafting amendments to
legislation that would include restrictions on ballistic missiles and make the
curbs on Iran's nuclear programme under the 2015 deal permanent, and to reimpose
sanctions instantly if those restrictions were breached.
However, any such changes would need 60 votes in the US Senate to pass, and
Democrats are high unlikely to give them their backing. Even if they did pass into
law, the restrictions would represent a unilateral effort to change the accord
that would not be acceptable to the other national signatories.
Hours earlier, the US secretary of state,
Rex Tillerson
had acknowledged that it was very unlikely that the JCPOA
agreement could be change, but suggested that the issue of Iran's ballistic
missile programme and the time limits on some of the nuclear constraints in the
deal, could be dealt with in a separate agreement that could exist alongside the
JCPOA.
"Iran's total crude oil and condensates sales likely reached around
2.8 million barrels per day in September, two sources with knowledge
of the matter said, nearly matching a 2011 peak in shipments before
sanctions were imposed on the OPEC producer.
Iran sold 600,000 bpd
of condensates for September, including about 100,000 bpd shipped from
storage, to meet robust demand in Asia, the two sources said.
September crude exports increased slightly from the previous month to
about 2.2 million bpd, they said."
"Iran's condensate production has exceeded 610,000 b/d this year,
with 561,000 b/d of this - or around 90% - coming from the 16
operating phases at the giant offshore South Pars gas field in the
Persian Gulf, Akbary said.
The latest additions to the project were phases 17, 18 and 19,
which came into operation this year, Akbary said.
In addition, eight new phases are currently being installed at the
field. Phases 20 and 21 will become operational in 2017, Akbary said,
while phases 13 and 22-24 are expected to begin in 2018. Iran hopes
the entire development will be completed in 2021.
By then, South Pars condensate production will exceed 1 million
b/d.
Smaller offshore fields under development could add another 50,000
b/d, with a further 55,000 b/d on top of this should additional
projects be approved.
Onshore fields could add a further 115,000 b/d, taking total capacity
to more than 1.2 million b/d.
Iran's domestic consumption currently stands at around 260,000 b/d,
leaving a surplus of more than 350,000 b/d this year. But consumption
is forecast to rise to more than 700,000 b/d by 2021 with the
completion of new condensate splitters, such as the 360,000 b/d
Persian Gulf Star.
as a result, Iran's condensate exports are expected to drop to
around 250,000 b/d in 2021."
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/dubai/major-investment-needed-to-avoid-output-fall-26601277
Iran opened three oilfields with a total production of more than 220,000 barrels per day (bpd)
on Sunday, as the country ramps up its production after the lifting of sanctions.
President Hassan Rouhani officially launched the first phases of the Yadavaran and North Azadegan
fields as well as the North Yaran field, which are shared with neighboring Iraq, the Iranian oil
ministry's news agency SHANA reported.
Yadavaran will have a production of up to 115,000 bpd in its first phase and North Azadegan's
output is 75,000 bpd, SHANA said.
North Yaran will initially produce 30,000 bpd, the news agency reported last week.
"... My personal prejudice is that with the removal of sanctions that much of Iran's production increase eventually will be gobbled up by domestic use – their population seems to be too large for it to be otherwise. ..."
Nick , "KSA, for instance, is already using more per capita than almost
anyone."
Is that really true? Does that include all the amounts that run through
its refineries and chemical plants for export? I casually observe that Iran,
with many more people, uses much less. Iran has no substantial refineries,
etc. But, they appear to have much more military/industrial capability.
Maybe someone here knows of a reference that discusses the uses of oil
by KSA viz-a-viz the uses by Iran. My personal prejudice is that with
the removal of sanctions that much of Iran's production increase eventually
will be gobbled up by domestic use – their population seems to be too large
for it to be otherwise.
Does that include all the amounts that run through its refineries and
chemical plants for export?
It just includes domestic consumption. Iran prices gasoline somewhere
near it's market price, while KSA greatly underprices it for domestic consumers.
Iran uses a lot of CNG for personal transportation, I believe.
KSA uses oil for electrical generation, which is ridiculous – it's far
more expensive. But, that's the political power of legacy industries…
Iran July crude output 3.63 mill b/d, flat from June, according to PlattsOil
OPEC survey. 1st time this year no month-on-month increase
Last month: Iran oil output 3.66 mln bpd in June, up 50,000 bpd on May and
up 750,000 bpd since sanctions were lifted.
Iran says, oil exports over 2.5 million bpd, near pre sanctions level
Iran: VP Jahangiri on Sunday: IPCs soon to be signed. $220 billion worth
of projects are ready for investment in the oil sector.
Iran are just finalising the petroleum contract details and will start engaging
foreign companies for JVs, although the coming Presidential elections might
mean they have to start all over again. I can't see there is that much difference
now to what was happening before the sanctions, but the important point
will be how much per barrel the outside companies can negotiate.
The oil is mostly in mature, carbonate reservoirs; often originally developed
without pressure support but now with gas and some water injection. I think
they are only getting around 20 to 25% recovery. They are looking for more
of the same to support increased production but also EOR (e.g. maybe miscible
gas?) to increase recovery. Gas injection is not cheap – the gas has to
be bought (might be 10 to 15% of the oil price if natural gas is used –
even if you get it back during end of life blow down it doesn't help current
NPV much), and the compressors, treatment plants and pipelines needed are
capitally and operationally intensive, and take some time to design and
install. So Iran will be asking the foreign majors to take on even more
debt and risk to increase production some years in the future, based on
probably flat rate per barrel payments. It will be interesting to see how
the negotiations turn out (e.g. what price per barrel the companies are
looking for, their appetite to take all the debt burden and how much they
get to know about the reservoirs), especially as the similar Iraq efforts
may be looking a bit disappointing to some at the moment.
With South Pars still ramping up they should be around 18 to 20% condensate
in their overall production mix, so maybe they took condensate out of the
export's while their were sanctions. Alternatively they have a strong petrochemical
industry and use LPG for domestic car fuel as well so maybe the export mix
is different.
Iran's refinery expansion program includes construction of five new refineries
and expansion of existing plants.
At least three of the new processing plants should accommodate the country's
rising condensate supplies:
• Already under construction in Bandar Abbas, the Persian Gulf Star Refinery,
due for startup in 2017, will have capacity to process 360,000 b/d of condensate
from South Pars field
• Also under construction is 480,000-b/d gas condensate refinery in Siraf,
which should process stabilized gas condensate feedstock from different
phases of South Pars.
• 120,000-b/d Pars condensate refinery in Shiraz, scheduled for startup
in 2025.
"... Lifting of the sanctions has given a major lift to Iran's economy. Last week the IMF reported that it expects Tehran's economy to grow by 4 percent this year. Iran is making an effort to collect the oil revenues from those countries that continued to take Iranian oil during the sanctions but were unable to transfer money to Tehran. Some 6.5 billion euros are said to be owing. ..."
Iran: The Iranians are now saying that their oil production will reach
pre-sanctions levels of 4 million b/d by June of this year, up from the 3.5
million b/d they claim to have produced in March. The addition of another 500,000
b/dwithin two months is certainly faster than anybody anticipated, but some
analysts are now saying it is possible. India's Reliance Industries recently
announced a long-term oil deal with Tehran.
Among the problems Iran would have in increasing production by 500,000 b/d
in the next few months is the lack of ships to move the oil to customers, if
they can find them. Many of the worlds' tankers are tied up in massive queues
at import and export terminals that are at loading and unloading capacity. Lingering
issues about US sanctions have left some tanker owners reluctant to get involved
with Tehran for fear they could be banned from doing business with the US. Much
of Iran's tanker fleet no longer meets safety standards and must be overhauled
before visiting foreign ports.
Lifting of the sanctions has given a major lift to Iran's economy. Last
week the IMF reported that it expects Tehran's economy to grow by 4 percent
this year. Iran is making an effort to collect the oil revenues from those countries
that continued to take Iranian oil during the sanctions but were unable to transfer
money to Tehran. Some 6.5 billion euros are said to be owing.
Tehran's final problem in increasing its oil export is to find foreign investors
willing to put money into its aging oil industry. While it may be possible to
increase oil production by the 500,000 b/d that Tehran is aiming for, further
production increases will require massive amounts of investment that will have
to be raised from foreign sources. Arguments in Tehran about how much foreigners
should be allowed to profit from exploiting Iranian oil continue. Iran's latest
revisions to proposed contracts for foreign oil companies are so unfavorable
that some doubt there will be many offers.
"... I have grave reservations about the alleged spare capacity of Iran. The assumption is that the big, bad sanctions resulted in a huge drop in Iran's oil production. I am not buying it. I think the sanctions were a joke. For starters many nations refused to take part in the sanctions. Nations like India, china, japan and South Korea for starters. It would not be difficult to then reexport this oil to the rest of the world on the sly. Would you please comment on this important matter. Does anyone have any inside information about this? nuassembly 20 Mar 2016, 11:25 AM Comments (13) | + Follow | Send Message Agree, most of us follow news as herd effect, but devil is in the detail. Before the sanction, Iran was export 2.5 million barrels of oil per day but had to import almost 0.5million barrels of processed fuel, gasoline and diesel. ..."
"... Now, 4 years after the sanction starts, Iran already built up the refinery capacity, so it will no longer need import of refined fuels; instead it will be exporting, how much is yet to be decided. So, right there, we will see over 0.5 million barrels of reduction in the oil to be exported from Iran. Yes, the sanction reduced the Iranian oil export from 2.5million to 1.5million per day, but the net effect after sanction now will be less than 0.5 million per day to the world market. ..."
I have grave reservations about the alleged spare capacity of Iran.
The assumption is that the big, bad sanctions resulted in a huge drop in
Iran's oil production. I am not buying it. I think the sanctions were a
joke. For starters many nations refused to take part in the sanctions. Nations
like India, china, japan and South Korea for starters. It would not be difficult
to then reexport this oil to the rest of the world on the sly.
Would you please comment on this important matter. Does anyone have
any inside information about this?
Agree, most of us follow news as herd effect, but devil is in the detail.
Before the sanction, Iran was export 2.5 million barrels of oil per
day but had to import almost 0.5million barrels of processed fuel, gasoline
and diesel.
Now, 4 years after the sanction starts, Iran already built up the refinery
capacity, so it will no longer need import of refined fuels; instead it
will be exporting, how much is yet to be decided. So, right there, we will
see over 0.5 million barrels of reduction in the oil to be exported from
Iran. Yes, the sanction reduced the Iranian oil export from 2.5million to
1.5million per day, but the net effect after sanction now will be less than
0.5 million per day to the world market.
40 years, I would be surprised if you didn't have reservations. You aren't
the only one. Iran's infrastructure wasn't that great before the sanctions
so I would guess they are abysmal now.
I don't think they can get to 4 million this year, but the problem with
that is I am speculating so we will just have to track its exports and see
what happens. Right now, I think it would be ok to reduce that number by
400K BO/d.
I think the biggest issue is Iran thinks its possible, so maybe there
is something going on we haven't thought about. Probably not, but it is
still something to consider. I wasn't a big fan of the sanctions either,
but some politicians would say they worked. I think it is very possible
to re-export the oil the only problem is the very large volumes Iran can
produce. If this was a small producer it is probably easy if you sell it
cheap enough (like ISIS does).
"... Iran's condensate production is increasing along with production of natural gas. Gains followed completion a few months ago of several development phases at giant offshore South Pars field, including phases 12, 15-16, and 17-18, which added 120,000 b/d of condensate ready for export. Most of the condensate is being stored at sea, occupying two thirds of Iran's current floating capacity and awaiting a buyer. Iran's condensate production is expected rise even further in 2016. ..."
"... It is thus conceivable that Iran can raise its crude oil production about 500,000-700,000 b/d within 3 months, and up to 800,000 b/d within 6 months. ..."
"... Most of Iran's competitors supplying similar crude oil to the same markets, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have secured their sales by signing term agreement with customers. These commitments are usually for at least 1 year. ..."
"... Since Iran lacks a huge capacity to store unsold oil, it could increase crude oil production only slowly and cautiously. ..."
"... The outlook for Iranian condensate is different. High in sulfur, Iran's condensate is considered a light crude and is traded at prices higher than those of its heavy oil. Iran has fewer competitors for condensate-for which demand, particularly in Asia, is high-than for oil. ..."
"... Condensate flow will increase with gas production, particularly from South Pars field, an extension of Qatar's supergiant North field. The field has been Zangeneh's highest priority for development. ..."
Iran's mature oil fields are in advanced stages of decline. The US Energy
Information Administration estimates that Iranian oil fields have natural
decline rates of 8-11% and recovery rates of 20-25%.
Iran had planned to employ water and gas injection for enhanced oil recovery.
Gas injection in mature field was to have reached 330 million cu m/day by
the end of 2016. Since 2011, however, Iran hasn't been able to reach more
than 60% of its gas-injection goals. The average of actual gas injected
between March 2006 and March 2011 never increased more than 75% of what
was originally planned.
... ... ...
After the European Union-imposed embargos on exports and shipping insurance
in 2012, Iranian oil exports fell to almost half their level of a year earlier,
forcing National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) to cut production and shut down
some of its fields. The cuts of course focused on very mature, inefficient
fields and wells, especially those producing heavy and extra-heavy crude
oil.
In all, Iran's production and production capacity have been hammered.
Since Iran cannot produce crude oil at maximum potential rates, and because
it has had to halt production from some of its older fields, analysts cannot
precisely estimate Iran's production capacity. Estimating potential recovery
from idle fields would be guesswork.
The Iranian oil ministry estimates the country's crude oil production
capacity at 3.5-3.7 million b/d. With condensate considered to be light
crude oil, production capacity rises to perhaps 4 million b/d.
Production rebound
Aside from real uncertainties about oil production capacity, Iran's ability
to increase production in case of sanctions relief is another major question.
If sanctions are lifted, how much and for how long will it take Iran to
increase its production?
Oil Minister Bijan Zangeneh announced that Iran's production could increase
by up to 1 million b/d quickly. The International Energy Agency estimates
that Iran's production capacity is 3.6 million b/d and that the country
can increase output by 600,000-800,000 b/d within 3 months. In May, the
IEA reported Iranian production in April of 2.88 million b/d, up 90,000
b/d from March.
Two main uncertainties hamper predictions about Iran's oil production
rebound. The first is Iran's technical ability to raise output. The second
is the country's ability to export oil.
Some observers argue that production cuts in old fields have enabled
reservoir pressures to increase and might allow production to resume at
high rates. Gas injection also might boost output in mature fields within
3-6 months.
Iran's condensate production is increasing along with production
of natural gas. Gains followed completion a few months ago of several development
phases at giant offshore South Pars field, including phases 12, 15-16, and
17-18, which added 120,000 b/d of condensate ready for export. Most of the
condensate is being stored at sea, occupying two thirds of Iran's current
floating capacity and awaiting a buyer. Iran's condensate production is
expected rise even further in 2016.
It is thus conceivable that Iran can raise its crude oil production
about 500,000-700,000 b/d within 3 months, and up to 800,000 b/d within
6 months.
But the other question, access to the market, remains unanswered. The
sanctions target Iranian exports. It might take at least 3-6 months from
the time of a nuclear agreement for sanctions to be lifted significantly.
And removal of the ban on imports of Iranian oil in Europe requires a consensus
of EU members. This might be hard to achieve quickly.
There is no doubt that any nuclear deal will have an immediate psychological
effect on the market. Sales negotiations will start, and Iran at least could
slightly increase its crude oil and condensate exports, particularly by
the last quarter of this year when a seasonal demand increase in Iran would
absorb some of the incremental production.
Regaining market share
Beyond sanctions, Iran's other challenge for raising its oil exports
is regaining lost market share. This problem is particularly acute at a
time of oversupply and low oil prices.
Most of Iran's competitors supplying similar crude oil to the same
markets, mainly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have secured their sales by signing
term agreement with customers. These commitments are usually for at least
1 year.
So Tehran has no choice other than to sell most of its oil in the spot
market for the next year. It will have to create incentives for signing
term contracts to regain long-term market share. Since Iran lacks a
huge capacity to store unsold oil, it could increase crude oil production
only slowly and cautiously. With prices low, it doesn't make sense
for Iran to rent tankers as floating storage and sell oil at further discounts.
Oil stored at sea will encourage Iran's customers to push for further discounts.
The outlook for Iranian condensate is different. High in sulfur,
Iran's condensate is considered a light crude and is traded at prices higher
than those of its heavy oil. Iran has fewer competitors for condensate-for
which demand, particularly in Asia, is high-than for oil.
Condensate flow will increase with gas production, particularly from
South Pars field, an extension of Qatar's supergiant North field. The field
has been Zangeneh's highest priority for development.
Condensate makes up much of the 30 million bbl of oil Iran currently
holds in floating storage, which will provide the first cargos ready for
immediate export when sanctions are lifted. This offloading would reduce
rental costs while Iran prepared to boost production. Therefore, we can
expect an immediate release of oil from floating storage upon any possible
deal at the end of June or in early July.
If negotiations lead to a comprehensive deal on Iran's nuclear program
by the end of June or early July, Iranian production and exports will rise
about 200,000 b/d by the end of 2015 because at least some of the sanctions
might then have been eased and because global demand will be seasonally
high. The rest of the country's production and export increase would enter
the market gradually through mid-2016.
An open question is how extra Iranian supply would affect the global
oil market. While predictions vary for production from shales and other
low-permeability formations in 2016, most analysts expect low oil prices
at least to suppress growth rates from these sources if not to cause declines
in the next year or two. Decline forecasts have been as high as 1 million
b/d of so-called tight oil.
A gradual rise of crude and condensate from Iran thus might be offset
by a decline from shale next year and have a modest impact on the price
of oil. That balance, of course, has a broader geopolitical context as crises
in Yemen and Iraq keep upward pressure on the crude price.
The author Sara
Vakhshouri is founder and president of SVB Energy International, a strategic
energy consulting firm based in Washington, DC. She advises international
corporations, think tanks, investment banks, and law firms on global energy
markets, geopolitics of energy, and investment patterns. During 2000-08,
she worked in the public and private sectors of the Iranian energy industry.
From 2004 to 2005, she worked as an advisor to National Iranian Oil Co.
International, a division responsible for marketing and sale of Iranian
crude oil and products. Vakhshouri holds a PhD in energy security and Middle
Eastern studies and was a visiting fellow at Oxford Institute for Energy
Studies. She has MA degrees in business management (international marketing)
and international relations.
For last month, OPEC's crude oil production dropped 90,000 barrels per day, on some small losses
in Iraq, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates, but new production from Iran and the maintenance of
the production status quo in Saudi Arabia has kept losses to an overall minimum. Production from
Iraqi, Nigeria and UAE combined fell by 350,000 barrels per day in February.
We could also expect continued declines of exports coming from Iraq in March
"... A US judge ordered Iran to pay over $10 billion in damages to families of victims who died on September 11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence of Tehran's direct connection to the attack. The same judge earlier cleared Saudi Arabia from culpability. ..."
"... The default judgement was issued by US District Judge George Daniels in New York on Wednesday. Under the ruling, Tehran was ordered to pay $7.5 billion to 9/11 victims' families, including $2 million to each victim's estate for pain and suffering, and another $6.88 million in punitive damages. Insurers who paid for property damage and claimed their businesses were interrupted were awarded an additional $3 billion in the ruling. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia was legally cleared from paying billions in damages to families of 9/11 victims last year, after Judge Daniels dismissed claims that the country provided material support to the terrorists and ruled that Riyadh had sovereign immunity. Saudi attorneys argued in court that there was no evidence directly linking the country to 9/11. ..."
"... "absurd and ridiculous." ..."
"... "I never heard about this ruling and I'm very much surprised because the judge had no reason whatsoever to issue such a ruling… Iran never took part in any court hearings related to the events of September 11, 2001," ..."
"... "Even if such an absurd and ridiculous decision has been made, the charges simply hold no water because Iran has never been mentioned at any stage of the investigation and the trials that followed." ..."
"... While Sheikholeslam argued that Iran didn't take part in related hearings, that lack of participation may have contributed to the decision. A default judgment is typically issued when one of the parties involved in a case does not respond to court summons or appear in court to make their case. ..."
"... "advice and training" ..."
"... "provided material support" ..."
"... "direct support" ..."
"... "There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11." ..."
"... "The people who committed those terrorist attacks were neither friends nor allies of Iran," ..."
"... "They were our sworn enemies, members of Al-Qaeda, which considers Iran as their enemy. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, which happens to be America's best friend. The remaining four terrorists lived in Saudi Arabia and enjoyed Saudi support. Therefore the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks had nothing to do with Iran." ..."
A US judge ordered Iran to pay over $10 billion in damages to families
of victims who died on September 11, 2001 – even though there is no evidence
of Tehran's direct connection to the attack. The same judge earlier cleared
Saudi Arabia from culpability.
The default judgement
was issued by US District Judge George Daniels in New York on Wednesday.
Under the ruling, Tehran was ordered to pay $7.5 billion to 9/11 victims' families,
including $2 million to each victim's estate for pain and suffering, and another
$6.88 million in punitive damages. Insurers who paid for property damage and
claimed their businesses were interrupted were awarded an additional $3 billion
in the ruling.
The ruling is noteworthy particularly since none of the 19 hijackers on September
11 were Iranian citizens. Fifteen were citizens of Saudi Arabia, while two were
from the United Arab Emirates, and one each from Egypt and Lebanon.
Saudi Arabia was legally cleared from paying billions in damages to families
of 9/11 victims last year, after Judge Daniels dismissed claims that the country
provided material support to the terrorists and ruled that Riyadh had sovereign
immunity. Saudi attorneys argued in court that there was no evidence directly
linking the country to 9/11.
In response to the latest ruling, Hossein Sheikholeslam, a senior aide to
Iran's parliamentary speaker, called the decision "absurd and ridiculous."
"I never heard about this ruling and I'm very much surprised because
the judge had no reason whatsoever to issue such a ruling… Iran never took part
in any court hearings related to the events of September 11, 2001," he
told
Sputnik. "Even if such an absurd and ridiculous decision has been made,
the charges simply hold no water because Iran has never been mentioned at any
stage of the investigation and the trials that followed."
While Sheikholeslam argued that Iran didn't take part in related hearings,
that lack of participation may have contributed to the decision. A default judgment
is typically issued when one of the parties involved in a case does not respond
to court summons or appear in court to make their case.
Judge Daniels found that Iran failed to defend itself against claims that
it played a role in 9/11. Iran believes the lawsuit is unnecessary because it
says it did not participate in the attack.
In the US, Tehran's role in 9/11 has been debated heavily over the years.
The
9/11 Commission Report stated that some hijackers moved through Iran and
did not have their passports stamped. It also stated that Hezbollah, which the
US designates as a terrorist organization supported by Iran, provided "advice
and training" to Al-Qaeda members.
In a
court document filed in 2011 regarding the latest case, plaintiffs claimed
Hezbollah "provided material support" to Al-Qaeda, such as facilitating
travel, plus "direct support" for the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the
plaintiffs argued Iran was liable.
However, the commission report itself found no evidence to suggest Iran was
aware of the 9/11 plot, and suggested the possibility that if Hezbollah was
tracking the movements of Al-Qaeda members, it may not have been eyeing those
who became hijackers on 9/11.
While the report suggested further investigation into the issue, President
George W. Bush has said, "There was no direct connection between Iran and
the attacks of September 11."
Iran, inhabited mostly by Shia Muslims, has also denied any connection to
Al-Qaeda – a militant Sunni group – and cooperation between the two has been
questioned due to religious differences. Al-Qaeda views the Shia as heretics,
for example.
"The people who committed those terrorist attacks were neither friends
nor allies of Iran," Iran Press Editor-in-Chief Emad Abshenas told Sputnik.
"They were our sworn enemies, members of Al-Qaeda, which considers Iran
as their enemy. Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi citizens, which
happens to be America's best friend. The remaining four terrorists lived in
Saudi Arabia and enjoyed Saudi support. Therefore the perpetrators of the 9/11
attacks had nothing to do with Iran."
How the case moves forward after Daniels' ruling is unclear. According to
Bloomberg, it can be very hard to obtain damages from another country, but plaintiffs
might try to do so by targeting Iranian funds frozen by the US.
By
Rakesh
Upadhyay 09 March 2016 21:1
Iran is expected to raise the April Official Selling Price (OSP) of its flagship
light crude oil to Asia to 25 cents above the Saudi's similarly graded Arab
light. This is the highest premium since 2011 and is an increase of 30 cents
over the previous month.
Iran will likely price its light crude at 50 cents a barrel below the average
of Oman and Dubai quotes, whereas the OSP for Iran Heavy will likely be $2.60
a barrel below Oman and Dubai quotes.
But not all crudes are equal, and when it comes to
Iran Heavy Grade , pricing will remain aggressively competitive. Heavy Grade
is Iran's main export grade, which must compete with Latin America, Iraq and
Saudi Arabia-all of whom supply a similar grade.
When it comes to its light crude, though, the competitive price Iran has
offered so far was for internal reasons and intended to reduce gasoline imports.
Many experts believed that Iran would offer large discounts to regain the
market share it lost under the sanctions regime. However, Iran is using a calculative
approach towards increasing its share and is looking to consolidate and increase
exports to its existing partners such as China, South Korea, and India, in Asia.
Iran expects to
increase exports to India to 460,000 bpd from the current 260,000 bpd. Similarly,
it expects to further increase its exports to
South Korea ,
which has already imported 203,165 bpd-its highest level since 2012.
Demand from Europe has been a little slow to pick up due to ship insurance
and banking-related issues. Nevertheless, the
first shipment to Europe landed in Southern Spain on 6 March 2016. Three
more tankers--one bound for
Romania , another to France and a third to the Mediterranean--are expected
to reach their destinations soon.
The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity
for savvy energy investors.
Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through
the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays.
BIMCO's chief shipping analyst,
Peter Sand, said, "Former clients of Iran are the ones who are likely to
return as buyers... Italy, Spain and Greece were the top EU importers in 2011."
The mid-March meeting between OPEC, Russia and other major producers offers
a window of opportunity for Iran to increase production gradually, since the
major nations have agreed to a production freeze. On top of that, Russia is
planning to offer a different deal to Iran, which will allow it to ramp up its
production to pre-sanction levels.
The lifting of sanctions couldn't have come at a better time for Iran. It
is benefitting from the strong bounce in oil, and it is unlikely to face huge
competition, barring U.S. exports, if the production freeze is adhered to by
the major oil producers.
Tehran has cause for celebration, indeed. This was clear when Iranian Oil
Minister Bijan
Zanganeh said : "We look forward to the beginning of co-operation between
Opec and non-Opec countries and we support any measure that can stabilise the
market and increase prices."
The world can take comfort from the fact that Iran has not flooded the market
with cheap oil as previously envisaged by the experts. Capturing market share
is one thing, but there are internal needs to consider as well.
Iran called a proposal by Saudi Arabia and Russia to freeze oil production
"ridiculous" as its seeks to boost its own output after years of sanctions constrained
sales.
The proposal by Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and Qatar for oil producers
to cap output at January levels puts "unrealistic demands" on Iran, Oil Minister
Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said Tuesday, according to the ministry's news agency
Shana.
"It is very ridiculous, they come up with the proposal on freezing oil production
and call for this freeze to take place in their 10 million barrels a day production
vis-a-vis Iran's 1 million barrels a day" planned production boost, he said.
"If Iran's crude oil production falls, it will be overtaken considerably by
the neighboring countries."
The three OPEC members and Russia are seeking to stop the 40 percent drop
in oil prices over the past year caused by a global crude glut. Iran is seeking
to boost output by 1 million barrels a day this year after international sanctions
on its oil industry were lifted last month.
This is quite interesting
from the article: "French bank BNP Paribas last week confirmed it would halt funding oil and gas
companies with large capital requirements, particularly in the US."
"... It is estimated that ~250,000 people have lost their jobs in the industry
in the last 18 months. ..."
"... Ive mentioned this a few times...but in the 80s you SAW the economic crush
all around you. For those who do not live in our visit Houston, Im telling you....something
is very bizarre here that puzzles the shit out of me.....malls are packed, and you
dont see crush anywhere...I dont get it. ..."
One week ago,
when we commented on the latest weekly update from Credit Suisse's very
well hooked-in energy analyst James Wicklund, one particular phrase stuck out
when looking at the upcoming contraction of Oil and Gas liquidity: "while your
borrowing base might be upheld, there will be minimum liquidity requirements
before capital can be accessed. It is hitting the OFS sector as well. As
one banker put it, "we are looking to save ourselves now."
In his latest
note, Wicklund takes the gloom level up a notch and shows that for all the bank
posturing and attempts to preserve calm among the market, what is really happening
below the surface can be summarized with one word: panic, and not just for the
banks who are stuck holding on to energy exposure, or the energy companies who
are facing bankruptcy if oil doesn't rebound, but also for their (now former)
employees. Curious why average hourly earnings refuse to go up except for those
getting minimum wage boosts? Because according to CS "It is estimated
that ~250,000 people have lost their jobs in the industry in the last 18 months."
... ... ...
Wicklund concludes with some even more troubling observations
about the recent OPEC headline-induced volatility and the future price of oil:
Rolling On. What was originally a "surplus-induced" downturn is
now turning into a global credit downturn, with economic demand and GDP
continuing to decline. US corporate debt levels are close to all-time
highs as a share of GDP and global monetary policy has very few levers left
to pull. "Duration" has become the new buzzword, "survivability" appears
to be the key investment metric and any lights in the tunnel appear to
be dimming.
The Fix. Demand was going to be the bailout and specifically consumer
led demand, however, just about every economic report issued seems to
deny that possibility. It is easy to say that with demand growing and
capital starved supply waning, reaching balance and beginning growth is
inevitable. But it may not be as simple as that and the timing remains one
key question. And that key question is one that everyone has an opinion
on. Now, it appears that Saudi, Russia, Iraq and Iran MIGHT come to some
agreement to cap production growth at January levels, which was up more
than 280kbopd from December. The cap offers some positive, but it makes
any production CUTS less likely .
All this, as global demand across every industry continues to contract and
as central banks are now powerless to do virtually anything, means that the
true lows in the oil price are still ahead of us.
Latitude25
Let me guess. The banks are selling securitized energy loans to the muppet
pension funds for pennys on the dollar and soon to be totally worthless.
Central Bankster
If you try to inflate assets, it will cause
massive distortions in price (IE reinflating oil from$30 in 2009 to $110
a few years later) created a massive and misguided allocation of capital
into new oil production...
Antifaschistische
I've mentioned this a few times...but in the 80's you SAW the economic
crush all around you. For those who do not live in our visit Houston, I'm
telling you....something is very bizarre here that puzzles the shit out
of me.....malls are packed, and you don't see crush anywhere...I don't get
it.
...and I have NOTHING to gain from a crush, because I'll eventually get
swept out to sea also...but it's just crazy here with construction at a
non-stop pace. Everyday of my life is like economic doomsday prepping in
Houston.
Beatscape
Coming to a ticker tape near you: The 10(!) times upside Oil ETF, filled
with all these toxic energy loans and oil companies teetering into bankruptcy.
A fool and his money are soon parted.
VWAndy
Bingo they are searching for bagholders now. Too bad there are no bagholders
with pockets that deep.
Racer
As one banker put it, "we are looking to save ourselves now."
Total rubbish, the banks NEVER look to save themselves
buzzsaw99
There are reports of banks selling loans at cents on the dollar
to try and ensure their own survival...
smells like bullshit. which banks? which loans? how many cents on the
dollar? how does booking a major loss ever help a bank?
Bank_sters
Strangely, most articles I read are about how little exposure all the
big banks have. So who is holding the 2 trillion dollars of energy related
debt that has been created over the last 12 years?
abyssinian
All the banks are fine, Deutsche Bank's CEO said they are solid as a
rock and buying their bonds back, JP Morgan CEO just bought tons of company
stocks with his bonus and Tim Seymore Butt from CNBC said there is no recession,
everything is great and people just making noises. Everything is good!
ConanTheLibert... -> abyssinian
"Deutsche Bank's CEO said they are solid as a rock"
Like the corpse has turned solid as a rock?
Catullus
Talked to a consultant in CRE in Texas on Friday. Said he's never seen
it like this in 30 years in Houston. Dallas is ok for now. Credit is terrible.
Everyone asking for LOCs or AAs even for power contracts to the buildings.
Don't let a bank tell you this is energy only exposure. It extends to
CRE as well
Christophe2
LOCs = lines of credit :)
White Mountains
Old Man of the See - this is because if you open a successful profitable
store, tattoo shop, or whatever, the copycats see your success and so open
an identical business right across the street hoping to take your success.
Then, you get to compete on price which means both businesses circle
close to the toilet bowl as you fight tooth and nail for market share and
ever dwindling profits because there is always some dumbass willing to work
himself to death for slave wage returns or even loose money as he knocks
viable businesses out of business.
Amazon's business model is a non-profit loser much like this only on
a huge and very destructive scale.
And if the banks go under who loses? One more reason to believe the Fed
is lying when it denied they allegedly instructed banks to not force bankruptcies
on these companies. Prevent the bankruptcy and find a way to dump the fallout
on someone else to CYA and let someone lower on the food chain take the
hit. Isn't that how the hierarchical criminal ponzi scheme works?
Who do you think the Fed cares more about after themselves, if anyone?
A. Banks
B. Shareholders
C. 3rd Party Corporations that do business with either banks or the Fed
D. Employees of any Corporations
E. Some poor workers pension fund purchasing the new fraud scheme that will
be cooked up to hand these failures off to the muppets
F. None of the above. Central Banks are so megalomaniacal they only care
about themselves, their profits and interests above all else.
"... Following on from a sharp downward revision in its benchmark crude and natural gas price assumptions in January, S&P also lowered the ratings on 25 speculative-grade companies after reviewing 45. ..."
"... S&P on January 12 slashed its Brent and WTI crude price assumptions to $40/barrel each (from $55 and $50 respectively) and Henry Hub natural gas price assumption to $2.50/MMBtu (from $3). ..."
"... S&P flagged the "liquidity risks" faced by the smaller E&P companies, "particularly with respect to the April 2016 revolving credit facility bank borrowing base redeterminations." ..."
"... S&P expects the companies' borrowing bases will have shrunk by 20-30% at the next re-determination in April, as the cutback in drilling activity in 2015 has hobbled their reserves replacement. ..."
"... The US Energy Information Administration in its short-term market outlook released Feb 9 said it expects US production to fall to an average 8.69 million b/d this year from an average of 9.43 million b/d in 2015. And slip further to 8.46 million b/d in 2017. ..."
US E&P sector sucking wind: Is oil's equilibrium closer than we think?
How long does the world have to wait before all the surplus oil sloshing
around gets mopped up and prices find an equilibrium point that represents balanced
supply and demand? Would you believe it if someone said that might be just a
quarter and a bit away?
On the supply side, all bets are on shale to bail: there is no hope of output
cuts from OPEC, let alone a coordinated action with other major producers such
as Russia, amid a stubborn quest for market share.
If anything, most OPEC members are pumping full tilt and some such as Kuwait
and Iraq are eying a production boost this year. A sanctions-free Iran is preparing
to offload an additional 0.5-1.0 million b/d on an already oversupplied market,
though the pace of that return is highly uncertain.
The question then arises, how long before more US producers buckle under
and how sharp might the drop in output be?
Standard & Poors Ratings earlier this month downgraded big names in shale
including Chevron, Apache, EOG Resources, Devon, Hess, Marathon and Murphy.
Of the 20 "investment-grade" companies the agency reviewed, three were placed
on Creditwatch with negative implications, and the outlook on another three
revised to negative.
Until now, such actions had mostly affected the speculative-grade companies,
S&P noted.
Following on from a sharp downward revision in its benchmark crude and
natural gas price assumptions in January, S&P also lowered the ratings on 25
speculative-grade companies after reviewing 45.
S&P on January 12 slashed its Brent and WTI crude price assumptions to
$40/barrel each (from $55 and $50 respectively) and Henry Hub natural gas price
assumption to $2.50/MMBtu (from $3).
S&P flagged the "liquidity risks" faced by the smaller E&P companies,
"particularly with respect to the April 2016 revolving credit facility bank
borrowing base redeterminations."
A borrowing base is the maximum amount of money a bank will lend to an energy
company based on the value of its reserves at current market prices.
S&P expects the companies' borrowing bases will have shrunk by 20-30%
at the next re-determination in April, as the cutback in drilling activity in
2015 has hobbled their reserves replacement.
Also, more hedges will roll off this year, and the values on the futures
curve are below many bank borrowing base prices, S&P credit analysts noted.
As they hunker down, S&P expects many of the companies to continue lowering
capital spending and focus on efficiencies and drilling core properties. However,
the analysts say, "these actions, for the most part, are insufficient to stem
the meaningful deterioration expected in credit measures over the next few years."
The US Energy Information Administration in its short-term market outlook
released Feb 9 said it expects US production to fall to an average 8.69 million
b/d this year from an average of 9.43 million b/d in 2015. And slip further
to 8.46 million b/d in 2017.
But like any forecast, this year's figure could be revised down further.
Exactly a year ago, in its February 2015 report, the EIA had estimated 2016
US production at 9.52 million b/d. The agency has progressively whittled down
the figure since October last year.
Meanwhile, a total of 67 US oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy in
2015, according to consultants Gavin/Solmonese, a whopping 379% spike on 2014,
CNN reported last week.
Might the other big shadow looming on the markets - Iran - turn out to be
a teddy bear?
Iranian businesses continued to be hobbled by the sanctions fallout. Some
US clearing banks have warned banks in Europe, Asia and the Middle East that
their US-based dollar accounts will face close scrutiny if they do business
with Iran.
This has prevented banking transactions with Iran starting up again despite
the removal of sanctions, the Financial Times said in this
report Feb 14.
Not surprisingly, expectations on the pace of Iran's incremental barrels
flowing into the market are taking a more conservative turn. As Platts reporter
Robert Perkins highlights in this
analysis published Feb 8, a 500,000 b/d immediate rise and 1 million b/d
within six months is seen as "wildly optimistic."
Platts calculations based on current market consensus point to a far sober
200,000 b/d rise in the first quarter, growing to 450,000 b/d by year-end.
Excluding Iranian supply, global oil balances are now seen returning to equilibrium
by the third quarter of 2016, according to implied market outlooks from the
International Energy Agency, the EIA and OPEC.
That brings us to the "dread discount" on oil because of the wider global
financial markets panic since the start of the year, triggered in large part
by fears over Chinese economic growth.
While impossible to quantify, could the discount evaporate if the global
economy performs much better than the doomsday scenarios currently preying on
nerves?
To paraphrase Mark Twain, it ain't what the oil markets don't know that will
get them into trouble. It's what they know for sure that just ain't so.
"... Following on from a sharp downward revision in its benchmark crude and natural gas price assumptions in January, S&P also lowered the ratings on 25 speculative-grade companies after reviewing 45. ..."
"... S&P on January 12 slashed its Brent and WTI crude price assumptions to $40/barrel each (from $55 and $50 respectively) and Henry Hub natural gas price assumption to $2.50/MMBtu (from $3). ..."
"... S&P flagged the "liquidity risks" faced by the smaller E&P companies, "particularly with respect to the April 2016 revolving credit facility bank borrowing base redeterminations." ..."
"... S&P expects the companies' borrowing bases will have shrunk by 20-30% at the next re-determination in April, as the cutback in drilling activity in 2015 has hobbled their reserves replacement. ..."
"... The US Energy Information Administration in its short-term market outlook released Feb 9 said it expects US production to fall to an average 8.69 million b/d this year from an average of 9.43 million b/d in 2015. And slip further to 8.46 million b/d in 2017. ..."
US E&P sector sucking wind: Is oil's equilibrium closer than we think?
How long does the world have to wait before all the surplus oil sloshing
around gets mopped up and prices find an equilibrium point that represents balanced
supply and demand? Would you believe it if someone said that might be just a
quarter and a bit away?
On the supply side, all bets are on shale to bail: there is no hope of output
cuts from OPEC, let alone a coordinated action with other major producers such
as Russia, amid a stubborn quest for market share.
If anything, most OPEC members are pumping full tilt and some such as Kuwait
and Iraq are eying a production boost this year. A sanctions-free Iran is preparing
to offload an additional 0.5-1.0 million b/d on an already oversupplied market,
though the pace of that return is highly uncertain.
The question then arises, how long before more US producers buckle under
and how sharp might the drop in output be?
Standard & Poors Ratings earlier this month downgraded big names in shale
including Chevron, Apache, EOG Resources, Devon, Hess, Marathon and Murphy.
Of the 20 "investment-grade" companies the agency reviewed, three were placed
on Creditwatch with negative implications, and the outlook on another three
revised to negative.
Until now, such actions had mostly affected the speculative-grade companies,
S&P noted.
Following on from a sharp downward revision in its benchmark crude and
natural gas price assumptions in January, S&P also lowered the ratings on 25
speculative-grade companies after reviewing 45.
S&P on January 12 slashed its Brent and WTI crude price assumptions to
$40/barrel each (from $55 and $50 respectively) and Henry Hub natural gas price
assumption to $2.50/MMBtu (from $3).
S&P flagged the "liquidity risks" faced by the smaller E&P companies,
"particularly with respect to the April 2016 revolving credit facility bank
borrowing base redeterminations."
A borrowing base is the maximum amount of money a bank will lend to an energy
company based on the value of its reserves at current market prices.
S&P expects the companies' borrowing bases will have shrunk by 20-30%
at the next re-determination in April, as the cutback in drilling activity in
2015 has hobbled their reserves replacement.
Also, more hedges will roll off this year, and the values on the futures
curve are below many bank borrowing base prices, S&P credit analysts noted.
As they hunker down, S&P expects many of the companies to continue lowering
capital spending and focus on efficiencies and drilling core properties. However,
the analysts say, "these actions, for the most part, are insufficient to stem
the meaningful deterioration expected in credit measures over the next few years."
The US Energy Information Administration in its short-term market outlook
released Feb 9 said it expects US production to fall to an average 8.69 million
b/d this year from an average of 9.43 million b/d in 2015. And slip further
to 8.46 million b/d in 2017.
But like any forecast, this year's figure could be revised down further.
Exactly a year ago, in its February 2015 report, the EIA had estimated 2016
US production at 9.52 million b/d. The agency has progressively whittled down
the figure since October last year.
Meanwhile, a total of 67 US oil and gas companies filed for bankruptcy in
2015, according to consultants Gavin/Solmonese, a whopping 379% spike on 2014,
CNN reported last week.
Might the other big shadow looming on the markets - Iran - turn out to be
a teddy bear?
Iranian businesses continued to be hobbled by the sanctions fallout. Some
US clearing banks have warned banks in Europe, Asia and the Middle East that
their US-based dollar accounts will face close scrutiny if they do business
with Iran.
This has prevented banking transactions with Iran starting up again despite
the removal of sanctions, the Financial Times said in this
report Feb 14.
Not surprisingly, expectations on the pace of Iran's incremental barrels
flowing into the market are taking a more conservative turn. As Platts reporter
Robert Perkins highlights in this
analysis published Feb 8, a 500,000 b/d immediate rise and 1 million b/d
within six months is seen as "wildly optimistic."
Platts calculations based on current market consensus point to a far sober
200,000 b/d rise in the first quarter, growing to 450,000 b/d by year-end.
Excluding Iranian supply, global oil balances are now seen returning to equilibrium
by the third quarter of 2016, according to implied market outlooks from the
International Energy Agency, the EIA and OPEC.
That brings us to the "dread discount" on oil because of the wider global
financial markets panic since the start of the year, triggered in large part
by fears over Chinese economic growth.
While impossible to quantify, could the discount evaporate if the global
economy performs much better than the doomsday scenarios currently preying on
nerves?
To paraphrase Mark Twain, it ain't what the oil markets don't know that will
get them into trouble. It's what they know for sure that just ain't so.
"... Iranian businesses continued to be hobbled by the sanctions fallout. Some
US clearing banks have warned banks in Europe, Asia and the Middle East that their
US-based dollar accounts will face close scrutiny if they do business with Iran.
This has prevented banking transactions with Iran starting up again despite the
removal of sanctions, the Financial Times said in this report Feb 14. ..."
"... Platts reporter Robert Perkins highlights in this analysis published Feb
8, a 500,000 b/d immediate rise and 1 million b/d within six months is seen as "wildly
optimistic." ..."
"... Platts calculations based on current market consensus point to a far sober
200,000 b/d rise in the first quarter, growing to 450,000 b/d by year-end. ..."
"... Excluding Iranian supply, global oil balances are now seen returning to
equilibrium by the third quarter of 2016, according to implied market outlooks from
the International Energy Agency, the EIA and OPEC. ..."
Might the other big shadow looming on the markets - Iran - turn out to be
a teddy bear?
Iranian businesses continued to be hobbled by the sanctions fallout.
Some US clearing banks have warned banks in Europe, Asia and the Middle East
that their US-based dollar accounts will face close scrutiny if they do business
with Iran. This has prevented banking transactions with Iran starting up again
despite the removal of sanctions, the Financial Times said in this
report Feb 14.
Not surprisingly, expectations on the pace of Iran's incremental barrels
flowing into the market are taking a more conservative turn. As Platts reporter
Robert Perkins highlights in this
analysis published Feb 8, a 500,000 b/d immediate rise and 1 million b/d
within six months is seen as "wildly optimistic."
Platts calculations based on current market consensus point to a far
sober 200,000 b/d rise in the first quarter, growing to 450,000 b/d by year-end.
Excluding Iranian supply, global oil balances are now seen returning
to equilibrium by the third quarter of 2016, according to implied market outlooks
from the International Energy Agency, the EIA and OPEC.
That brings us to the "dread discount" on oil because of the wider global
financial markets panic since the start of the year, triggered in large part
by fears over Chinese economic growth.
While impossible to quantify, could the discount evaporate if the global
economy performs much better than the doomsday scenarios currently preying on
nerves?
To paraphrase Mark Twain, it ain't what the oil markets don't know that will
get them into trouble. It's what they know for sure that just ain't so.
"... There are over $1.8 trillion of US junk bonds outstanding. It's the lifeblood of over-indebted corporate America. When yields began to soar over a year ago, and liquidity began to dry up at the bottom of the scale, it was "contained." ..."
"... The average yield of CCC or lower-rated junk bonds hit the 20% mark a week ago. The last time yields had jumped to that level was on September 20, 2008, in the panic after the Lehman bankruptcy, as we pointed out . Today, that average yield is nearly 22%! ..."
"... Today the scenario is punctuated by defaults, debt restructurings with big haircuts, and bankruptcy filings. These risks had been there all along. But "consensual hallucination," as we've come to call the phenomenon, blinded investors, among them hedge funds, private equity firms, bond mutual funds for retail investors, and other honorable members of the "smart money." ..."
"... The M&A-related bond issue by Endurance International Group couldn't be syndicated and ended up on the balance sheets of the underwriters. ..."
"... The market was hit hard again this week amid solid volume trading as oil prices plunged anew. There was a meager attempt at stability on Wednesday, but some participants described it as similar to the calm at the eye of a hurricane. ..."
"... And retail investors are catching on. Over the past three sessions alone, they pulled $488 million out of the largest high-yield ETF, the iShares HYG, which on Thursday closed at 75.59, down 21% from its high in June 2014, and the lowest level since May 2009. ..."
"... All grades of junk bonds have been losing ground: the S&P High-Yield Index is down 3.9% year-to-date. But it's in the CCC-and-lower category where real bloodletting is occurring. ..."
"... It's not just energy. The category includes all kinds of companies, among them brick-and-mortar retailers and restaurants, hit hard by excessive debt, slack demand, consumer preference for online shopping, and other scourges. Unlike oil and gas drillers, these companies have no assets to sell. Standard & Poor's "believes these trends will accelerate in the coming year and lead to further retail defaults." ..."
"... All the Central Bank stimulus programs have been Neo-Keynesian, in line with the new economics. The money is pushed into the top of the economic pyramid, the banks, and according to the new economics it should trickle down. ..."
"... I see a storm brewing. A huge economic tsunami will occur when the financial sector collapses. The question is not if this will occur but when and how bad it will be. The severity is bound to be intense and long term as Congress is hidebound by ideological stances that are the origination of the Tsunami. The Fed has run out of strategies that actually have any positive effect. ..."
"... Not to diminish the concerns Wolf has expressed here or the related causal factors, but staff at the Atlanta Fed is forecasting sharply improving economic activity this quarter. ..."
"... But "consensual hallucination," as we've come to call the phenomenon, blinded investors, among them hedge funds, private equity firms, bond mutual funds for retail investors, and other honorable members of the "smart money." ..."
"... Please explain how "smart money" is losing on this "hallucination." Oh, maybe you mean the Private Equity LPs or the retail investors in the Mutual Funds, or the investors in the hedge funds. They aren't the smart money. The smart money is playing this game for all it is worth and is not losing out. ..."
Posted on
February 13, 2016 by
Yves
Smith By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start
up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally
published at
Wolf Street
It's not contained.
There are over $1.8 trillion of US junk bonds outstanding. It's the lifeblood
of over-indebted corporate America. When yields began to soar over a year ago,
and liquidity began to dry up at the bottom of the scale, it was "contained."
Yet contagion has spread from energy, metals, and mining to other industries
and up the scale. According to UBS, about $1 trillion of these junk bonds are
now "stressed" or "distressed." And the entire corporate bond market, which
is far larger than the stock market, is getting antsy.
The average yield of CCC or lower-rated junk bonds hit the 20% mark a
week ago. The last time yields had jumped to that level was on September 20,
2008, in the panic after the Lehman bankruptcy,
as we pointed out . Today, that average yield is nearly 22%!
Today even the average yield spread between those bonds and US Treasuries
has breached the 20% mark. Last time this happened was on October 6, 2008, during
the post-Lehman panic:
At this cost of capital, companies can no longer borrow. Since they're cash-flow
negative, they'll run out of liquidity sooner or later. When that happens, defaults
jump, which blows out spreads even further, which is what happened during the
Financial Crisis. The market seizes. Financial chaos ensues.
It didn't help that Standard & Poor's just went on a "down-grade binge,"
as S&P Capital IQ LCD called it, hammering 25 energy companies deeper into junk,
11 of them into the "substantial-risk" category of CCC+ or below.
Back in the summer of 2014, during the peak of the wild credit bubble beautifully
conjured up by the Fed, companies in this category had no problems issuing new
debt in order to service existing debt, fill cash-flow holes, blow it on special
dividends to their private-equity owners, and what not. The average yield of
CCC or lower rated bonds at the time was around 8%.
Today the scenario is punctuated by defaults, debt restructurings with
big haircuts, and bankruptcy filings. These risks had been there all along.
But "consensual hallucination," as we've come to call the phenomenon, blinded
investors, among them hedge funds, private equity firms, bond mutual funds for
retail investors, and other honorable members of the "smart money."
But now that they've opened their eyes, they're running away. And so the
market for new issuance is grinding down.
"Another tough week," S&P Capital IQ LCD said on Thursday in its
HY Weekly . There was one small deal earlier this week: Manitowoc Cranes'
$260 million B+ rated second-lien notes that mature in 2021 sold at a yield
of 14%!
The M&A-related bond issue by Endurance International Group couldn't
be syndicated and ended up on the balance sheets of the underwriters. LeasePlan
has a $500 million deal on the calendar. If it goes today, it will bring the
total this week to a measly $760 million, down 90% from the four-year average
for the second week in February. According to S&P Capital IQ LCD, it would be
"the lowest amount of early-February issuance since the credit crisis in 2009."
In the secondary market, where the high-yield bonds are traded, it's equally
gloomy. S&P Capital IQ LCD:
The market was hit hard again this week amid solid volume trading
as oil prices plunged anew. There was a meager attempt at stability on Wednesday,
but some participants described it as similar to the calm at the eye of
a hurricane.
That proved true today, as markets fell further. There was red across
the board with losses in dollar terms ranging 1–5 points, depending on the
credit and sector. The huge U.S. Treasury market rally gave no technical
support, even as the yield on the 10-year note, for one, pierced 1.6%, a
4.5-year low.
And retail investors are catching on. Over the past three sessions alone,
they pulled $488 million out of the largest high-yield ETF, the iShares HYG,
which on Thursday closed at 75.59, down 21% from its high in June 2014, and
the lowest level since May 2009.
On a broader scale, investors
yanked $5.6 billion out of that asset class in January, the fourth month
in a row of outflows.
All grades of junk bonds have been losing ground: the S&P High-Yield
Index is down 3.9% year-to-date. But it's in the CCC-and-lower category where
real bloodletting is occurring.
This chart shows the return from interest payments and price changes of that
category. Since June 2014, the index has lost 28%. During the panic of the Financial
Crisis, it plunged 48%. But now the volume of junk bonds outstanding is twice
as large and the credit bubble is far bigger than it had been before the Financial
Crisis. So this might just be the beginning:
It's not just energy. The category includes all kinds of companies, among
them brick-and-mortar retailers and restaurants, hit hard by excessive debt,
slack demand, consumer preference for online shopping, and other scourges. Unlike
oil and gas drillers, these companies have no assets to sell. Standard & Poor's
"believes these trends will accelerate in the coming year and lead to further
retail defaults."
S&P now expects the overall default rate to reach 3.9% by the end of 2016.
But it may be the rosy scenario; last March, S&P still thought the default rate
at the end of 2016 would be 2.8%. Credits are deteriorating fast.
Among these CCC-rated retailers and restaurants are Claire's Stores, Logan's
Roadhouse, and the Bon-Ton Department Stores. Others, at B-, are just a downgrade
away, such as Toys "R" Us, 99 Cents Only Stores, or P.F. Chang's China Bistro.
Some are rated B, such as Men's Wearhouse and Neiman Marcus. If these companies
need money, it's going to get very expensive.
And contagion is spreading to high-grade bonds: issuance so far in February
plunged 90% to just $5 billion, from the same period a year ago. Year-to-date
issuance was inflated by one monster deal carried over from last year, the $46-billion
M&A-driven trade for Anheuser-Busch InBev, bringing the total to $126.5 billion,
still down 13%. S&P Capital IQ LCD:
Severe broad market volatility shuttered the investment-grade primary
market for a fifth consecutive session Thursday, as secondary-market spreads
continued to widen.
If policy makers wanted to understand the irrelevance of ZIRP or NIRP
in the world where real businesses and people live, they only have to read
this article.
And don't forget the risk that's posed by the sovereign debt issued by
the EU PIIGS:
Are The EU PIIGS About To Start Squealing?
As the migrant crisis in Europe worsens serious steps to address it are
being considered.
One proposal is for passports to be required in order to cross from one
EU country to another.
Would such a drastic move spell the beginning of the end for the Eurozone
as a viable entity?
And if so what will happen to the piles of sovereign debt that's been
issued by the economically vulnerable EU PIIGS, and to the investors who
have been pouring money into them at what appear to be ridiculously low
yields?
Bring in nonsense economics globally and let it destroy everything.
Today's nonsense economics:
1) Ignores the true nature of money and debt
Debt is just taking money from the future to spend today.
The loan/mortgage is taken out and spent; the repayments come in the
future.
Today's boom is tomorrow's penury and tomorrow is here.
One of the fundamental flaws in the economists' models is the way they
treat money, they do not understand the very nature of this most basic of
fundamentals.
They see it as a medium enabling trade that exists in steady state without
being created, destroyed or hoarded by the wealthy.
They see banks as intermediaries where the money of savers is leant out
to borrowers.
When you know how money is created and destroyed on bank balance sheets,
you can immediately see the problems of banks lending into asset bubbles
and how massive amounts of fictitious, asset bubble wealth can disappear
over-night.
When you take into account debt and compound interest, you quickly realise
how debt can over-whelm the system especially as debt accumulates with those
that can least afford it.
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends
and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
Add to this the fact that new money can only be created from new debt
and the picture gets worse again.
With this ignorance at the heart of today's economics, bankers worked
out how they could create more
and more debt whilst taking no responsibility for it. They invented securitisation
and complex financial instruments to package up their debt and sell it on
to other suckers (the heart of 2008).
2) Doesn't differentiate between "earned" and "unearned" wealth
Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and
"unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness
and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.
We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the
economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side.
The FIRE (finance, insurance and real estate) sectors now dominate the
UK economy and these are actually parasites on the real economy.
Constant rent seeking, parasitic activity from the financial sector.
Siphoning off the "earned" wealth of generation rent to provide "unearned"
income for those with more Capital, via BTL.
Housing booms across the world sucking purchasing power from the real
economy through high rents and mortgage payments.
Michael Hudson "Killing the Host"
3) Today's ideal is unregulated, trickledown Capitalism.
We had un-regulated, trickledown Capitalism in the UK in the 19th Century.
We know what it looks like.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep
them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
(The majority got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour
movements.)
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman
seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
Where regulation is lax today?
Apple factories with suicide nets in China.
The modern business person chases around the world to find the poorest
nation with the laxest regulations so they can exploit these people in the
same way they used to exploit the citizens of their own nations two hundred
years ago.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
Capitalism in its natural state sucks everything up to the top.
Capitalism in its natural state doesn't create much demand.
There is more than one version of Capitalism, and today's version is
an upside down version of the one we had 40 years ago that produced the
lowest levels of inequality in history within the developed world.
40 years ago most economists and almost everyone else believed the economy
was demand driven and the system naturally trickled up.
Now most economists and almost everyone else believes the economy is
supply driven and the system naturally trickles down.
Economics has been turned upside down in the last 40 years.
All the Central Bank stimulus programs have been Neo-Keynesian, in
line with the new economics. The money is pushed into the top of the economic
pyramid, the banks, and according to the new economics it should trickle
down.
What we have seen is that the money stays at the top inflating asset
bubbles in stocks, fine art, classic cars and top end property.
Businessmen believe in the new economics when it comes to keeping all
the rewards for themselves and shareholders.
Businessmen believe in the old economics when it come to investing and
won't invest until demand rises.
The new economics has taken us back to a disastrous past.
1920s/2000s – high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation,
low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation
phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism
and extremism
I see a storm brewing. A huge economic tsunami will occur when the
financial sector collapses. The question is not if this will occur but when
and how bad it will be. The severity is bound to be intense and long term
as Congress is hidebound by ideological stances that are the origination
of the Tsunami. The Fed has run out of strategies that actually have any
positive effect.
Not to diminish the concerns Wolf has expressed here or the related
causal factors, but staff at the Atlanta Fed is forecasting sharply improving
economic activity this quarter.
Although I only began tracking their work during the past year, I have
been impressed by the accuracy of their recent GDP forecasts:
But "consensual hallucination," as we've come to call the phenomenon,
blinded investors, among them hedge funds, private equity firms, bond
mutual funds for retail investors, and other honorable members of the
"smart money."
Please explain how "smart money" is losing on this "hallucination."
Oh, maybe you mean the Private Equity LPs or the retail investors in the
Mutual Funds, or the investors in the hedge funds. They aren't the smart
money. The smart money is playing this game for all it is worth and is not
losing out.
Brent crude futures trading at the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) in London
surged over 7.5 percent after Iran declared its support for the oil output freeze.
Despite expressing its backing for the step, Tehran has not made any pledges
to curb to its own production.
After the initial rise, the positive market trend ended a few minutes later,
with the gain then dropping to around 6.2 percent.
WTI futures in New York also saw a reverse in earlier losses, gaining as
much as 6.3 percent, according to Bloomberg.
On Wednesday, Tehran expressed its support for the plan to freeze oil production
levels, which was put forward by Russia and Saudi Arabia a day earlier.
After meeting with energy ministers from other top crude oil producers, Iran's
Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said the country supported the measures that
aim to prevent a further drop in oil prices.
Iran backs the proposal, Iranian Shana news agency reported. However, the
minister did not specify whether Tehran would curb its own crude production.
Following the Moscow-Riyadh output agreement, Zanganeh met with his counterparts
from Iraq, Qatar and Venezuela in the Iranian capital. He assessed the meeting
as being positive, TASS news agency reported.
With three OPEC members – Qatar, Venezuela and Kuwait – already having said
they are ready to freeze output at January levels, and the UAE saying it's open
to cooperation, the fate of the initiative now mostly depends on Iran's participation.
"... The money crunch is hitting just as U.S. production is starting to decline. On Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration estimated that production is down 600,000 barrels per day since April; the agency expects production to fall at least that much again by the end of the year. Without a cash infusion, those declines will only accelerate. ..."
"... If production is falling, does that mean oil prices are going to go back up? Maybe. A popular argument in the oil patch is that the pullback in investment is sowing the seeds for the next surge in prices; oil companies won't be able to boost production quickly enough when it's needed, leading to higher prices. But even if that argument is right, it could take years for such a rebalancing to occur. And besides, as I've argued before, the conventional wisdom on oil is (almost) always wrong . ..."
Oil companies have survived low prices this long because banks and investors
were willing to lend them billions of dollars on the assumption that the price
plunge would be short-lived. But as experts become
increasingly convinced that prices will
stay low for years, Wall Street is turning off the money spigot. (It doesn't
help that the global economic slowdown is making banks more cautious, while
the Fed's decision to raise interest rates is making borrowing more expensive.)
The money crunch is hitting just as U.S. production is starting to decline.
On Tuesday, the Energy Information Administration
estimated that production is down 600,000 barrels per day since April; the
agency expects production to fall at least that much again by the end of the
year. Without a cash infusion, those declines will only accelerate.
If production is falling, does that mean oil prices are going to go back
up? Maybe. A
popular argument in the oil patch is that the pullback in investment is
sowing the seeds for the next surge in prices; oil companies won't be able to
boost production quickly enough when it's needed, leading to higher prices.
But even if that argument is right, it could take years for such a rebalancing
to occur. And besides, as I've argued before, the conventional wisdom on oil
is
(almost) always wrong.
"... At the beginning of 2014, the world was marveling in surprise as the US returned as a petroleum superpower, a role it had relinquished in the early 1970s. It was pumping so much oil and gas that experts foresaw a new American industrial renaissance, with trillions of dollars in investment and millions of new jobs. wo years later, faces are aghast as the same oil has instead unleashed world-class havoc: Just a month into the new year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is down 5.5%. Japan's Nikkei has dropped 8%, and the Stoxx Europe 600 is 6.4% lower. ..."
"... that companies would put on hold $380 billion (and counting) in oil and natural gas field investment, and fire 250,000 industry workers around the world last year (including around 90,000 in the US). ..."
"... A lot of Americans bought houses based on confidence in the boom, and now can't make their payments -Texas has seen a 15% rise in foreclosures, and Oklahoma a whopping 36% increase, according to estimates from RealtyTrac. Morningstar, the rating agency, has put a third of some $340 million in mortgage-backed securities tied to North Dakota apartment buildings and other commercial properties on its watch list for possible default. ..."
At the beginning of 2014, the world was marveling in surprise as the
US returned as a petroleum superpower, a role it had relinquished in the early
1970s. It was pumping so much oil and gas that experts foresaw a new American
industrial renaissance, with trillions of dollars in investment and millions
of new jobs. wo years later, faces are aghast as the same oil has instead unleashed
world-class havoc: Just a month into the new year, the Dow Jones Industrial
Average is down 5.5%. Japan's Nikkei has dropped 8%, and the Stoxx Europe 600
is 6.4% lower. The blood on the floor even includes fuel-dependent industries
that logic suggests should be prospering,
such as airlines.
... ... ...
The analysts defend themselves by noting that they got this and that aspect
of oil's trajectory right, which is fair enough. But it seems all missed the
big picture: First, they failed to see that from 2011 to 2014, a surge in shale
oil production was going to become a big factor in global supplies; then, they
did not anticipate that the same oil would create the mayhem before us now.
In fact, in the case of the current turmoil, most forecast the precise opposite-economic
nirvana. Interviews with the main institutions that made the bad calls reveal
no crisis of confidence, and they are busy putting out analyses of the latest
developments.
... ... ...
Consumers have been big winners-gasoline prices have plummeted. That part
has happened. But analysts failed to anticipate that the Saudis would refuse
to cooperate with the shale gale, as it's been dubbed, and in fact would declare
war on it, even though Riyadh did precisely the same thing in the 1980s. The
analysts did not foretell that, if shale oil production rose as they projected,
it could drive down prices not only to the $80-a-barrel average that many forecast,
but much lower-so low, for so long (see chart below), that companies would
put on hold $380 billion (and counting) in oil and natural gas field investment,
and fire 250,000 industry workers around the world last year (including around
90,000 in the US).
... ... ...
Nor did they foresee that many of the companies themselves would be
at risk of bankruptcy (42
already filed as of last year). Of 155 US oil and gas companies studied
by Standard & Poor's, one third are rated B- or less, meaning they are a high
risk of default. These companies' debt is selling at just 56 cents on the dollar,
below even the level during the financial crash. As a measure of this vulnerability,
the 60 leading US independent oil and gas companies have accumulated
$200 billion in debt.
... ... ...
With the collapse in oil prices came the crash of employment in US cities
across Louisiana, North Dakota, and Texas, and in Canadian towns reliant on
the oil sands boom in Alberta. North Dakota has
lost an estimated 13,500 roughnecks and oil engineers, not to mention drivers,
restaurant cooks, barbers, and grocery store cashiers in service businesses
that sprouted up around them. The Canadian province of Alberta has
lost some 20,000 jobs, the most in any industry downturn since the early
1980s.
A lot of Americans bought houses based on confidence in the boom, and
now
can't make their payments-Texas has seen a 15% rise in foreclosures, and
Oklahoma a whopping 36% increase, according to
estimates from RealtyTrac. Morningstar, the rating agency, has
put a third of some $340 million in mortgage-backed securities tied to North
Dakota apartment buildings and other commercial properties on its watch list
for possible default.
But the echo has also been heard far from the US shale
patch. In the once-booming, toughly run petro-state of Azerbaijan, for instance,
people have
been in the streets to protest higher prices and lost jobs; the International
Monetary Fund, worried about Azerbaijan's possible collapse, is speaking with
government officials about a
$3 billion bailout.
Soup kitchens are
surfacing in Moscow, notwithstanding Russian president Vladimir Putin's
assertions that the country is coping fine, and that
things will improve
this year. African producers also have felt the pain. Like stock bourses around
the world, Nigeria's has tanked along with oil prices.
Iran: Tehran is continuing its battle for market share with
the Saudis by cutting its price for heavy crude going to Mediterranean customers
by more than a recent Saudi cut. The selling price for Iranian Heavy crude is
now set at $6.40 below the Brent Weighted Average. For Northwest Europe and
South Africa the price is now $6.30 below the Brent Average as compared to $6.00
for Arab crude. This may only be the beginning of price wars between Iran and
the Gulf Arabs as Tehran battles to regain the market share it held before the
sanctions were imposed.
The postponement of a conference in London at which Tehran was to announce
its terms for foreign oil companies wanting to invest in developing Iranian
oil shows that there is considerable infighting within the Iranian ruling class.
Although the Iranians tried to blame the postponement on troubles getting visas
for all the Iranians who wanted to attend, the delay likely was forced by hardline
opponents of the Rouhani government who say the proposed agreements violate
Iran's constitution which decrees that none of Iran's oil reserves can be owned
for foreigners. Iran is seeking some $200 billion in foreign investment to increase
its production to 4-5 million b/d. Given the low oil prices, Iran is unlikely
to be capable of accumulating the capital to make major increases in its oil
production. Some believe the domestic political situation will become worse
after the elections when the hardliners make an effort to gain take more control
over the oil industry away from moderate President Rouhani and his government.
The lifting of the sanctions my not turn out to be as much of a boom for
Iran's economy as many Iranians had hoped. It is doubtful that in these tough
times for the oil industry many international oil companies will be interested
in deals in which they supply the money and take the risks while allowing the
Iranians all the control and most of the benefits from the projects.
In the meantime, Iran is demanding payment for its oil in euros rather than
dollars in order to stick it to Washington. The problems of insuring cargoes
of Iranian oil, however, seem to be easing. Washington will now allow non-US
persons to insure crude and oil products coming from or going to Iran.
Trading giant
Vitol says it's already buying Iranian oil, several European oil companies
have already chartered tankers for Iranian crude. Total SA has reportedly signed
an agreement with Iran to buy 160,000 barrels per day effective from the 16th
of February.
Spanish refiner Compania Espanola de Petroleos has booked some provisional
Iranian crude cargoes to land in European ports,
according to Bloomberg, and
Glencore Plc trading house bought a cargo earlier this month.
But Lukoil's trading arm, Swiss-based Litasco, has cancelled its booking
of an Iranian cargo to Italy over insurance complications,
according to Reuters.
Japan is a step
ahead of other prospective importers of Iranian oil. In 2012, Japan's Parliament
approved government guarantees on insurance for Iranian crude oil cargoes, circumventing
European Union sanctions and allowing for the provision of up to $7.6 billion
in coverage for each Iranian crude oil tanker bound for Japan. But that
law expires on 31 March, so it may have to go back to parliament for approval
if the West hasn't sorted things out by then.
The London-based International Group of Protection & Indemnity Clubs, which
covers some 90 percent of global tonnage through reinsurance, is
reportedly in talks with Washington to figure a way out of the insurance
quagmire quickly, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Iran signed an agreement to supply crude oil with Hellenic Petroleum SA,
a Greek oil refinery, in what may be the Persian Gulf producer's first such
deal with a European company since the removal of international sanctions this
month.
Deliveries will begin immediately, Hellenic Petroleum said in an e-mailed
statement on Friday. The agreement also includes an adjustment for a financial
backlog owed to Iran's state oil company after sanctions imposed four years
ago, according to the statement. Iran's Deputy Oil Minister Amir Hossein Zamaninia
discussed potential energy co-operation with Greek Energy Minister Panos Skourletis
earlier on Friday in Athens.
The oil market is bracing itself for a ramp up in supplies from Iran amid
a global supply glut that pushed prices down to a 12-year low. Oil analysts
surveyed by Bloomberg anticipate the nation will ship 100,000 barrels a day
more crude within a month of sanctions ending, and four times that within half
a year. Iran says it will boost exports by 500,000 barrels a day right away.
Europe had been Iran's second-biggest oil customer before sanctions were
introduced, purchasing nearly 600,000 barrels a day from the Middle East nation
in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Greece was
one of the biggest European importers, buying about 120,000 barrels a day in
2011, data from the International Energy Agency shows.
The return of Iranian oil could send prices even lower, as it fills in the
gap left by the decline in U.S. shale production, the IEA warned on Jan. 19.
Flows of Iranian crude to Europe may displace similar grades sold by Russia
and Iraq, which may in turn be diverted to the U.S., Citigroup Inc. predicts.
European oil companies such as Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Eni SpA and Total SA
have said they're interested in returning to Iran to develop its oil reserves,
which are the fourth-biggest in the world.
"... Deals signed just over a week ago when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
met his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, in Paris included some 20 agreements
and a $25-billion accord under which Iran will purchase 73 long-haul and 45 medium-haul
Airbus passenger planes to update its ageing fleet. Carmaker Peugeot-which was forced
to pull out of Iran in 2012--also agreed to return to the Iranian market in a five-year
deal worth $436 million. ..."
"... In the reverse flow of the new deal, Total has agreed to buy between 150,000
and 200,000 barrels of Iranian crude a day, with company officials also noting that
Total would be looking at other opportunities as well in oil, gas, petrochemicals
and marketing. ..."
"... According to Iranian media , Total will start importing 160,000 barrels
per day in line with a contract that takes effect already on 16 February. ..."
"... Total will likely want back in on this project, and buying Iranian oil
surely helps. And Iran, likewise, is eagerly seeking out European markets, with
the Iranian Oil Ministry now saying that it's crude oil sales to Europe have exceeded
300,000 barrels per day , counting the Total deal. ..."
"... Iran has recently signed oil contracts not only with French Total, but
also with Russian Lukoil's trading arm, Litasco, and Spanish refiner Cepsa. The
Ministry says that Italian oil giant Eni is interested in buying 100,000 bpd from
Iran, and that such a contract will be discussed soon in Tehran. ..."
"... Iran is seeking to bill its new crude oil sales in euros in order to reduce
dependence on the U.S. dollar, the news agency reported, citing an anonymous NIOC
source. ..."
"... Washington is not going to appreciate this additional threat to the petro
dollar . This would add Iran to the growing list of countries that, over the past
few years, have begun to pose a challenge to the current system by forming pacts
to transact oil in local currencies. ..."
As Airbus and Peugeot finally return to post-sanctions Iran, the trade-off
is Iranian oil, with French Total SA taking the plunge in an agreement to buy
up to 200,000 barrels per day of Iranian crude--but the catch is that
sales will be in euros.
Deals signed just over a week ago when Iranian President Hassan Rouhani
met his French counterpart, Francois Hollande, in Paris included some
20 agreements and a $25-billion accord under which Iran will purchase 73
long-haul and 45 medium-haul Airbus passenger planes to update its ageing fleet.
Carmaker Peugeot-which was forced to pull out of Iran in 2012--also agreed to
return to the Iranian market in a five-year deal worth $436 million.
In the reverse flow of the new deal, Total has agreed to buy between
150,000 and 200,000 barrels of Iranian crude a day, with company officials also
noting that Total would be looking at other opportunities as well in oil, gas,
petrochemicals and marketing.
According to Iranian media, Total will start importing 160,000 barrels
per day in line with a contract that takes effect already on 16 February.
Total never really left Iran, though. While it
stopped all oil exploration and production activities there in 2010, making
it one of the last to withdraw, it still maintained an office there.
Since 1990, Total has been a key investor in Iranian energy, playing a role
in the development of Iran's Sirri A&E oil and South Pars gas projects. Sanctions
also halted its planned involvement in the LNG project linked to Iran's South
Pars Phase 11.
But Total's work in Iran hasn't been without its problems-even without sanctions.
In May 2013, Total agreed to pay
$398.2 million to settle U.S. criminal and civil allegations that it
paid bribes to win oil and gas contracts in Iran. U.S. authorities claimed
that between 1995 and 2004, Total paid about $60 million in bribes to an Iranian
government official to win lucrative development rights in three South Pars
project oil and gas fields. While French prosecutors had recommended that Total
and its then-CEO, Christophe de Margerie, be tried on these charges,
De Margerie's premature death in a Moscow plane crash put paid to that and
the case was discontinued.
At stake here is Iran's prized South Pars, which holds some 14 trillion cubic
meters of natural gas and 18 billion barrels of gas condensates. Or in other
words, 7.5 percent of the world's natural gas and half of Iran's total reserves.
And
Phase 11 of this project is what the supermajors are eyeing. Total was dismissed
from Phase 11 in 2009 and its portion of the project was awarded to China National
Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), which then pulled out in 2012 under the bite of
sanctions.
In September 2015, the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) transferred the
uncompleted portions of Phase 11 to Iranian companies.
Total will likely want back in on this project, and buying Iranian oil
surely helps.And Iran, likewise, is eagerly seeking out European markets, with
the Iranian Oil Ministry now saying that it's crude oil sales to Europe
have exceeded 300,000 barrels per day, counting the Total deal.
Iran has recently signed oil contracts not only with French Total, but
also with Russian Lukoil's trading arm, Litasco, and Spanish refiner Cepsa.
The Ministry says that Italian oil giant Eni is interested in
buying 100,000 bpd from Iran, and that such a contract will be discussed
soon in Tehran.
But there is a catch,
as reported by Reuters. Iran is seeking to bill its new crude oil sales
in euros in order to reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar, the news agency reported,
citing an anonymous NIOC source.
Washington is not going to appreciate this additional
threat to the petro dollar. This would add Iran to the growing list of countries
that, over the past few years, have begun to pose a
challenge to the current system by forming pacts to transact oil in local
currencies.
"... Tehran had a big week as President Rouhani stormed around Europe signing
oil contracts and spending Iran's windfall of newly freed up cash by making many
major purchases. In Italy, he signed deals including shipbuilding, steel, and energy
worth some $18 billion. In France, he bought 118 Airbus airliners for $24 billion,
made a $400 million car manufacturing deal with Peugeot, and signed a deal with
Total for 200,000 b/d of Iranian crude. This should help Rouhani in the upcoming
elections as a man who keeps his promises to revive the Iranian economy. ..."
Tehran had a big week as President Rouhani stormed around Europe signing
oil contracts and spending Iran's windfall of newly freed up cash by making
many major purchases. In Italy, he signed deals including shipbuilding, steel,
and energy worth some $18 billion. In France, he bought 118 Airbus airliners
for $24 billion, made a $400 million car manufacturing deal with Peugeot, and
signed a deal with Total for 200,000 b/d of Iranian crude. This should help
Rouhani in the upcoming elections as a man who keeps his promises to revive
the Iranian economy.
Beijing is making a major effort to improve its relations with Tehran. During
the sanctions, China continued to build a new $200 million steel mill for the
Iranians, circumventing the restrictions imposed by the US and Europe. Last
week a freight train set off on the 6,000 mile trip to Tehran from eastern China,
marking the first rail connection between the two countries along the new "silk
road." China is hoping that Iran will become a major gateway for selling its
products into the Middle East and will become a source of oil.
Based on tanker loading schedules, Tehran is due to increase its oil exports
in January and February by 20 percent over last year. Iran's exports look to
be about 1.5 million b/d in January and 1.4 million in February. This compares
with an average of 1.2 million b/d last year. Much of this oil was already stored
on tankers which provided storage for unsold crude during the sanctions. How
much oil was in storage has been debated, but a recent Reuters report puts the
amount at 40 million barrels– mostly condensate which has to be sold quickly
to free up Iran's tankers for regular crude deliveries. Many western shippers
still have concerns about doing business with Tehran as there are still numerous
sanctions in place which could lead to heavy penalties for doing business with
Iranians, especially if the Republican Guard is somehow involved.
"... He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of its money that
has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the money has already been
committed elsewhere. ..."
"... On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran's demand for domestic investment
surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200 billion
to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector. ..."
Why do Republicans put out the notion that the Iran deal was Obama's
idea and that Iran gets $150 billion. This is totally incorrect. It's a
deal from the 5 countries in the UN Security Council + Germany & the EU
and Iran. This from the Huffington Post:-
"WASHINGTON -- Iran will receive approximately $55 billion in sanctions
relief once the nuclear deal is implemented, said Treasury Secretary Jack
Lew -- a fraction of the $150 billion that critics of the agreement have
claimed will go to the country.
"There is a lot of discussion out there that Iran is going to somehow
get $150 billion as soon as sanctions are lifted. That is incorrect," said
Lew, speaking at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor on
Wednesday. He explained that Iran will not be able to access much of
its money that has been locked up overseas due to sanctions because the
money has already been committed elsewhere.
Last week, Lew told a group of senators that over $20 billion of Iran's
frozen assets has already been committed to infrastructure projects with
China, and that Iran owes an additional "tens of billions" of dollars on
nonperforming loans to its energy and banking sectors.
On Wednesday, Lew estimated that Iran's demand for domestic investment
surpasses $500 billion, and that it will cost between $100 billion and $200
billion to restore production levels in its oil and gas sector.
By reducing oil prices, Saudi Arabia is waging a secret war against Russia and Iran, according to
political analyst Bassam Tahhan.
In
an
interview with RT , political analyst Bassam Tahhan said that Saudi Arabia and the other countries
of the Gulf Cooperation Council are trying to force down oil prices in order to harm Iran and a number
of other oil-producing countries, including Russia.
"A secret war is being waged by
Saudi Arabia and Gulf Cooperation Council states which are slashing oil prices so as to strangle
Iran, Russia, Algeria and Venezuela, as well as the entire 'anti-American' axis created by these
countries," Tahhan said.
He explained that all those countries had refused to adhere to Washington's demands with regard
to
Ukraine , Syria and
Yemen .
According to Tahhan, the oil spat between Riyadh and Tehran is unlikely to lead to a war, given
Iran's military potential and the sheer territory of the country.
What's more, he said, Saudi Arabia will fail to prod the UN or the West to issue a resolution
to condemn Iran and authorize invasion of the country.
Rather, Saudi Arabia itself may be attacked by Iran's allies, such as Yemen, a scenario that Tahhan
said may see Saudi oil fields destroyed and oil prices rise.
At the same time, he noted that
the United States is unlikely to say "no" to the war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, because Washington
could supply arms to both parties to the conflict.
Earlier this month, international business analyst
Ralph Winnie told Sputnik that Saudi Arabia has dropped its oil prices to try and wreck the Iranian
economy and keep Tehran's oil exports out of major European markets.
"The Saudis are looking to gain a competitive advantage: this is a response to the lifting of
Western economic sanctions on Iran , which allow the Iranians to reenter the global energy marketplace,"
he said.
His remarks came after the Saudi oil giant Aramco announced that it would cut oil prices for Europe,
apparently in preparation for Iran's resumption of oil exports to the region later this year.
He was echoed by Executive Intelligence Review senior editor
Jeff Steinberg , who said in a separate interview with Sputnik that by slashing their oil prices,
the Saudis were targeting US and Russian oil producers as well as the Iranian ones.
"... According to the IEA, 60% of Iran's initial 500,000 b/d of new exports
could be made up of Iranian Heavy, 30% of Iranian Light and the remainder consisting
of a new heavy grade called West of Karun, which is due to make its debut in the
second quarter. ..."
"... Fesharaki says the volume of condensate is somewhere between 30 and 50
million barrels whereas the volume of crude stored afloat is between 10 and 15 million
barrels. ..."
The IEA also highlights the marketing challenge and expects Iran not only to
be competitive in its pricing policy, but also to be open to crude-for-product
swaps and deferred payment terms.
In the meantime, the IEA believes Iran has
made considerable progress in readying its oil network and identifying prospective
buyers and reckons an additional 300,000 b/d of crude could be flowing by the
end of the March this year, although it does make the point that for now this
volume is speculative.
It estimates that Iran increased production by 40,000 b/d between November
and December to help fill storage tanks at the Kharg Island loading terminal
in preparation for the lifting of sanctions and expects Iranian oil flows to
rise towards pre-sanctions capacity of 3.6 million b/d within six months.
According to the IEA, 60% of Iran's initial 500,000 b/d of new exports
could be made up of Iranian Heavy, 30% of Iranian Light and the remainder consisting
of a new heavy grade called West of Karun, which is due to make its debut in
the second quarter.
... ... ...
Fereidun Fesharaki, chairman of consultancy Facts Global Energy, expects
a 300,000 b/d export boost by end-March and another 300,000 b/d by end-June.
Early volumes will head largely to Asia, where mechanisms for taking Iranian
crude are already in place, he says in a note, while operational and banking
issues will delay the European ramp-up to the second quarter.
... ... ...
Fesharaki says the volume of condensate is somewhere between 30 and 50
million barrels whereas the volume of crude stored afloat is between 10 and
15 million barrels. The bulk of the floating condensate is likely to go
to China, Japan and South Korea, he says.
Iran will need to free up its tanker fleet as soon as possible to deliver
crude but selling these condensate barrels, given their "specialized nature,"
could prove to be tough, the agency says. So, until substantial volumes of this
ultra-light oil can be sold, Iran will likely concentrate on selling crude from
Kharg Island.
"... Besides having 2.5 times the population of Saudi, I am of the impression
that they have a much more western style economy. That is, they probably have a
decent manufacturing base in order to construct nuclear reactors, guided missiles,
ships, most of their own military weapons, roads, cars, etc. and to support a decent
sized army of their own. Are they heavy into wind, solar and battery power?? ..."
"... Clueless, if by the end of the year Iran is producing an extra nickel,
it wont offset the decline in fields being erased off the map at $65 per barrel.
..."
"... Today we have this oil price conflict that is shaping the future of OPEC
in 3-5 years. It is conflict for majority control of the cheapest exporting oil
within the OPEC. ..."
"... Iran with its young and fast growing population faces internal consumption
problem similar to what Malaysia have and might well stop to be the major oil exporter
in a couple of decades. ..."
"... OPEC to a certain extent is gone after Saudis decision to lift quote regime.
It remains some kind of umbrella organization, but it is no longer a cartel - they
are unable to act as a single unit in their own economic interests. ..."
"... My impression is Saudis are dumping their oil on the market due to some
non-economic considerations. Financially they are committing a suicide depleting
their foreign reserves and winning very little (if at all) in terms of market share
while their fields are aging fast. Essentially what they are doing is stealing oil
from future generations making the mere existence of the country problematic in
50 years or so. The diversification of their economy is very difficult to implement.
Politically they also alienated a lot of countries who might be able to help them.
Especially during the rule of a 30 years old deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman
..."
If by the end of this year Iran is producing 500,000 bbl/day more oil, I
am curious how much of that will be available for "net export?" By net,
I mean using Jeffrey's methods. That is, I believe that a lot of Iran's
current oil production is exported and then returned to them as refined
product.
I would note that Iran's population is currently over 80 million people,
about 10 million more than in 2005. I think that the least amount that anyone
has for use internally by Saudi Arabia is 3 million bbls/day, and that is
with a population of only 32 million. So, if Iran is going to invest the
$100+ billion, which was just released to them, on infrastructure projects,
I kind of have a gut feel that they might themselves use most of their own
production. But, I am puzzled even by current figures. I do not understand
how Iran can net export oil with current production of around 2.8 million
bbl/day.
Besides having 2.5 times the population of Saudi, I am of the impression
that they have a much more western style economy. That is, they probably
have a decent manufacturing base in order to construct nuclear reactors,
guided missiles, ships, most of their own military weapons, roads, cars,
etc. and to support a decent sized army of their own. Are they heavy into
wind, solar and battery power??
Clueless, if by the end of the year Iran is producing an extra nickel,
it won't offset the decline in fields being erased off the map at $65 per
barrel.
It is not about how much Iran can export now, but 3-5-7 years from now.
Today we have this oil price conflict that is shaping the future of
OPEC in 3-5 years. It is conflict for majority control of the cheapest exporting
oil within the OPEC.
Which group of countries have the majority control of that oil will have
a controlling oil policy within the OPEC and outside of OPEC.
Iran with its young and fast growing population faces internal consumption
problem similar to what Malaysia have and might well stop to be the major
oil exporter in a couple of decades.
So your statement "It is not about how much Iran can export now, but
3-5-7 years from now" should by slightly amended by the fact of growing
Iran internal consumption. Also it is unclear how much of their fields are
depleted and how effective will be investment into their oil infrastructure.
They will remain major gas producer, but whether they are capable to became
again a major oil producer is much less clear.
Why do you think that this is "conflict for majority control of the cheapest
exporting oil within the OPEC." OPEC to a certain extent is gone after
Saudis decision to lift quote regime. It remains some kind of umbrella organization,
but it is no longer a cartel - they are unable to act as a single unit in
their own economic interests.
I think that this conflict is exaggerated by Western MSM, who literally
push one country against the other trying to find and amplify any statements
to this effect. The main claim of Iran to Saudis was "we want our OPEC quota
back" to which Saudis responded by lifting the quota system effectively
disbanding the OPEC. Now Iran leadership is making statements which essentially
play into Saudis hands promising to flood the market with their oil (selling
it for peanuts; not a very wise policy). In other words they act as allies
(in self destruction).
My impression is Saudis are dumping their oil on the market due to
some non-economic considerations. Financially they are committing a suicide
depleting their foreign reserves and winning very little (if at all) in
terms of market share while their fields are aging fast. Essentially what
they are doing is stealing oil from future generations making the mere existence
of the country problematic in 50 years or so. The diversification of their
economy is very difficult to implement. Politically they also alienated
a lot of countries who might be able to help them. Especially during the
rule of a 30 years old deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman
Iran is quite a different story. They probably will continue to exist
even if they stop to be an oil exporter and became an oil importer. So for
them becoming a major oil exporter again is not a survival issue. It would
be nice, yes, and will increase standard of living in the country.
Looks like existing Iran stored liquids is mostly condensate and diesel fuel.
also increasing og production in current circumstances is difficult and counterproductive.
Looks like Iran choose the path of processing its oil and shipping processed products
instead.
Notable quotes:
"... Iran intends to increase oil exports by 500,000 b/d right away, in addition
to the 30 million barrels Iran has stored in oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... Iranian sources claim that their floating storage consists of fuel oil
and condensate, but I guess we will find out: http://www.reuters.com/article/iran-oil-idUSL3N1021Z120150723
..."
"Iran is able to increase its oil production by 500,000 barrels a day
after the lifting of sanctions, and the order to increase production was issued
today," said Deputy Oil Minister Rokneddin Javadi, who also heads the National
Iranian Oil Company.
Oil prices fell below $28 a barrel on Monday as the market braced for additional
Iranian exports. Prices recovered during the day with Brent crude trading at
over $29 by 2.00pm GMT.
Iran hopes to raise oil exports by around one million barrels per day within
a year.
"... Iran will continue the policy of maximum production from the joint oil
and gas fields and that it has plans to enhance recovery from the fields in the
post-sanctions era ..."
"... Our next priority is oil production from West Karoun fields so that in
the next eight months, production will touch 200,000 barrels a day and will increase
to 700,000 barrels by the end of the Sixth Five-Year Development Plan ..."
"... We also hope to increase production of condensates in South Pars field
to one million barrels a day by the end of current governments term ..."
"... in less than 20 years, the value of petrochem products multiplied from
one billion dollars to 18 billion dollars. ..."
"... In the field of refineries, it is decided that the capacity will be boosted
from the current 1.7 million barrels a day to 3 million barrels, Zangeneh added.
He anticipated that with continuation of support programs for the production chain,
petrochemical production can hit 70 billion dollars a year. (Source: Safana) ..."
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 (Shana) – Minister of Petroleum Bijan Zangeneh said that
Iran will continue the policy of maximum production from the joint oil and gas
fields and that it has plans to enhance recovery from the fields in the post-sanctions
era.
"Even during sanctions period (forced reduction in production), we had laid
the principle that the reduction shall not include the joint fields," he said
in a televised interview with the national Channel One news bulletin.
"During these years which we launched five South Pars phases, it meant an
increased production of 150 million cubic meters of gas and 200,000 barrels
of gas condensates from the joint field," Zangeneh added. "Our next priority
is oil production from West Karoun fields so that in the next eight months,
production will touch 200,000 barrels a day and will increase to 700,000 barrels
by the end of the Sixth Five-Year Development Plan."
"We also hope to increase production of condensates in South Pars field
to one million barrels a day by the end of current government's term,"
the minister said. Zangeneh stressed development of petrochemical industry among
the downstream projects and said that in less than 20 years, the value of
petrochem products multiplied from one billion dollars to 18 billion dollars.
"In few years, it will catch up to 26 billion dollars and by the end Fifth
Development Plan it will hit above 40 billion dollars," he said.
"In the field of refineries, it is decided that the capacity will be
boosted from the current 1.7 million barrels a day to 3 million barrels," Zangeneh
added. He anticipated that with continuation of support programs for the production
chain, petrochemical production can hit 70 billion dollars a year." (Source:
Safana)
"... Some outcomes of the removal of sanctions are immediate. For example, we
increased export of crude oil as of today and also some 1,000 LCs were opened just
today by the banks which used to be under sanctions, he told a press conference
after announcement of the sanctions withdrawal earlier in the day. ..."
"... Iran had announced that it is set to increase oil exports as soon as sanctions
are removed for 500,000 barrels a days and that it will further add it to another
500,000 barrels in a short span of time. ..."
TEHRAN, Jan. 17 (Shana) – President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday that Iran
has started increasing its export of crude oil on the Implementation Day of
the nuclear Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
"Some outcomes of the removal of sanctions are immediate. For example,
we increased export of crude oil as of today and also some 1,000 LCs were
opened just today by the banks which used to be under sanctions," he told
a press conference after announcement of the sanctions withdrawal earlier
in the day.
Iran had announced that it is set to increase oil exports as soon as
sanctions are removed for 500,000 barrels a days and that it will further add
it to another 500,000 barrels in a short span of time.
President Rouhani also said Iran will continue following the policy of resistive
economy in the post-sanctions era.
The next year's draft budget bill which was submitted to the Parliament on
Sunday has the least dependency on crude oil revenues, he added.
During the question-answer session with domestic and foreign media, Rouhani
said Iran's private sector will be revitalized to employ the opportunities in
the wake of removal of sanctions.
To a query on Iran's reaction to a possible change in the US policy in future
by the hardliners regarding the nuclear deal with Iran, he underlined that Tehran
will proportionately react to such likely breaches of the agreement.
"There is no ground for resumption of the UNSC sanctions… And the US government's
commitments within JCPOA shall continue under UNSC Resolution 2231 regardless
of the party taking power in its hands."
He added that Iran is ready for the investment and technology transfer by
US companies in Iran noting that limitations in this regard lie on the other
side.
"If Americans want to invest in Iran, there is no limitation here. Recently,
they provided facilities for sale of commercial planes (to Iran) and removed
barriers on export of some Iranian goods," he said.
Asked on future relations with China and Italy, President Rouhani said Iran
will not forget the friendly countries that remained in trade contacts with
the Islamic Republic and will increase its ties with them after sanctions removal.
He also criticized Saudi Arabia and certain Islamic countries in the region
which negatively reacted to the withdrawal of sanctions in a fellow Islamic
country.
"... Tempted by big returns, shale companies have borrowed more than $200 billion in bonds and loans, from Wall Street and London, to cover development and projects that may not even come to fruition. Oil producers' debt since 2010 has increased more than 55 percent, and revenues have slowed, rising only 36 percent from September 2014, compared to 2010, according to the Wall Street Journal. ..."
"... On Sunday, the first shale company filed for bankruptcy. WBH Energy LP, a private Texas-based drilling group, filed for bankruptcy after saying that their lender was no longer willing to advance money. The company estimates their debt between $10-50 million. There are hundreds more in the US alone. ..."
"... Analysts believe North American shale needs to sell at $60-100 per barrel to break even on the billions of debt accrued by the energy companies. Indebted companies, fearing bankruptcy, may therefore be forced to keep selling oil, even at a loss. ..."
"... Energy companies that can afford it will cut production, but this will prove more difficult for smaller companies with larger debt hanging over their balance sheets. ..."
"... "It begins in one place like fracking in North Dakota or Texas, but it very quickly engulfs the rest of the world. In that way, its very similar to what happened in 2008… when billions of dollars were lent to people to buy homes they couldn't pay off," economist Richard Wolff told RT. ..."
"... The industry expanded rapidly, as the method proved capable of extracting oil and gas faster and easier than before, albeit with a certain environmental cost. Fracking can increase seismic activity, as well as penetrate water systems. Many states in the US have followed European nations in banning the oil extraction method. ..."
Plummeting Brent oil prices are putting pressure on North American shale,
which has sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into investment, and could soon
come crashing down.
Tempted by big returns, shale companies have borrowed more than $200
billion in bonds and loans, from Wall Street and London, to cover development
and projects that may not even come to fruition. Oil producers' debt since 2010
has increased more than 55 percent, and revenues have slowed, rising only 36
percent from September 2014, compared to 2010, according to the Wall Street
Journal.
Fracking, the process of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling on
land is much more expensive than the average water-based oilrig. However, over
the past years, it has become relatively cheap and fast. Energy companies, eager
to get in on the riches of the American oil boom, have been borrowing money
faster than they have been earning it.
On Sunday, the first shale company filed for bankruptcy. WBH Energy LP,
a private Texas-based drilling group, filed for bankruptcy after saying that
their lender was no longer willing to advance money. The company estimates their
debt between $10-50 million. There are hundreds more in the US alone.
Analysts believe North American shale needs to sell at $60-100 per barrel
to break even on the billions of debt accrued by the energy companies. Indebted
companies, fearing bankruptcy, may therefore be forced to keep selling oil,
even at a loss.
One way to avoid going bust is to merge, which is what many companies already
have on the negotiation bloc.
"We've already seen Baker Hughes and Halliburton agree to merger, and
these were two titans that used to compete head to head," Ed Hirs, managing
director independent oil and gas company Hillhouse Resources, told RT. "They've
decided they can't survive separately, they need to combine," Hirs said.
The Texas-based driller believes that lower prices and major mergers will
hinder progress in the industry.
"We will see a loss of tech. innovation and a loss of competition in the
oil service business," Hirs said.
Energy companies that can afford it will cut production, but this will
prove more difficult for smaller companies with larger debt hanging over their
balance sheets.
Oil prices lost more than 50 percent in 2014, and have already dropped 10
percent in 2015. Futures dramatically dipped when the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries decided not to curb production at their November meeting.
Some experts believe the decision not to cut production, which would have
alleviated oil prices, was a direct strategic move by the cartel to reduce the
profitability of North American oil fields, from Alberta to Oklahoma. In the
past five years, the US has moved from being one of the world's biggest oil
customers to the largest producer, even overtaking Saudi Arabia.
Bubble burst?
This 'bubble' of debt could come crashing down on oil companies, as the housing
bubble did on the sub-prime mortgage industry in 2008, which sparked a crisis
in global financial markets.
"It begins in one place like fracking in North Dakota or Texas, but it
very quickly engulfs the rest of the world. In that way, its very similar to
what happened in 2008… when billions of dollars were lent to people to buy homes
they couldn't pay off," economist Richard Wolff told RT.
The industry expanded rapidly, as the method proved capable of extracting
oil and gas faster and easier than before, albeit with a certain environmental
cost. Fracking can increase seismic activity, as well as penetrate water systems.
Many states in the US have
followed
European nations in banning the oil extraction method.
I did hear on the radio last week that there appears an economic war is being played out between
Saudi Arabia and Iran. Truth of this I don't know.
But, what does concern the world at these prices are major trading companies may go bust.
On derivatives and oil futures somewhere someone is carrying huge losses.
And, concerning the world economy derivatives are a markets of 70 or more trillions dollars
, enormous markets, as Warren Buffet once said derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction.
Somewhere in the world financial system huge losses on derivatives are sitting.
World Politicians shied away from the tough decisions under the guise of quantitative easing.
QE appears to have caused greater missallocation of resources.
2008 financial crisis is reemerging from its dormant position. 2008 was just push further down
the road.
Social Cohesion in Britain needs this time to really all be in this together.
" On derivatives and oil futures somewhere someone is carrying huge losses. "
The Big Lie - "zero sum game".
If that is true - play Monopoly in your own time with your own money.
That "zero sum game" pays billions in profits - so where does the money come from ?
Would love to know that myself.
This is a much too specific question for an economist - like asking for the winner of the 2-30
at Kempton.
Perspective is always a good thing -
This is what happens when central banks across the world inflate the biggest bubbles the world
has ever seen by keeping interest rates at near zero percent for 7 years. Let's make one thing
clear - China is not the only culprit for the latest fears over the global economy, to say that
many western economies such as the US or the UK have recovered or are on the road to recovery
would be disingenuous to say the least.
We have been scraping along at the lowest rate of so-called "recovery" (debt-fueled with ZIRP)
after a recession despite these interest rates - what would it have been like if rates were increased
a couple of years ago? One can only guess, but it would be fair to estimate that we would be back
in a recession.
So, here we are again, back at the latter stages of the next cycle in the boom-bust oscillations
of our global economy - and "is this time different"? Yes, but only by the measure that this time
there is little that central banks can do to mitigate or even slow the financial crisis. The 2008
crisis never really ended, this year we will undoubtedly see that the real part of that crisis
is about to unfold - capitalism should be allowed to take place this time, and if that means huge
corporations filing then so be it.
"if that means huge corporations filing then so be it."
I agree - but they are Ok, in fact loaded with cash.
"May 8, 2015 At the end of last year, U.S. non-financial companies held a staggering $1.73
trillion in cash, up 4% from the $1.67 trillion on hand at the end of 2013, found Moody's."
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome
/
So much of the debt has been loaded on sovereigns - what will they do - file for bankruptcy
?
OPEC should not allow members to sell oil at a financial loss. Oil is trading below its intrinsic
value and there are serious imbalances in the market. Member countries that sell oil below market
value lose money in two ways. They add supply to a depressed market and they lose money on the
transaction itself. It would make much more sense for OPEC to target minimum profitability as
their primary goal for all members rather than trying to use their market position to eliminate
producers in the United States.
Since most of the large energy companies in the United States
are publicly traded, it would be better for OPEC members to use their profits to purchase equity
in these companies rather than trying to make them unprofitable. I propose that OPEC target a
specific and stable price long term and then to adjust that price for inflation. For instance,
if it is determined that all members can profit at 70 dollar oil, then they should lower production
when the price is below that and increase it when it is above that. Member countries then use
a percentage of their profits to increase their reserves with share purchases of other non-opec
producers, thus increasing reserves long term.
Saudi Arabia has again badly miscalculated.
By pumping vast amount of Oil, KSA thought it could sink America, Russia and Iran oil companies
and Economies
Well it seems KSA is going broke! I am celebrating...
Current Saudi finance minster is Ibrahim Abdulaziz Al-Assaf
"After leaving academia, Ibrahim moved to Washington, DC where he represented Saudi Arabia
at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank
...
In addition to being finance minister, Ibrahim is a member of the board of directors of Saudi
Aramco (since 1996), the state-owned national oil company,
... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Abdulaziz_Al-Assaf
Is this history repeating itself?...but in China.
1998 Russian financial crisis.....Their stock market collapsed followed by a run on the ruble
which was devalued.
Most Russians suffered as their pensions, wages etc were severely devalued.
Same could be happening today in both China and Russia...
Financial war....Dinosaurs versus dinosaurs.
How to wreck a country....Trash it's markets and currency.
It's the law of the jungle.....The strongest survive.
However Russia and China will not take it lying down....Scary times indeed.
It seems that the Chinese market is under the greatest pressure...only to be propped up by
the government pumping money into it. (printing money)...result will be their currency devalues
and everybody in China suffers.
It has happened many times to many countries before...e.g. Germany, Argentina, Brazil, Russia
etc....
Two quick points.
First, OPEC has increased flow to destabilise Russian & Iranian profits. However, this situation
demonstrates that the price of oil should never have been much higher.
Second, China has a better approach to wealth re-distribution than OPEC nations and all advanced
economies. If a genuine desire to increase economic activity were expressed then wealth sitting
in secret accounts and held by the top 10% would be taxed & spread to the true wheel of economy:
ordinary people with poor purchasing power.
When the debt merchants, the money alchemists and voracious volatility vultures start panicking
(Hey, it's all relative. Don't worry, THEY'LL be fine) and looking for 'safe havens' (anything
deemed to have an intrinsic value, but still not gold as, 'we're not bloody savages, y'know...yet'),
when prices, particularly the golden goose commodities that kept them in (debt fertilised) speculative
clover in their (hopefully fitful) sleep, start to reflect genuine economic reality, then you
know it's probably squeaky bum time for the hapless cannon fodder that didn't cause this train
wreck, reaped little of its rewards, but nevertheless will bear the brunt of its consequences
yet again.
High rate temporary debt junk bonds are already failing. Those issued on the small oil drillers.
But it is a relatively small part of the junk bond market itself nevertheless financial institutions
overall.
Small companies are due to fail and will. the larger ones will pick up the pieces at rock bottom
prices and things will go on.
The numbers anywhere in developed economies don't support recession. China by the worst guesses
is still par on GDP. By most takes between 4 and 7 increasing GDP. With the looming effects of
el nino on India I would not say it could enter a recession in the next 6 months but that would
be a isolated event. The US no where close. People are taking the low oil prices as a read on
the economy. It is not this time global consumption is going up not down. It is a supply glut.
I live near KSA, and I see first-hand how corrupt and morally bankrupt the whole thing is. I also
see how incredibly subsidised EVERYTHING is. The people of these countries are little more than
spoiled children, with no incentive to work properly or even understand the businesses they are
in. Russia has a much more diverse economy, in KSA it is almost entirely oil. The rest of it is
industries that rely on oil money - such as the construction sector.
Offering an IPO on KSA's oil will expose the total incompetence and corruption behind the company,
I don't know how they hope to hide it all. So, you're right, all is far from well. I will be packing
my bags at the first sign of revolution, which I predict will be in 3-5 years. I don't think people
yet realise how bad things are going to get once KSA implodes and Iran and ISIS seek to take advantage.
It's going to be ugly, and I must admit, I'm a little scared.
the reason you have a collapsing global economy is because the idiots created one through a battery
of Free Trade Agreements that were aimed at over -riding local sovereignty and democracy and accessing
scab labour on an international scale
It didn't work did it - by dismantling local industry and exporting manufacture to countries
like China the middle class in the West made itself redundant
Welcome to the great unwashed guys - you are one of us now and with less skills to survive
- I don't think your economic and managerial skills will impress anyone
You did it all to yourselves ...Get in the queue for the welfare you denied others - and reflect:
"So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."
People are confusing the stock market with the economy. The economy is ho humming along. The market
is artificially inflated in value by above stated factors. Not by a whole bunch but enough to
make a sell off of minor sort a probable.
Earnings will once again be real and not a thing of less stock per earning share.,
Report
I wish I could upvote this twice. It's not like e.g the dot.com crash, where a bunch of hopeless
money-losing pipe dreams fell apart. Facebook, Apple et al actually make a profit and have a niche,
it's just that with so many other investments offering desultory returns, the stock market has
been pumped up by desperate speculators.
I am not sure why people think the Saudis are in trouble.
Most of the shale is becoming uneconomical to recover if you believe the forward curve. $50
oil for 5+ years, they will need closer to $100 to go back to the capped wells. The frackers are
just taking the first 30% of the cheapest oil to produce (1st 18 months), capping and moving on.
They are churning through oil reserves at 3 times the rate to do it.
They can still do it until they get to debt repayment. Anyone thinking the industry got ultra
efficient over night is optimistic feller.
The reality is shale gas is not the primary concern. They want rid of artic, deep water and
tar sands. My guess is the Saudis would be more than happy to let the US be the swing producer
as shale is far more flexible. Shale was the trigger not the problem.
I'd be quite happy to see the whole stock market free fall. The current inequity and greed deserves
it's reward. Money for nothing investors and free loader corporations that don't pay their share
of taxation will be the ones who go down. A new system is required to break away from the old
established power and energy companies that have led us to the brink of devastating our planet.
The capitalists are the victims of themselves. Fortunately for them, they own the wealthiest states
on the planet. And therefore, can always expect welfare, social assistance and
bail-outs whenever they burst another bubble. Socialism for the rich.
We are a stupid species to put up with this casino scam. If you disagree with the ponzy scheme,
start by supporting Sanders in the U.S. and Corbyn in the U.K. At least it's a modest beginning
to opposing these criminals.
China stock piling oil is a good idea, may help explain recent capital outflows , of which
the article does not explain the opaque /nebulous financial details of these movements. It maybe
China shuffling pieces on a board.
"The country's global trade surplus widened by 21% to $60bn in December. Over the whole
year it was $594bn. The country's trade surplus in December with the European Union, its biggest
trading partner, increased 36.8% to $15.6bn. The surplus with the US contracted 6% to $19.4bn."
No doubt the figures need to treated like all PRC figures.
That said it is undeniable that China had another huge trade surplus.
Yet despite this they manage to cheat on their exchange rate and devalue the Yuan.
The Currency/Trade Wars are in full swing..
By then then most of the oil residues, waste and plastic products will reside in the Worlds Seas
and Oceans. I've not seen much movement to remove the plastic gyres floating around the Southern
Pacific Ocean. Land waste management has serious flaws as well. The only 'waste management ' in
the UK that is booming is all the junk that motorists chuck out of their cars when mobile - they
must think that plastic bags hanging from tree branches 'adds' to natures wonders. In a resturant
car park the other day were 2 used babies nappies left in a parking bay - some people are scum
and these couldn't have been poor.
Incredible how low the West in cahoots with Saudi Arabia will stoop, and all in an attempt to
crush Russia economically and politically. And the media continues the deceptive narrative about
troubles everywhere, brought on by 'competition' among oil producers, except pointing to the true
and only reason behind the low oil price. The public in general swallows the 'explanations' forgetting
that the ball started rolling downhill immediately after the USA twisted Germany's and other western
European countries to impose sanctions on Russia in retaliation for it's welcoming Crimea back
to the Motherland. In the name of this geopolitical game, the good people of USA, Canada and other
countries whose significant part of income derives from natural resources and related products,
are loosing their jobs by the thousands. All is well and according to the plan, as long as Russia
suffers more than the West, and will be the first to bite the dust. The world economy will then
be turned around to everyone's relief.
Seems the FED's recent interest rate rise was premature. If another 2008 does happen calls to
abolish it will grow ever louder, especially since economic chaos will smooth Trump's path to
the White House, and Trump has made FED abolition one of his campaign pledges. After repeated
failures catastrophes under Greenspan, Bernanke and now Yellen it seems the FED is surplus to
requirements.,
Report
What will they do after abolishing the Fed? Will they have a single national currency or allow
each bank (or any other entity) to issue its own currency and let these different currencies compete
with each other?
If they continue to have a single national currency, who will issue it and set the monetary
policy? Another Central Bank or the government? If it is going to be another Central Bank what
exactly is the point of abolishing the Fed? Why not change the law to allow the government to
remove the Fed's board of governors and appoint those they think are more competent than Janet
Yellen and other governors, since abolishing the Fed will anyway require the repeal of the law
establishing it i.e. it too needs Congressional approval. If the government is going to be issuing
the currency and set the monetary policy, in what way would it be superior to the Fed doing the
same?
If they allow any entity to issue its own currency, what currency will the taxes be denominated
in?
Well the predictions were for four rate hikes in the year. Now perhaps we see two. The one already
and another. Things get better and it is up to four. The dow only dropped three hundred or so
and the S and P is above its support level, which is about 1857 to my dim recollection.
So till we exceed that support to the downside, really things are not bad. A wash out was probably
a necessary thing.
I think people are overdoing this thing. The media seems to be hyping the decline which may
account for all the sell side prognostications.
Earning are just beginning. If I see indications that earming are the mover behind the sell off
I would have concern. Alcoa all things considered was not that bad. Certainly not as bad as the
tape today. OIl by my guess is the real mover as the new lows have people spooked.
I am not to worried it can flip up or down but it really is only a small part of the market nowadays
not what it was in yesteryear.
So I repeat this is overdone, that is my opinion. Those calling gloom and doom on this action,
no offense but this little resembles any major sell off of a lasting duration spiral down. What
is the mover….low oil prices? The rest of the market benefits from low oil prices.
Sentiment can drive things lower but really only for so long. Chinas last numbers reported
were better than expected. Me being cynical and seeing the talking heads talking things down anticipate
it is the big money movers trying to create some action on the short side. How long they keep
this up is a guess. But it requires someone to keep pressure on to move it down. Without new bad
news on China, what is the precipitive factor….nothing new here.
Unfair market system, Complete waste of time, energy and resources. Destroy all the stock markets
along with corporations and Banks. It is time we stop playing this ridiculous economic game and
start concentrating on the real issues that we are facing. Poverty, Conflicts in the middle east,
environmental degradation, climate change, and many more. What is the root cause of all of these
problems? Yes it the socioeconomic system capitalism with its flawed monetary system owned by
the corporations and the Banks that does not care about the well being of planet or nature and
the well being of all human beings but only care about their own wealth, power, fame, egos. Such
idiots!!!!! stop playing their game and move to a new fair game called RBE and other similar systems.
It is very stupid of us to base our economy on something as unstable and selfish as the Stock
Market, as well as something as unstable as governments, democratic and otherwise. It is about
time we became as intelligent and clever as all these whizz kids who invent amazing technology
and make amazing discoveries. It is about time we became whizz kids at organising an intelligent
and reliable economy. For us.
Why do banks charge an interest on loans? If the function of money is to get the economy started
and running, then the work done and the profits made should be a sufficient reward. Banks could
actually give money away on a non-return basis, so long as the money goes to people who will spend
it, this spending lending to more spending.
Perhaps the private owners of the current private currencies want more than a sound economy,
perhaps they want power, and want to exercise this power just to know for real that they have
it? Perhaps they are not fully-fledged human being animals but suffer some form of genetic or
social affliction that makes them behave in dangerous anti-social ways? Perhaps they don´t give
a fig about other human being animals - other than those who serve their biological wants and
needs? Perhaps shareholders are afflicted in the same way?
Perhaps we could form our bank to issue our non-returnable money, and even decide what work
is worthwhile and is done and what work is not worthwhile and so will not be done?
Millions of years ago, so we are told, some fish came out of the sea and survived. What I am
suggesting is a work and economy evolution of a similar scale. Current economic theory has us
all drowning in the quagmire of self-interest-driven chaos, self-styled as a "social science".
Perhaps we could come out into fresh air and create a diversity of human activity on a par with
the diversity of living things on land and in the air that came from those first brave fish that
ventured beyond known limits?
Columbus did not go over the edge of the world but discovered a whole New World.
Perhaps we need to go beyond even the "thinking outside the box" box?
Who funds international terrorism try the oil rich countries in the Middle East so let's assume
the Yanks have got smart for once and are flooding oil market to bring down these economys .
The end game is destabilise them then pick up their oil industries for a song and influence just
who makes Middle Eastern policys by economic means .
Bit of a dream but hey nothing falls down in price to this extent without a hidden reason given
its a fossil fuel that should be rising to maintain supplies for the long term .
The economy is like a super tanker and these results are still the effect of the ripples of the
economic crash almost a decade ago. The result of lower oil prices will be that ordinary people
will start to realise they have more disposable income than they did a year ago and start spending
that money on more shit they don't need and the economy will swing back with a vengeance.
Well surely all those neoliberal economists can't be wrong....it must be the fault of that evil
Mr corbyn and his army of trotskyists.....HA HA we are on the slippery slide to another global
crash folks ...
Sigh....the stock market....virtual money and speculation...Worst thing ever created causing insane
chain effects in economies. Although....why were economies booming before when Oil price was low?
Cause sure oil companies profits go down, but every other business that uses the oil increases
their profit. Isn't this also a good reason to start doing something about being so oil dependant?
Once in a lifetime chance for the USA to escape from the strangle whole of the Saudi oil grip.
Fracking gives them a chance to break with the Saudi s or even break them for good.
Failure doesn't t bear thinking about, and we all know where Obama s sympathies lie - but in modern
America who cares.. the battle is between the giant bureaucracies, not the democratic froth on
top of the cake.
Always remember America in you hour of destiny there were Americans long before there was the
USA . And will be long after it is gone. And for the love of God .. COLUMBUS did not discover
America. Which ironically is named after a Welch sheep farmer.?
Americo FrontHoovesintheWellies was his full name. Knew a thing or two about sex and sheep.,
Report
Most US oil comes from Canada and Mexico, a very small percentage from Saudi Arabia. But they
have enormous financial influence through bonds, obviously, and buying media and politicians.
Also Israel and Saudi Arabia have been working together under the table for some time, as was
obvious during the Gulf War, and now in their efforts to begin a war against Iran. Fracking has
never been any threat to the Saudis--the cost is too high. Their present lowering of oil prices
is directed against Russia, surely in cahoots with the US.
Oil and US share prices tumble over fears for global economy.
The economists have been telling us that there is little danger for the US economy to be pushed
into recession by a slow-down in the Chinese economy - referred to here as "global economy". More
importantly, in election years the US Markets have never been good indicators of the US economy,
anyway.
The real reasons for the US market plunge are the trades conducted on behalf of the Wall Street
tycoons and the Saudi Royal Family. Both are doing their best to push the markets down, because
they are deeply worried of having another Democrat in the White House, come January 2017.
The Wall Street tycoons are apprehensive about getting dragged into courts for their financial
mischiefs during the last decade. The Saudis are concerned that the US leaning further toward
Iran, which will encourage their internal oppositions to demand reforms, which could include getting
rid of the Royal Family. So, both the Saudis and the Wall Street tycoons have a common cause.
They will "keep at it", until they can be sure that the next US president will be a Republican.
"National debts, i.e., the alienation of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican
– marked with its stamp the capitalistic era. The only part of the so-called national wealth that
actually enters into the collective possessions of modern peoples is their national debt. Hence,
as a necessary consequence, the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply
it is in debt. Public credit becomes the credo of capital. And with the rise of national debt-making,
want of faith in the national debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which
may not be forgiven.
The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation. As with
the stroke of an enchanter's wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and thus
turns it into capital, without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and risks
inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury. The state creditors actually give
nothing away, for the sum lent is transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on
functioning in their hands just as so much hard cash would. But further, apart from the class
of lazy annuitants thus created, and from the improvised wealth of the financiers, middlemen between
the government and the nation – as also apart from the tax-farmers, merchants, private manufacturers,
to whom a good part of every national loan renders the service of a capital fallen from heaven
– the national debt has given rise to joint-stock companies, to dealings in negotiable effects
of all kinds, and to agiotage, in a word to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy."
"... America threatened Russia some time ago about meddling in the affairs of
Syria ..."
"... The US is really going for broke on crashing the oil price ..."
"... All of this to try to contain Russias military rearmament made possible
by sky high oil prices ..."
"... Has the west finally gotten wise to the Saudi money that flows into extremist
groups? Would seem so. West seems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudis.
eems to be doing everything it can to contain the Saudis. ..."
"... Yes because of millions of refuges that Arab countries caused by supporting
ISIS it is completely natural for west to go after Saudi Arabia and its allies sponsor
of ISIS. So they got what they deserved. Today I also read that the markets in Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and Emirates collapsed and I think this a beginning of an end for
them. ..."
"... The Iranians deciding that their revolution has matured sufficiently for
them to plainly state we dont wish death on anybody, our religion is about peace,
and to demonstrate our sincerity well urge our people to stop such rhetoric would
contribute to Irans rehabilitation as a more or less normal member of the global
community of nations. ..."
"... This has to be the beginning of the end for the Saudis and Qataris and
their utter crapulence, all at the expense of the rest of the World. OPEC has no
answer for this and is completely impotent to do anything about it. The cartel is
busted. ..."
"... And so it seems with oil. There has to be a base production cost which
doesnt vary and I doubt that the Saudis or Iranians are selling it at under that
cost - they both need a modest profit - so, one wonders, if they can make that modest
profit at $30 a barrel, think how much they were making at $100 ..."
"... The U.S and Iranians are using each other against their own allies. U.S
is using Iran to put pressure on Saudi so that they keep producing more oil to bankrupt
Russia, despite it destroying Saudi economy. Iran is using USA as a counterbalance
to Russia because as much as they want Russias help, they dont want Russia to become
too strong in the region. ..."
"... In my view Iran was never quite the bad guy that the western governments
portrayed it to be. We certainly have differences. But if you compare Iran and Saudi
Arabia there is no contest - Iran is far less a bogeyman. ..."
The funny thing is that the sanctions have probably helped Iran as it had
to survive with less. Iran now gets access to it's foreign banking about
50billion net and can start exporting again.
Saudi is burning through its reserve cash and it's populace are used
to getting things for free, will they survive low oil revenues like Iran
or is the House of Said on the brink of annihilation? Talk about shooting
yourself in the foot!
It's amazing how detrimental oil has been to the middle east. If only
they could have gone down a similar path to Norway....
Seeing Iran to go into economical slow down was a depressing sight. OPEC
definitely took a huge share of IRAN'S oil fortune and that time can not
come back. PART of it was Iran's fault agreed, but since Iran's sanctions
are lifted you cant blame it.
It's just taking a share of what it has lost in years. This will indeed
afftect gulf region and other oil exporting countries but HEY BACK TO REALITY!!!
Indeed its bad time since oil is already record low thanks to Fracking.
This time is like dubstep for environmentalists who are dancing on oil price
beats. No one is actually explaining the actual picture behind the scene
as hundred of thousands of jobs are being slashed. Its like a death sentence
for oil workers like me. 1 year since graduation as a petroleum engineer
still no job worried to pay debts and there are countles like me. In short
low oil prices won't make things better but worse.
"The French-listed aircraft maker Airbus also looks set for a significant
boost from the sanctions ending"
It is the first time, a British newspaper says "French aircraft maker Airbus".
Yes Airbus is principaly a French company and not a European one contrary
to what British newspaper often say.
Indeed...the magic answer is interesting to say the least. America threatened
Russia some time ago about meddling in the affairs of Syria and other
cooperative business tactics. This manipulation is more about the benefits
beneath mainstream media...plus, it is an election year...of course, oil
is welcome and plentiful...somehow...it always is election time...though
the added incentive does make Russia cringe a bit...these United States
knew the only way to allow Russia to feel pinched was this way...so her
and her cohorts have combined efforts to achieve their goals. Hmmm...
Hammond is such a prostitute with his comments. They have been sucking up
to Saudi/Qatar and UAE for decades, but now they are all on the slippery
slope, he says 'dump them all and start courting Iran'. The man has no shame
whatsoever.
The US is really going for broke on crashing the oil price:-
1 Deal with Iran (to increase supply)
2 Saudis pumping as much as they can (favour to US who turn a blind eye
or help their regional aspirations by financing ISIS and AQ)(note the price
was going nowhere until Ukraine/Crimea appeared then suddenly it started
going down whilst Saudi currency actually appreciated)
3 Letting the US export oil (more supply)
4 Letting Turkey take oil from ISIS (more supply)
All of this to try to contain Russia's military rearmament made possible
by sky high oil prices.
May the terrorist funding by Saudi and Qatar comes to halt by cheap oil
prices. They had made the decision to make it cheap but it is not Iran's
decision to make it expensive again. Which believe me Iran doesn't like
to do so especially that through the sanction years Saudis, Qatar, Emirates
played a nasty role in OPEC by getting rid of production sluts(it was to
do by limiting each member to a certain production level but as Iran was
sanctioned they thought it is the best way to hurt Iran's share of OPEC
by getting rid of it) now this is the only reason they cannot increase the
oil price as well as they cannot control Iran's production . Iran will produce
even more and has a fresh supply of Cash and its economy is more robust
to be only based on Oil so what I want to tell the Saudis, Qatari, Emirates
and their allies is to fuck off . Because through these years you were sponsors
of ISIS, Cause hundreds of thousands of death tolls and millions of refuges
in the world that you have not taken a single refugee and the whole EU and
North Americas must pay for it now. YOU GOT WHAT YOU DESERVED ARABS. Hope
Iran become friend with Israel too and teach Arabs another lesson.
Recent events with Saudi princes assaulting maids in the US (then claiming
'diplomatic immunity' and skipping the country before charges could be laid
against them) could also be a factor, as it has woken people up as to what
the Saudis are really like.
The highway between Bahrain and Saudi/UAE is like the M25 at weekends,
with Wahhabi hypocrites rushing to Bahrain to get pissed and laid. It's
been like that for decades. They claim to be pious and expect their subjects,
contractors and ex-pats working out there to do as they say, not as they
do.
Saudi Arabia is therefore finished as a regional power. Economy crippled
by low oil prices. Iran meanwhile has had to endure an embargo for a decade,
resulting in a tougher economy that is far more diverse.
Has the west finally gotten wise to the Saudi money that flows into
extremist groups? Would seem so. West seems to be doing everything it can
to contain the Saudi's. eems to be doing everything it can to contain the
Saudi's.
Yes because of millions of refuges that Arab countries caused by supporting
ISIS it is completely natural for west to go after Saudi Arabia and its
allies sponsor of ISIS. So they got what they deserved. Today I also read
that the markets in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Emirates collapsed and I think
this a beginning of an end for them.
It really brings David Cameron and the Tories' sucking up to the Saudis
into clear perspective, doesn't it, as their credit rating for buying arms
will be taking a nosedive. Watch BAE Systems shares start to wobble this
coming week.
It also leaves the Royal family in somewhat of a quandry, as who is Price
Charles going to sword dance with now?
Iran adding to the current supply glut in oil was an inevitable consequence
of the deal. Still, the timing is particularly bad, with the crash in commodities
feeding a gloomy mood in stock markets around the world.
A deflationary spiral for the global economy is now a little more likely,
with excess capacity in a range of manufactured goods, from steel to I-Phones,
in addition to the glut in oil and other commodities.
But, that glut is not Iran's fault. The prisoner exchange was good to
see.
Next I'd like to see a symbolic move by Iran: move on from the "Death
to America" (and Britain, and Israel) rhetoric. Islam needs some public
relations help. The Iranians deciding that their revolution has "matured"
sufficiently for them to plainly state "we don't wish death on anybody,
our religion is about peace, and to demonstrate our sincerity we'll urge
our people to stop such rhetoric" would contribute to Iran's rehabilitation
as a more or less "normal" member of the global community of nations.
This has to be the beginning of the end for the Saudis and Qataris and
their utter crapulence, all at the expense of the rest of the World. OPEC
has no answer for this and is completely impotent to do anything about it.
The cartel is busted.
I guess that nobody likes the Wahhabi hypocrites any more.
I suppose it all depends on how much Iranian oil is pumped into the system
as a proportion of the total, but then what is the 'right' price for oil
anyway?
It reminds me of a supermarket conundrum - 'What's the price of a packet
of Pringles?'. This comes from the notion that in one supermarket they're
£1 each or two for £1.50, in another they're £1.25 but one a 'buy one get
one free' deal, in another they're £1 each but buy two and get one free...
and so on. But not only this - all of these deals change weekly.
So you begin to wonder, given that a packet of Pringles costs the same
to make whatever price they're sold at - and the manufacturer wants to make
a modest profit - why can you never determine the true price?
And so it seems with oil. There has to be a base production cost
which doesn't vary and I doubt that the Saudis or Iranians are selling it
at under that cost - they both need a modest profit - so, one wonders, if
they can make that modest profit at $30 a barrel, think how much they were
making at $100
Apparently, according to reuters, Saudi Arabia paid Somalia a $50 million
bribe to break diplomatic relations with Iran. Iranians, themselves, would
have paid the Somalian government more to beak off diplomatic relations.
But hey, why complain? It's free! Cheers 'Salman the Barbarian'!
Saudi Arabia, Israel, Bahrain, Sudan, Somalia, United States, The Comoros
and Djibouti all do not have diplomatic relations with Iran. UAE recalled
its embassador in sympathy with Sheikh Salman the Barbarian. Iran needed
UAE before as it was used as a port for importing into Iran(a sanction busting
avenue) but since sanctions are lifted, middlemen are no longer required
which means UAE will lose an annual income of $11 billion and Iran will
gain. Very sad!
I hope that The Comoros and Djibouti will soon reestablish relations
because it is hurting Iran's economy.
'The UK has played a central role, and I hope British businesses seize the
opportunities available to them through the phased lifting of sanctions
on Iran. ' said Philip Hammond.
His department was instrumental in sanctions against Iran while other
countries, particularly Germany and France, were lukewarm. Which countries
will now benefit? Answers on a postcode, marked 'Clue', to Philip Hammond.
Iran is closer to a development [nations] like Turkey than to Saudi Arabia.
Saudis have always been unable to do anything else than watch oil go out
of pipelines into tankers, they have no agriculture, no industry.
Iranians
want to industrialize like Turkey, but that doesn't mean democracy and personal
freedom. Development gives more means of control and repression to autocrats
too, like we have seen in Russia, Turkey, continental China. Not all countries
are able to move to democracy like Taiwan and South Korea
It is hard to understand why the Guardian labels low oil as an actual woe
for the World. It mainly hurts countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, while
in the West we all benefit from cheap fuel.
Doubt it. The news was already in the market and has been for some time.
No surprize.
Even if does go further south, it would be temporary and besides the
wahhabi regimes of Arabia are the ones who will suffer the most. Either
way, good news for Iran.
The U.S and Iranians are using each other against their own allies.
U.S is using Iran to put pressure on Saudi so that they keep producing more
oil to bankrupt Russia, despite it destroying Saudi 'economy'. Iran is using
USA as a counterbalance to Russia because as much as they want Russia's
help, they don't want Russia to become too strong in the region.
The (seemingly) more likely scenario is to make the excuse for war against
Iran this year.... "We really tried with these guys but now we have to 'regime-change'
them". That will result in a MASSIVE war.
A less likely scenario is that USA (at a shot to nothing) thinking they
might actually replace saudi oil-fields propping up the $ with IRanian ones.
And Iran (at a shot to nothing) thinking they might take the U.S out of
Israel's pocket. As unlikely as either of these scenarios are, all bets
are off this year. Both those latter plays could push Israel and Russia
closer together, resulting in a MASSIVE war which the U.S would lose.
Either way, a MASSIVE war is coming and this development is more significant
than people think.
In my view Iran was never quite the bad guy that the western governments
portrayed it to be. We certainly have differences. But if you compare Iran
and Saudi Arabia there is no contest - Iran is far less a bogeyman.
It is always worth remembering that nearly all the September 11 hijackers
were Saudis, none were Iranian. ISIS was funded and armed by Saudi Arabia,
not by Iran. You can draw a direct line from Saudi Arabia through the carnage
in Iraq and Syria directly to the terrorist attacks in Paris.
Whenever the west talks about 'Iran being a state sponsor of terrorism'
they mean one thing and one thing only: Hezbollah.
Disclosure: I have a low opinion of Saudi Arabia so my comments are biased.
"... Its great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now.
Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100
a barrel. ..."
"... Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that
was for frozen by US banks . ..."
"... Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which
has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.
..."
"... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... lets
hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their
doorstep, theyll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American
buddies... ..."
"... Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from
emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I
am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans
to uphold their part of bargain. ..."
"... If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable
than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes. ..."
"... They cant delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of
US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). ..."
"... In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by
conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an
Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam
Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody
Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally,
thats when the US downed an Iranian airliner). ..."
"... Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones?
Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our friends in Saudi-Arabia, just
second to oil. ..."
"... Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods. ..."
"... Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has
some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama
say we tortured some folks doesnt help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to
addressing the situation. ..."
"... Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history
of invading other countries. Iran, not. ..."
"... Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad
thing. ..."
"... Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
..."
"... Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldnt
let religious fundamentalists use Irans past history to create hate and pessimistic
attitude towards west ..."
"... And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still
be alive today if it werent for civilized Western nations bombing thier country,
disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos? ..."
"... But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you
visit there ... oops you live in the UK? ..."
"... There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.
..."
"... Vinculture: A disaster in the making thanks to 0bamas incompetence and
naivety. A disaster for Israels aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster
for the House of Saud. ..."
"... If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of
subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection
of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader
gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable
results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhanis faction greater clout
for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper,
or somone crazy gets elected as US President. ..."
"... The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from Assad must go! to OK, he
can hang around for a while , simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah
assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate.
We rarely hear the words regime change in Syria from our politicians any more. So
it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast
the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines,
weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of
some 80 million people, they wouldnt be a pushover in the military sense. And at
what cost? It doesnt bear thinking about. ..."
"... I dont believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil
online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance,
cant just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream
media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices. ..."
"... Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad
bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia
which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It
seems not. ..."
"... If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? Hed have strongly Decidered
his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong. ..."
"... If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who cant be trusted with a bomb. In reality,
though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown
themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least.
Which isnt to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy
is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any
other country. ..."
"... Another reason given is Irans supposed support for terror organisaitons.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a terror organisaiton is largely a
matter of ones political views, its hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear
issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond
knock-off - that Iran could give its (non-existent) nukes to a terrorist, as though
a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47. ..."
"... I dont back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power,
if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us.
It would be safer for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then
East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously. ..."
"... Iran isnt Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer
to Francos Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years
without having a war with them ..."
"... After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum
out of the country suffered a coup détat instigated with US aid in 1953. ..."
"... After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians. ..."
"... If I were Iranian Id be double wary now of USs intentions. It seems that
the working method of the West nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw
yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a
nice warm up period before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran. ..."
"... It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran
out or start to build bridges. ..."
"... Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The
annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently
since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda
arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon
programme. ..."
"... there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US. - as ever you never
know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given
it dysfunctional political system. ..."
"... The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel
have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push its agenda of Wahhabism that secures
its brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi,
as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region.
Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and
supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs. ..."
"... Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing Airbus are in intense competition as Iran
plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.
..."
"... given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits
(for very good reason) I very much doubt theyll want to spend this much-needed cash
on overpriced pads in Blighty. ..."
"... George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly
similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results. ..."
"... It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the
talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the
soviet era, they dont need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged
in by interviews. ..."
"... He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights
abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, hidden nuclear weapons,
all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny.
While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans
too. ..."
"... Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at
will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with
impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant
to see it? ..."
"... Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For
me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated
and still have a historical connection with our country. ..."
"... The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end
..."
"... When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict
sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. ..."
"... All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran
with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and
funding to develop Thorium reactors. ..."
"... British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke. ..."
"... Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back
to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must. ..."
"... Amazed this has gone through. The worlds biggest and most dangerous children,
Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the
worlds problems, far moreso than their parent the USA. ..."
"... where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest? ..."
"... Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is.
No point demonizing people nations, it does more harm than good. ..."
"... Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a
time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Anything that stops the Saudis playing the big I am is fine by me. Theyve
already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy
is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesnt suit Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while
what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies
realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion
over the many years while the EU does commence trading. ..."
"... I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldnt trust these
liars as far as .. and Id advise using some of whats rightly coming your way to
insulate against future western blackmail. ..."
"... The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure
and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative,
and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors
accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed
to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained
a base. ..."
It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever
now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket,
oil at $100 a barrel.
Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit
from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that
they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical
maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good
day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and
his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back
in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.
Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money
that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not
lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?
Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran
which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a
failed state.
A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric,
and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years.
However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing
the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of
amounts to the same thing.
"There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been
the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill,
the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."
For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that
have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made
the process slightly slower - that's all
Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the
US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up
to then to help
him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping
with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).
The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began
in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started
by then.
No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...
With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen.
As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery
being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance
to Lübeck..).
Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma
then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is
about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope
they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on
their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns
from the new American buddies...
Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to
Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state
of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical
about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.
Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in
sabotaging the agreement.
If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more
reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.
i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys
shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to
war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.
They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds
of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors).
The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries
for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably
later today.
Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.
In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled
by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if
I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US
supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an
eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians
dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian
airliner).
And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's
not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak
of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't
be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy,
but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of
Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.
"It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy,
not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important
day," [Zarif] said.
Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?
Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian
ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in
Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.
No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't
want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.
BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end
of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago.
However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held
in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that
has been holding up the announcement.
Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open
markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall.
Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods.
There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until
they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society
and lives for the past 40 years.
So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better
for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive
to say at all?
They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and
other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This
is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the
US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).
The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between
nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they
improve human rights and expect it to work.
Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA,
has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President
Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is
not conducive to addressing the situation.
Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable
Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran
that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play
a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's
the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.
Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who
the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens,
they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other
toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.
"But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq
for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may
have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...??
The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And
it worked.
Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come
when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth
visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly
lists and such.....
Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to
provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festival
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or
Afghanistan either.
Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll
agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with
the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there
than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could
be seen as defensive actions by Iran.
And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor.
That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really
terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and
create untenable nation states.
whose problems you blame entirely on the west -
No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over
British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was
doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.
ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had,
you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani
refugees.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle
East then?
You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange
Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?
The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong
evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry
were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans:
Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.
Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and
wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA
has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election.
It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you
blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather
than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East
then?
A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under
the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall
for so long
Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but
they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to
create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.
As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end
of the dark night, there is light."
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that
that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own
devices.
Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you
weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their
deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping
up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn
in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western
'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.
I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed
by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous
sectarian nonsense.
And would you also observe that most of these people would likely
still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing
thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their
country into chaos?
Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run,
regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering
certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial
to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated
people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the
fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the
theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or
two but it will happen while the stability should remain.
But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ...
would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?
Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear
exactly how to apportion credit.
Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb,
and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do
with it. Really daft argument.
I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts
Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.
other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy
to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.
Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all
(though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's
due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In
any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.
There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is
all hypocrisy.
Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence
and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe.
And a disaster for the House of Saud.
If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number
of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will
be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian
clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations
and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations
will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such
time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected
as US President.
This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for
a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may
say about it.
The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!"
to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian,
Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness
for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria"
from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement
in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had
to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation
of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people,
they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It
doesn't bear thinking about.
On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi
regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've
now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.
I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much
oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of
barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time
will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time
to further suppress oil prices.
Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is
a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat
than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the
likes yet do we care. It seems not.
If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly
Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass
the bong.
I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is
a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are
attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.
Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that
know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used
for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail
their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly
USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical
details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook
and blogsville!
Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers,
so pathetic are their arguments.
If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to
feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't?
And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first
place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at
any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said
that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if
it ever did).
But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously
way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon.
Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.
Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state
for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship
to them during his presidency.
Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we
in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them
diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand
off.
Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to
some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian
Golf!
That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.
Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter
Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as
a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And
the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty
though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels
'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them
well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it,
but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys'
11,500km away from their own territory.
But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran
is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively,
the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than
the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in
these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's
nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a
later stage.
For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest
triumph of diplomacy in recent years.
A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and
their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding
them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked
under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction,
and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile
mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.
There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones
having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich
would be ruling the world today.
The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were
people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal
with Iran.
If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically.
I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption,
the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.
"Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate
targets.
Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real
men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech,
then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress'
of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?
Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war
which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians?
Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers
on board?
Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost
the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians
are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel
proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't
see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...
Win-Win
I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against
Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of
whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether
or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.
If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb.
In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one,
they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past
2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means,
just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their
perception thereof) - just like any other country.
Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is
largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has
to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight
from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent)
nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.
So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy
as the motivator.
If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically,
once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer
zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed
into a war.
I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off
power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for
the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by
Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.
All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.
Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its
closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with
them for 39 years without having a war with them
Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this
stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and
has
1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British
Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid
in 1953.
3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran
which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians.
5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.
If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems
that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of
relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And
I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened.
Take care, Iran.
4th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted
sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that
the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead,
to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now
rejoice Iranian people. :-)
The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported
this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli
geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media
I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't
the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have
seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely
but compartmentalized they seemingly do.
I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding
information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow.
Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out
logically.
However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess
one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme
on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear
scale.
I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing
arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work
against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used
to attack it.
Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing
was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working,
Iran diversified its economy.
It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take
Iran out or start to build bridges.
I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This
is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should
be safe for 50 or so more years.
Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research.
The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this
fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics
enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the
charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.
Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall
came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were
the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason
to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking
US foreign policy in the post cold war period.
The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to
rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly
Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played
for patsy.
President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address
when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military
was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed
me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to
hear coming out of his mouth.
So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven
years?
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W.
Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current
US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes.
Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia
and Afghanistan.
The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill
militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims
of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians
are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues
when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing
the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear
machine.
Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates
them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An
ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going
And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated
people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily
be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or
gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not
sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the
Gulf.
" there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever
you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does
not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could
even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot
be fit for purpose.
Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.
USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will
not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is
"Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"
Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but
at a very low price.
This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows
the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf)
or those who indeed are the aggressors....
It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It
is a chess board.
Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves
around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic
infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered
through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years
since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the
state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal
I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave
Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in
all these failed states.
There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's
next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this
century.
May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment?
You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who
demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the
first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will
have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a
wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because
you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and
destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or
later, you will remember my words...
The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing
Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism
that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter
fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor
of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has
been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship
with money, troops and bombs.
Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism
for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if
you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....
It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism
if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.
It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly
even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier
for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition
as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions
of dollars.
I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration.
There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I
can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational
headline.
I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would
be dropped and everyone could get back to business.
They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the
Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the
end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they
finally saw sense.
Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China
and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in
general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline
to Chah Bahar.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its
way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.
Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people,
with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades
- of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and
I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And
given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the
Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this
much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing
its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted.
The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the
recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think
you were being relevant.
It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report
the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus
in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built
in or plugged in by interviews.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London
property making prices even more ridiculous.
Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market
in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even
then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward
six years. (price doubles every six years).
Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position
the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided
what the policy was they had little choice.
Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International
Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel
and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't
be sanctioned can it...
He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human
rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden'
nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected
to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be
at peace. Palestinians are humans too.
Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration,
and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition,
genocide.
The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign
intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi
of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars,
now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous
claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize
a birthday party.
It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back
from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President
Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started
bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax
payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those
things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.
He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe,
to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.
"Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric
sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a
complete idiot."......President Roosevelt
Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's
site.
I also loved this quote:
"A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS
and they wound up off course."
So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead
'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the
Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory
will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all
those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery
would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians
were fibbing, as always?
Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil
prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense
of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able
to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.
No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon
sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN
etc
This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now
start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's
though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then
their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.
Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions
in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear,
as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions
measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack
of clarity with regards to the US."
Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed
off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating
an unnecessary situation further.
Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions
at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so
choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid,
too compliant to see it?
If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this
agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course,
if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical
experts. Are you?
Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view.
For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians
are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.
I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as
a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of
our sustainable employment in the UK.
If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations
offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"?
Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.
When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely
strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets
a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports,
his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the
sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept
that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his
boss chose the sensible option.
All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help
Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise
and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh
on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much
safer Thorium reactor
solution .
Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at
the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything
can happen.
It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers,
in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.
Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started,
ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it
should be different now.
Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit
Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply
succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you
can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement
for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that
will be dropped very quickly.
Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well
come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.
Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous
children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind
so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.
Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either,
but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that,
there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear
weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing
that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd
be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to
us.
Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which
is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.
They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has
proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the
teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most
things around the world is stunning.
The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual
Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice
their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible
weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based
on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force
(such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.
The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices
torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra
judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared
to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.
America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge
disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable
military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends
on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector
due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could
go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within
through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style
involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.
Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans
or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group,
but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time
and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the
United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized
sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and
not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to
reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.
German Chancellor Bismarck, the first statesman to introduce reforms
as a way to put down socialist agitation and mass disgruntlement, wrote
in 1889: "we must vigorously intervene for the betterment of the low
of the workmen. "
German Emperor William II cautioned in 1890: "For the maintenance
of peace between employers and workers…Such an institution will facilitate
the free and peaceful expression of their wishes and their grievances,
and furnish officials a regular means for keeping informed of the labor
situation and of continuing in contact with the workers"
In 1906, a French cabinet member cautioned: "we believe that it
is time to study seriously the means of preventing the return of conflicts
between capital and labor"
If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour
movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe,
or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent
standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment
insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade
unions.
It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe
diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like.
I do all the time. ;)
Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures
only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the
United States! This is wrong.
So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent
of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them
they are full of it.
When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia
for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the
Saudis?..
Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your
peril.
Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward
a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they ..
it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.
Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more
to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran
would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations
to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation
that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If
I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up
the potential to make a bomb?..
Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see
off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially
as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be
lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place
Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for
the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see
sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter
jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm
not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the
simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world
were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how
much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted,
other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies
would still have to comply with those restrictions.
Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria,
saying:
The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that
it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with
groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian
branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities
we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too
enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict
has seen too much of already.
That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate'
from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.
What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe
you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your
miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already
soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking
for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how
American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here
at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You
tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.
Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take
to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it
certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever
the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.
I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults
the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite
ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will
remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine
in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's
current hypocrisy stinks.
This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the
two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters.
Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier
group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things
at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.
The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians
come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can
say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it
enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country
really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing
in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to
high heaven. It smells like shit.
A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and
rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving
peace a chance"
PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman,
n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now!
.
Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me.
They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking
and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't
suit Saudi Arabia.
The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes
tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.
"Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published
relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way
for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to
the US."
Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for
a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not
last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business
because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence
trading.
That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very
dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being
asked surely?..
But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception
of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've
all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have
promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to
the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton
who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue
in that regard.
I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust
these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming
your way to insulate against future western blackmail.
I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's
listening .. Ha, yes we do!
Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective
punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small
businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was
two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive
in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not
sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear
arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting
in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital
joke.
Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress,
though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will
see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent
tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly
the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.
I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to
use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions
did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed
and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!
The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical
failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events
has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully
operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates
in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully
close to that island where Iran maintained a base.
Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke
Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear
they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians,
at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.
"... There's too much politics in sanctions - it's almost an Obama doctrine
- sanctions rather than anything else kind of thing, so there was always a political
impetus to show they were successful - which was particularly easy to do if successful
had no definition. ..."
Never been a believer that Iran was all that constricted by it all.
There's too much politics in sanctions - it's almost an Obama doctrine -
sanctions rather than anything else kind of thing, so there was always a
political impetus to show they were successful - which was particularly
easy to do if successful had no definition.
Lotsa talk about Iran
exporting condensate in big quantities all during the sanction period. That
was income and condensate then may have brought in more money than crude
would now.
Article yesterday saying Iran was going to reprice whatever they export
- something other than currency. Ominous precedent.
Obama not only uses sanctions for anybody who does not agree with his administration
policies, his administration and he personally also is complicit with this
bonanza of unlimited financing for shale patch:
=== quote ===
Senator Barack Obama: "I mean we send a billion dollars every day to foreign
nations because of our addiction to foreign oil, and in the bargain we drive
up our gas prices because of high demand, so it's hitting you in the pocket
book. " (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event At The University
Of Alabama, Birmingham, AL, 1/26/08)
This is Guardian article written just before imposition
of sanctions in 2012.
Notable quotes:
"... Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep
out of other peoples affairs. ..."
The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between
January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan
and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of
the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports
with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.
Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with
it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South
Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.
'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months
between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude
oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14%
and 13% respectively'
- I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here..
Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again
firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position
of power!
Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming
as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan
is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!
What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think
about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype
and played right into Bin Laden's hands.
Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick,
resolute' action.
We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for
the Iranian people either.
This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran
did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil
embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely
legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with
Iran are both foolish and pathetic...
Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need
to keep out of other people's affairs.
The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes
vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides
in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat
on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues
to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators
around the world.
Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that
will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan
and North Korea.
I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the
undergrond test.....
That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.
I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves,
the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are
only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It
should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any
regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development
too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and
I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The
Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all
blow up.
"... This is three or four months ahead of what the market was thinking last
year, so it just adds fuel to the fire, ..."
"... "Lower oil prices have been a sentiment leader for the recent market selloff
and will again be in focus with Iranian sanctions expected to be lifted next week,"
..."
"... "How fast Iran can put oil back on the market will now be a key issue for
oil markets, with many skeptical that it will be able to do this nearly as fast
as it has forecast," ..."
"... It is the wrong time for Iran to be returning to the oil market, both for
the market and (probably) also for Iran. It would have been so much more ideal for
Iran to return to the oil scene if prices were soaring at $100, ..."
The Brent and WTI crude benchmarks slid below $30 per barrel on Friday, as investors
worry about Iran's earlier than expected return to the oil market. International
sanctions on Tehran may be lifted Monday, allowing the fifth-biggest member
of OPEC to boost oil exports. "This is three or four months ahead of what
the market was thinking last year, so it just adds fuel to the fire," Mitsubishi
Corp oil risk manager Tony Nunan
told Reuters.
"Lower oil prices have been a sentiment leader for the
recent market selloff and will again be in focus with Iranian sanctions expected
to be lifted next week," Ric Spooner, a chief analyst at CMC Markets, said
in a note on Friday, quoted by
Bloomberg.
"How fast Iran can put oil back on the market will now be a key issue
for oil markets, with many skeptical that it will be able to do this nearly
as fast as it has forecast," he added.
Iranian and US officials have confirmed that the central vessel of Iran's
Arak heavy water reactor has been filled with concrete following the removal
of its core, bringing Iran closer to meeting the requirements for having international
sanctions lifted.
Iranian oil would add to the glut that has made prices collapse since the
middle of 2014.
"It is the wrong time for Iran to be returning to the oil market, both
for the market and (probably) also for Iran. It would have been so much more
ideal for Iran to return to the oil scene if prices were soaring at $100,"
Phillip Futures said in a note, quoted by
Reuters.
"... Iran has resisted calls from rival Saudi Arabia to hold back on production
in the face of faltering global energy demand. The rift between the two Middle East
powers has paralysed Opec - the world's oil cartel - which has abandoned formal
production targets for the first time in its history. ..."
"... Falling oil prices are expected to push down global inflation by 1pc in
2016 according to estimates from J.P. Morgan. ..."
Iran has resisted calls from rival Saudi Arabia to hold back on production
in the face of faltering global energy demand. The rift between the two Middle
East powers has paralysed Opec - the world's oil cartel - which has abandoned
formal production targets for the first time in its history.
European Union and US authorities are expected to formally lift a decade
of sanctions - which include embargoes on Iranian oil in Europe - this weekend.
... ... ...
Falling oil prices are expected to push down global inflation by 1pc
in 2016 according to estimates from J.P. Morgan.
"... Iran is on track to ship 1.10 million barrels a day in January, a 20 per-cent
rise on December, according to Reuters reports. ..."
"... When completion of the deal is announced, the oil markets could see an
immediate knee-jerk reaction to the downside said Societe Generale in a note on
Wednesday. ..."
"... However Jason Gammel, equities analyst at Jefferies told CNBC that a meaningful
further drop is unlikely, even allowing for the added Iranian supply. ..."
"... We are starting to reach the stage where we start to cause interruptions
to the physical supply of oil, so I do think the price needs to come up from where
it is, said Gammel on Thursday. ..."
Iran is on track to ship 1.10 million barrels a day in January, a 20
per-cent rise on December, according to Reuters reports.
"When completion of the deal is announced, the oil markets could see
an immediate knee-jerk reaction to the downside" said Societe Generale in a
note on Wednesday.
The Tehran government said Wednesday that the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) was set to confirm the country has met its obligations to ensure a lifting
of sanctions by Friday.
"The IAEA will issue its final report on Friday to confirm Iran has met its
commitments under the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action)," Deputy Foreign
Minister Abbas Araqchi said Wednesday according to a number of media reports.
... ... ...
Iran has the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world and the International
Energy Agency believes it could add as much as half a million barrels per day
to exports as soon as sanctions are lifted.
In an already oversupplied market this could help push down an already plummeting
oil price.
... ... ...
However Jason Gammel, equities analyst at Jefferies told CNBC that a meaningful
further drop is unlikely, even allowing for the added Iranian supply.
"We are starting to reach the stage where we start to cause interruptions
to the physical supply of oil, so I do think the price needs to come up from
where it is," said Gammel on Thursday.
[Jan 15, 2016] MSM drum the Iran oil flood but maybe Iran has no spare capacity
at the momen
International sanctions on Iran may be lifted Monday, allowing
for a boost in oil shipments from the fifth-biggest member of the Organization
of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Iran is trying to regain lost market
share and doesn't intend to pressure prices with an export increase
once sanctions are removed, officials from its petroleum ministry and
national oil company said this month.
Or maybe Iran has no spare capacity at the moment.
Ditching the dollar, Iran and India have agreed to settle all outstanding
crude oil dues in rupees in preparation to future trade in their national
currencies. The dollar dues - $6.5 billion equaling 55 per cent of oil payment
- would be deposited in National Iranian Oil Co account with Indian banks.
In October 2015, the World Bank lowered its 2016 forecast for crude oil prices
from $57 a barrel to $52 a barrel, due in part to expectations that Iranian oil
exports would rise once international sanctions were lifted.
"Crude oil oversupply is still in play; however the deficit between demand
and supply is getting smaller," said Daniel Ang, an investment analyst at Phillip
Futures, in a note on Wednesday. "Possible changes to global supply should come
from the U.S. and Iran."
Iranian oil exports are widely expected to increase in 2016 as Western sanctions
against the country for its alleged nuclear weapons program are likely to be
lifted.
Still, a senior Iranian oil official said the country could moderate oil
output and exports once the sanctions are lifted to avoid putting prices under
further pressure.
"We don't want to start a sort of a price war," Mohsen Qamsari, director
general for international affairs of the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC),
told Reuters in an interview.
"We will be more subtle in our approach and may gradually increase output,"
Qamsari said. "I have to say that there is no room to push prices down any further,
given the level where they are."
The statements at the weekend by (Iranian oil officials) that Iran would
only increase production at the level of the market can absorb seems to be a
shift in rhetoric."
Iran plans to raise output by half a million to 1 million barrels per day
(bpd) post lifting of sanctions, although Iranian officials said they did not
plan to flood the market with its crude if there was no demand for it.
Iran's oil exports have fallen to around 1 million bpd, down from a peak
pre-sanctions peak of almost 3 million bpd in 2011.
"Can we wait and not produce after lifting the sanctions? Who can accept
it in Iran," oil minister Bijan Zanganeh told CNN in an exclusive interview
on Tuesday. "Do you believe that ... our country will accept not to produce,
to secure the market for others? It's not fair."
Iran has the fourth biggest oil reserves in the world and is pumping about
2.8 million barrels a day, according to experts.
Analysts expect the OPEC producer to add between 600,000 and one million
barrels to output once sanctions are lifted, but Zanganeh is much more bullish.
Iran is trying to regain its lost share of global crude sales and has no
intention of harming the oil market with its planned increase in production
once sanctions are lifted from its economy, Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh
said.
... ... ...
United Nations nuclear monitors in December
ended their 12-year probe of Iran's research into atomic-weapon technologies,
moving the country a major step closer to relief from sanctions. Iranian oil
companies and banks may be able to return to international markets by mid-January,
based on the pace at which the nation is disabling nuclear infrastructure.
As part of its efforts to increase production, the country will probably
award Chinese companies development rights for the second phase of the North
Azadegan oil field in southwestern Iran, Zanganeh said. Under an accord, the
Chinese will have to submit a proposal to the Iranian oil ministry for examination
and approval, he said, without identifying any companies. Iran pumped 2.7 million
barrels a day of oil in December, data compiled by Bloomberg show.
The amount of additional Iranian crude reaching foreign buyers will depend
on conditions in an oil market oversupplied by 2.5 million to 3 million barrels
a day, the Iranian Oil Ministry's Shana news agency reported on Saturday, citing
Mohsen Ghamsari, the head of international affairs at state-run National Iranian
Oil Co.
"... According to the minister, Iran is not for selling oil at low prices. However,
even if prices drop below $30 per barrel the country will increase oil output and
export volumes until sanctions are lifted. ..."
According to the minister, Iran is not for selling oil at low prices. However,
even if prices drop below $30 per barrel the country will increase oil output
and export volumes until sanctions are lifted.
He underscored that Iran has the right to increase production and sell oil
abroad.
This should be a warning sign for the countries which have taken Iran's market
share in the global oil market since sanctions were imposed, he added.
He pointed out that after sanctions are fully lifted Iran will be ready to
increase oil output up to 500,000 barrels a day in the short perspective, in
addition to the current oil reserves. In 2016, production will be increased
twofold, to one million barrels a day.
...The expert said that OPEC countries compete with each other and other
nations. "The decline in oil prices was caused by OPEC countries' decision not
to cut production last year. A year after, OPEC countries said they were not
ready to cut output to keep the prices at $110-120. The point is that OPEC countries
compete with each other over the oil prices," Takin said.
"In the first phase, Iran will raise exports by 500,000 barrels a day
within a week after the removal of international sanctions, he said Sunday.
The country will add another 500,000 barrels a day in a second phase within
six months after the curbs end, Zanganeh said. "
Bloomberg (like most other US MSM) consistently use fear mongering about
Iran oil that soon will flood the market. And provide only selective quotes
from Iran officials and no facts about their industry and fields. Which
reminds me Baghdad "We will push those crooks, those mercenaries back into
the swamp" Bob. If this is so easy then why they gave up their share on
china oil market to Saudis?
Bloomberg (like most other US MSM) consistently use fear mongering about
Iran oil that soon will flood the market.
Oh get real here. Bloomberg, (like most US MSM), just wants to report
the fucking news. The idea that Bloomberg is part of a giant conspiracy
theory, in cahoots with the government, or whomever, is just goddamn stupid.
Comparing even with the British coverage the statement "Bloomberg, (like
most US MSM), just wants to report the f**king news." is very weak.
In foreign events coverage they want to propagate a certain agenda and
are very disciplined in pursuing this goal. That does not exclude that sometimes
they report important news with minor distortions. But to assume that they
"just wants to report the f**king news" is extremely naïve if we are taking
about foreign events.
Remember all those fancy dances pretending to be news about Iran sanctions.
Truth is the first victim of war. Unfortunately this war for world dominance
now became a permanent business for the USA. And Iran is considered by US
establishment as an enemy.
I would recommend to read AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH
Harvard University Press, 2002 – 302 pages
In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the
assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power.
Examining the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton–as
well as George W. Bush's first year in office–he demolishes the view
that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment
as a basis for foreign policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold
War administrations have adhered to a well-defined "strategy of openness."
Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy
aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating
the undisputed primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover,
openness is not a new strategy, but has been an abiding preoccupation
of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.
Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement
of trade, capital, and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy,
the aggressive pursuit of openness has met considerable resistance.
To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing
frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never
before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting
in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy.
Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive
for openness for what it is–a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed
at erecting a global imperium. Large questions remain about that project's
feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that it
will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S.
policy, this book marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.
From FT article it looks like the same minister is saying quite opposite
things. It looks like Iran does not want to play the role of trump card
that will allow to keep oil prices low for another year or two - the implied
message of Bloomberg article, which implicitly supports those who want to
drive the oil market lower (which, of course, includes GS)
== start of the quote ===
"Some of the Opec members believe it is better to go along with this
level of production," Iran's oil minister Bijan Zanganeh said after
the meeting of ministers in Vienna on Friday, in a thinly-veiled dig
at Saudi Arabia. "I didn't have any other expectation."
Mr Zanganeh has been among ministers calling for action to stem the
drop in oil prices that have this week collapsed to near seven-year
lows. His requests, like those from Venezuela and others, have been
rebuffed by the group's de facto leader and largest producer.
The kingdom's veteran oil minister Ali Al Naimi and his inner circle
have made clear that Saudi Arabia will not cut its output without participation
from Opec rivals Iran and Iraq, as well as non-Opec countries such as
Russia. Until this time, it would continue to defend its market share
and sell as much of its oil as it can.
Pressure to limit production as Iran rebuilds its oil industry after
years under sanctions has not gone down well in the country, which is
targeting output growth of 1m barrels a day after restrictions are lifted.
In a countermove, Mr Zanganeh has said countries that have accelerated
output over the past year - Saudi Arabia has increased its production
to above 10m barrels a day in 2015 - should pull back to make room for
Iran's production.
== end of the quote ===
So I stand by my point that there is a bias in Bloomberg coverage, who
very selectively quotes Mr Zanganeh to push the agenda they favor, while
in reality Iran is pushing for cutting production by OPEC to raise the price
to $80 level, which they consider fair, not selling its oil at the cost
futures markets now dictate like Saudis do. That's a big difference.
Iran is dismissing a report that it plans to offer steep discounts on oil to
many customers, particularly in Asia, when it returns to the global energy market
sometime in 2016.
In an interview with Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) on Sunday,
Oil Minister
Bijan Namdar Zangeneh said Iran plans to offer only what the agency described
as "regular and customary" discounts that often are available to any potential
customer.
Iran's standard offer for customers in India, the world's second-largest
consumer of Iranian oil, is 90 days' credit, free shipping and modest discounts
on the oil itself.
Iran's Ministry of Petroleum reported that its oil sanctions might be removed by the first
week of January 2015. The easing of sanctions would mean Iran could scale up crude oil production
by 0.5 MMbpd (million barrels per day) to 1 MMbpd in the next six months to one year.
...Iran has the lowest production cost at just $10–$15 per barrel. It also has the lowest
break-even cost in OPEC and in the world. Iran's strategic location allows it to transport vast
amounts of crude oil.
EIA estimated that an increase in Iranian crude oil production in 2016 will be around 600,000
barrels per day and is likely to occur in the second half of the year . Richard Nephew,
program director for Economic Statecraft at Columbia University and former sanctions coordinator at
the U.S. State Department, said in a research brief that larger volume of oil will flow from
Iran in 2016, but likely not at the levels that optimists predict.
TEHRAN, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- Iranian oil production by the end of 2016 will be in excess of 4
million barrels per day, more than in the pre-sanctions era, the nation's oil minister said.
Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zangeneh said the country will increase net oil production by more
than 1.5 million barrels per day, bringing total production for the Islamic republic to just over
4 million bpd.
"Around the end of next year, we will be close to this figure," he said in an interview
broadcast by CNN.
Zangeneh said his country could become the second largest producer in the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries, after Saudi Arabia, within seven or eight months of sanctions
relief. Production during the pre-sanctions area was around 3 million bpd.
"... I have said the exact same thing on this blog several times before. But let me expand on this issue some more. The oil production capacity of at least these five countries is artificially suppressed by the still dominant NATO-GCC alliance: a) Russia, b) Iran, c) Iraq, d) Kazakhstan and e) Venezuela. ..."
"... To be clear, I am not moralizing here, but I am merely saying that the NATO-GCC alliance sees fit to exclude those countries from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms. It's good old Real-politik. ..."
I have said the exact same thing on this blog several times before. But let me expand on this
issue some more. The oil production capacity of at least these five countries is artificially suppressed
by the still dominant NATO-GCC alliance: a) Russia, b) Iran, c) Iraq, d) Kazakhstan and e) Venezuela.
To be clear, I am not moralizing here, but I am merely saying that the NATO-GCC alliance sees
fit to exclude those countries from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms.
It's good old Real-politik.
The suppressed oil production from these regions, has allowed western oil majors, as well as much
more numerous but smaller US shale drillers to increase their own production of quite marginal oil
& gas deposits in the US shale patch, the Canadian tar sands, in several deep-offshore sites around
the globe etc…
This is at least 50% why the above countries are allied with each other and against the NATO-GCC
Empire.
The key here is to understand who pushed the oil to the current prices. It was not OPEC which only
slightly increased its production for the last five years.
...we might witness the formation of two blocks within OPEC during the next December 4 meet in
Vienna. One, led by Venezuela, Ecuador, Libya and Algeria that would want to reduce production levels
and the other led by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait that would stick to the current strategy of defending
market share. Iran may have a neutral stance as, although it 'urged' the other OPEC members to reduce
their combined production to maintain a ceiling of $70-$80 per barrel, Iran would itself be ramping
up its production levels to regain its lost market share, once the western sanctions against it are
lifted.
... ... ...
Although it is almost certain that OPEC will not change its strategy in its next meeting in Vienna,
it is unlikely that it would maintain this stance for too much longer in 2016.
Femme Fatale
The real question is: How long can the US Dollar hold out? US Dollar Demise & WW3
>> http://bit.ly/1PyMpdw
MadVladtheconquerer
You mean in the face of the 9 trill $USD short that will have to be covered at some point?
Dollar up nicely against most majors today including the yen to 121.2.
DJTA about to go GREEN. Bottom is in.
Raymond_K._Hessel
How long can OPEC exist in a world where the FRN is losing power all over the globe, and where
nations like Iran and Salafist Arabia are diametrically opposed on just about everything?
No, the "atmosphere is not well," because again, the Saudis are out to achieve "ancillary diplomatic
benefits" (i.e. geopolitical advantages) by keeping crude prices low, and those benefits include
squeezing the Russians and perhaps limiting the revenue Tehran can bring in when Iran returns to
the market.
As you can see, all of this is inextricably linked and it looks as though Russia and Iran may
be on the verge of attempting to challenge the Saudis for domination of the oil market (don't forget
Moscow surpassed Riyadh as the number one supplier to China for the second time this year in September).
Is a "new oil order" in the works? We shall see.
pot_and_kettle
Can someone point out when Syria didn't sign off on the Qatar - Turkey pipeline and when the
pipeline was first proposed? This is news to me and seems like the watershed event for what the
zio-US fomented in that part of the world.
Next step: open that eastern front on the Arabian Peninsula.
Freddie
Persia has been around thousands of years.
A person may not like the Russians or Iranaians but they "ain't" going anywhere. They are also
pretty tough on the battlefield (see Hezbollah). They also stood up for Syrian and the Syrian
people including Syrian Christians.
Persians are a lot smarter than Saudis too.
alphahammer
Yea lets take a look. Good of you to point that out.
---
China Not So In Love With Russia After All
JUN 17, 2015
Shunned by the West, Russia may want to promote its new Chinese love affair to the world these
days, but Czar Romeo shouldn't get his hopes up.
Russia's second biggest lender, VTB Bank, said that most Chinese banks have foregone doing
business with them. The reason? Western sanctions against VTB. China lenders don't want to get
caught up in the drama and - having more business with the U.S. and Europe than with Russia -
have opted to play it safe.
"China's ambiguous position regarding Russian banks in the wake of US and EU sanctions is a
key issue holding back progress toward greater bilateral cooperation," VTB Bank First Deputy Chairman
Yuri Soloviev write in an op-ed published by the FinanceAsia news agency on Tuesday.
Freddie
Anything that smacks the shit out of the Saudis or Qatar makes me happy. What they did to Syria
with the help of the USA, Turkey, UK, Israel and others is sickening.
"... And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East ..."
"... The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by
the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite
successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC ..."
"... This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever
method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact
on Western economies and enough to help the Wests Middle East petro partners. ..."
"... The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue
to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back
into your lap for your nation to deal with it. ..."
"... Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate
into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed.
..."
"... Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda
to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating
deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the
Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where
oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over
$100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and
Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a peace keeping role
is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region. ..."
"... The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan
using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning.
Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely
than Russias, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the
new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative
peace. ..."
And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East
On post super blood moon Monday,
Vladimir Putin will be meeting with President Obama to discuss the ISIS crisis in the Middle
East. There are many within the U.S. media who are promoting this meeting as some strange idea that
the Russians are about to ask the Americans for help against ISIS. While there might be a small gnat's
hair bit of truth to this, in reality, Putin is about to dictate terms and the United States is ill
prepared to deal with the consequences.
The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by
the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite
successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via
CNBC as of Friday, 9/25
):
This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever
method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further
impact on Western economies and enough to help the West's Middle East petro partners.
... ... ...
The Middle East is aflame right now and the economic situation along with terrorist Islamist ideologues
have exported their problems into Europe with a massive migration of millions of refugees from Syria,
Jordan, Libya, and Iraq. Mixed within these people are numerous terrorist operatives as was promised
by ISIS and Al Qaeda years ago but ignored by the naive European Union. The future problems this
will create are another story but the question has been promoted by some in the United States asking
why the Arab nations of the Arabian Peninsula have not taken any of the refugees. That answer is
obvious; their economies and domestic political situations are so tentative and fragile that an influx
of millions of new residents would probably tip nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia closer to full
blown civil war within their own borders.
... ... ...
The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue
to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them
back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. By later on this year and early next year
their should be sufficient forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq to push the ISIS militants into
a meat grinder, eventually cutting them off from their northern forces somewhere in north central
Iraq. Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to
migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed
or destroyed.
Meanwhile in the southern part of Iraq, ISIS will be left unchecked for a short duration and eventually
pushed into Saudi Arabia and the GCC states, to let the sponsors of this terrorist army deal with
the problems they funded and created. The brilliance of this strategy by the new alliance of Egypt,
Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (which may soon include Jordan) is obvious; the return of the malcontents
who will feel betrayed by the House of Saud and other various sheikdoms of the region will create
domestic instability and as a result the destruction wrought on Iraq's oil infrastructure will now
become a GCC problem.
Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda
to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating
deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for
the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point
where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back
over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with
Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a "peace
keeping" role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region.
The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan
using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning.
Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely
than Russia's, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled
by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years
of relative peace.
"... A Real Politik assessment that only can come from someone who covers the global oil producing
nations as a whole industry. ..."
"... The breakup of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a single nation, but
the fall of one of 2 Post WWII Global Hegemons. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the overwhelming jargon of business from the last 4 decades of unrelenting Neo-liberalism
likes to refer to ¨deals¨ and Western values, as if we clip money saving coupons to be redeemed
at the bargaining table with Iran. ..."
"... The US still owes the Iranians much more than "regret" for overthrowing the first true and democratically
elected SECULAR government ever in the ME (Mossedegh). ..."
"... They
COULD have been a true, natural ally of the West (except for the "privatize everything" schtick the
West has been stuck in for the last 30 years). Such a waste. All we've left behind us is chaos, jihadis,
instability, death. ..."
This has led to a new emerging relationship between the Saudis and Russia, where
negotiations between Russia and OPEC emerged over the possibility of coordination of oil production
levels. OPEC hinted that it was open to coordinated production cuts with non-OPEC members in its
latest bulletin report, saying that "if there is a willingness to face the oil industry's challenges
together" then the future would "be a lot better." Russian officials held meetings with their counterparts
from OPEC, fueling speculation of some sort of accommodation.
Despite positive language from the
negotiators, the talks so far have not amounted to much. Rosneft's Igor Sechin seemed to rule out
such a scenario on September 7 in
comments to the press, in which he said that Rosneft can't operate the way OPEC can. It would
be difficult for Russia to cut back on its production, even if that meant some chance of higher prices.
Russia's economy is hurting, and it needs to sell every barrel that it can.
Although there won't be a deal on oil output, Saudi Arabia and Russia made more progress on discussions
regarding the purchase of Russian
nuclear
power plants and military equipment, a likely wake-up call to the U.S. and UK, the Saudis' longtime
military suppliers. Still to be determined is whether this is a new alliance or merely a show of
Saudi independence.
... ... ...
The EIA reports that in the last five years, the U.S. 'shale oil revolution' has
enabled the U.S. to more
than halve its oil imports, making it far less dependent on imports from OPEC, and significantly
changing the terms of the relationship.
There is a lively ongoing argument in the world press about the possibility of the nuke deal leading
to an entente between the U.S. and Iran, or even the possibility of an actual alliance.
Hardcore opponents of the deal claim that Iran is already in a quasi-alliance with the U.S. in
the fight against ISIS in Iraq. And, although both countries hotly deny any intent to form an alliance,
there are many in the region who believe that perhaps 'the ladies doth protest too much'.
... ... ...
As reported by Nick Cunningham,
on these pages, the recently announced agreement with European oil companies to extend Gazprom's
Nordstream gas pipeline into Germany was a clear sign that the EU is willing to do business with
Russia again; this despite the Ukraine crisis, which in the face of Middle Eastern conflicts, seems
to be fading into the background.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Vince in MN, September 21, 2015 at 6:39 am
39 paragraphs of cliche ridden breathless rumor mongering. The heart veritably races waiting
for the next shoe dropping.
EoinW, September 21, 2015 at 8:58 am
In my lifetime, the Middle East has had two problems: Wahabbism and Zionism. We've been on
the wrong side of both. One can count on western leaders to always be on the wrong side.
If Putin appears the voice of reason, what does that make Obama? He often seems like a housewife
reacting to the dramatic conclusion of his favourite soap opera…with a new episode to follow tomorrow.
Almost want to write – same Bat time, same Bat channel – it's so cartoonish.
The refugee crisis has made Merkle seem almost like a compassionate human being. But we know
she only cares about keeping the EU going on her watch and she can see what a threat the refugee
crisis is to EU unity. How worse will that threat be when Ukrainian refugees start coming? Better
make nice with Russia!
"Saudis offer to Israel to allow flyovers of Saudi territory in case an attack on Iran" This
has been reported on and off for several years.
The "sudden military alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia" seems overblown. There have
been very scattered reports of intelligence cooperation in the past but that is it.
Of course FARS reports stuff like this:
"20 Israeli officers and 63 Saudi military men and officials were killed"
likbez September 21, 2015 at 11:22 am
"39 paragraphs of cliche ridden breathless rumor mongering. The heart veritably races
waiting for the next shoe dropping."
I would agree. It is clear for me that the quality of reporting about Russia is on the level
of presstitutes from WashPost.
Also it is unclear that is the USA game plan as for Iran and what this article tries to communicate
does not look plausible. It might well be that the USA wants to spread their bets by including
Iran into the cycle of vassals (the USA does not need allies, only vassal states) but I think
Iran elite still remembers years of crippling sanctions pretty well to jump into Uncle Sam embraces.
The deal is needed mainly to put additional pressure on oil prices and if it achieves its goals
and Russia crumbles, Iran will be thrown under the bus by US neocons very soon and without any
hesitation.
It also looks like SA leadership wants some kind of rebalancing of relations with Russia as
after Egypt to rely on US neocons is simply stupid. They proved to be pretty treacherous folks
and promises given are not worth the paper they were printed on.
But if we assume that neocons dominate the USA foreign policy in foreseeable future, then the
key policy in Middle East will be usual "divide and conquer" policy like we saw in Iraq, Libya
and Syria. And bloodshed financed from usual sources (is not ISIS the USA and friends creation
?) will continue.
What is interesting is that SA never managed considerably increase their oil exports as their
internal consumption grows more rapidly then extraction. They just refused to drop the volume
of their exports. Probably with tacit approval of the USA. So it looks like drastic oil price
drop is mainly financial markets play (derivative and futures games) - and that means that one
plausible scenario is that this is another attempt to hurt Russia and depose Putin, even by taking
a hit for own shale industry and decimating Canadian oil sands. Lifting sanctions from Iran is
just the second step of the same plan.
EoinW -> likbez, September 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm
If Vietnam can forget over 2 million murdered by Americans and cozy up to Washington then it must
be possible to find elites in any society(even Iran) who will sell out for the right price.
A Real Politik assessment that only can come from someone who covers the global oil producing
nations as a whole industry. Not completely unsurprising, but unusual in that the only constant
in the social order is change and the people making sense out of the change have to look ahead
to consequences real and unintended from political decisions that impact global energy production,
particularly oil. The breakup of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a single nation, but
the fall of one of 2 Post WWII Global Hegemons.
The failure of the Project for A New American Century as a bid for a unipolar, unilateral Militaristic
American Hegemony has resulted in a shift back to the International as opposed to Global relations.
The institutions of the Post WWII world, The United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, with
the emphasis on diplomacy as opposed to nation to nation warfare is being resurrected in the Iranian
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What has been nearly completely absent is the naming of the
UN Security Councils permanent members, the victors of WWII were united in staring down Iran until
they produced the desired results, namely, giving up on pushing its way into the nuclear power
club. The re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations with Cuba is a corroborating development.
Russia has worked with the US in Syria to eliminate the chemical warfare stockpiles of Syria as
well as patiently worked to conclude a successful Iran re-approachment.
Unfortunately, the overwhelming jargon of business from the last 4 decades of unrelenting Neo-liberalism
likes to refer to ¨deals¨ and Western values, as if we clip money saving coupons to be redeemed
at the bargaining table with Iran. And the war party demanded that a better deal could be had,
what, they could get it for us WHOLESALE! Nuclear Non Proliferation was what was at stake and
the UN Permanent Security Council Members were all present to negotiate the re-integration of
Iran into the United Nations.
Presidents Obama and Putin are more allied than not and the structure of an inclusive international
social order are being worked out without the lies of the Bush family´s war party plans. The USA
is not falling apart at the seams because other nations are finally enriching themselves, thus
putting them beyond the simple command and control of Neo-con warlords. The USA is relatively
weaker not due to being hood winked or conquered but because other nations have risen in their
own capacity to direct self determination. Iran is welcomed to do so, just not with nuclear weapons.
That is a good thing, in the eyes of the Iranians and the rest of world.
I DO so hope it leads to a completely new alignment in the ME. I am sick to
death of "Iran the great evil" bullcrap.
It has always struck me as purely a childish
temper tantrum on the part of the USA because the Iranian people had the GALL to
toss out OUR murderous dictator and actually run their own country for their own
people. Who do they think they are?
How DARE they use THEIR oil for THEIR country
rather than to serve Western oil company bottom lines and provide the US with oil
that, by rights, belongs to it. Because America! That and the fact that the Iranians
held some US neocolonials/neoliberals hostage for a year-ish. That's unacceptable!
Americans can do anything they want to whomever they want, damnit!
The US still owes the Iranians much more than "regret" for overthrowing the first true and democratically
elected SECULAR government ever in the ME (Mossedegh). Imagine what Iran and even the ME could have
been by now if Mossedegh had been allowed to stay in rightful power? Iran would be a true beacon
of liberty and freedom and modernity in the heart of the ME. Israel doesn't even come close. They
COULD have been a true, natural ally of the West (except for the "privatize everything" schtick the
West has been stuck in for the last 30 years). Such a waste. All we've left behind us is chaos, jihadis,
instability, death.
Contradictory statements. On one hand Iran wants $80per barrel prices, on the other is ready to
serve as a Trojan horce to keep oil prices low. That's probaly the ffect of Bloomberg reporting ;-).
Oil at $70 to $80 a barrel would be "fair," he said. Brent crude, the global benchmark, fell
as much as 2.3 percent to $48.40 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange and
traded at $49.12 at 3:36 p.m. local time. Brent sold for as much as $102.86 a barrel a year ago.
... ... ...
OPEC said in a bulletin from its Vienna-based secretariat on Monday that the group won't
shoulder the burden of propping up prices by cutting supply on its own, and non-member producers
would have to contribute. OPEC will protect its interests and there is "no quick fix" for market
instability, it said.
... ... ...
Iran plans to produce 3.8 million to 3.9 million barrels of oil a day by March, with output
rising by 500,000 barrels a day soon after sanctions are lifted and by 1 million barrels within
the following five months, Zanganeh said. Iran is producing 2.8 million barrels a day, its
highest level in three years, and is exporting more than 1 million barrels a day, he said.
Iran has about 60 million barrels of condensate in floating storage and has no crude stored
offshore, Zanganeh said.
"Immediately after lifting sanctions, it's our right to return to the level of production we
historically had," Zanganeh said. "We have no other choice," he said. A slump in oil prices won't
slow Iran's return to the market, he said.
Total world production is around 86 mmbl (millions barrels a day). Iran probably can
contribute additional one million barrels a day). Drop of the US shale production and Canadian sands
production might be higher then that. Also Iranian internal consumption (currently 2
million barrels a day) also will rise substantially after lifting of the sanctions.
"...Projecting from International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Iran is on track to produce an
average ~2.85 mmbl/day of crude in 2015. The IEA puts Iran's current sustainable capacity at 3.6
mmbl/day (defined as a level achievable in 90 days and sustainable for an extended period). "
"... it is possible that Iran will lack the domestic and foreign resources necessary to
increase crude output to and over 4 mmbls/day by 2020."
The P5+1 agreement with Iran on Iran's nuclear program has generated (sometimes fevered)
anticipation of an Iranian oil bonanza at the end of the nuclear agreement rainbow, both in terms
of the increase in Iranian crude output and the business opportunities for foreign firms in
driving the increase.
The anticipation comes from several sources. Iran's crude potential is one. According to the
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iran's proven crude reserves, 158 billion barrels,
are the world's fourth largest (and among the cheapest to produce at $8-to-$17/barrel, depending
on the source).
Iranian public statements expressing determination to increase crude output significantly are
another (to 5.7 mmbl/day, according to Mehdi Hosseini, chairman of Iran's oil contracts
restructuring committee). The third is the value of potential contracts for foreign suppliers.
Hossein Zamaninia, Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, indicated
the government hoped to conclude nearly 50 oil and gas projects worth $185 billion by 2020.
Projected Output and Exports to 2020
Projecting from International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Iran is on track to produce an
average ~2.85 mmbl/day of crude in 2015. The IEA puts Iran's current sustainable capacity at 3.6
mmbl/day (defined as a level achievable in 90 days and sustainable for an extended period).
This is roughly comparable to Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh's assertion Iran could
increase output 500,000 barrels per day within a few months after international sanctions on
Iran's economy are lifted and another 500,000 barrels per day in the following months .
... ... ...
Iran won't be able to finance this on its own. It has three "internal" sources of
investment-frozen Iranian funds in foreign accounts, government budget resources (oil revenues
flow to the Iranian government, a portion of which the government returns to the industry), and
oil in storage. (Iranian banks evidently can't provide meaningful funding). Rough conjectures of
the investment Iran could generate from these three sources in current low price environment are
as follows:
Perhaps $2-$4 billion annually through 2020 from frozen Iranian funds in foreign accounts.
Some estimates put the total at $100 billion (or $20 billion annually). U.S. Treasury
Secretary Lew, in testimony before Congress, put the available funds at $50 billion ($10
billion annually). Since Iran's oil industry is only one of many claimants on the frozen
funds, including the natural gas industry, the Iranian military, Iran's proxy clients in
Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the commercial aviation industry (replacing
the passenger jet fleet), other industries, and the Iranian people, maybe it will receive 20
percent of the frozen funds, or between $2 and $4 billion annually.
For the sake of argument, $10 billion annually through 2020 from government budget
resources, which is very generous given the share of crude export revenues this level of
support would consume (see last row of above table), the demands from other Iranian claimants,
and Zanganeh's data (investment fell from an average $20 annually in 2011 and 2012, when the
OPEC basket crude averaged $107.46 and $109.45 per barrel respectively, to $6 billion in 2014,
when it averaged $96.29, and virtually nothing this year, when it averaged $53.97 through
August).
Perhaps $1-$1.5 billion as a one-time contribution from oil currently in storage.
... ... ...
The possibility of direct military conflict between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and
its Gulf Arab allies on the other is another factor. The two sides are already essentially at war
indirectly in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Moreover, just the threat of direct military
conflict or an increase in regional tensions is enough to cause foreigners anxiety.
The deal structure the Iranians will offer foreign companies-Hosseini described it as a "risk
service contract"-will increase rather than mitigate risk. Given their lack of capital, the
Iranians will be asking foreigners to bear the upfront investment burden in return for payment
(cash and/or crude) in the (perhaps distant) future. Foreigners must take into account the
possibility that negative changes in the internal and/or external environment will damage the
value of their investment.
Foreign investors cannot be confident Iran's internal political dynamics will be conducive to
foreign investment. Not all influential Iranians or Iranian interest groups (for example, the
powerful Revolutionary Guards) welcome the nuclear agreement and détente with the United States
and Europe. Should the balance of power tip in their favor-or further in their favor-foreign
investments could face anything from unpleasant pressure to expropriation.
Moreover, absent a binding agreement within OPEC and between OPEC and Russia on production
levels, Saudi and Gulf Arab production policies will threaten the value of foreign investment in
the Iranian crude industry. Saudi Arabia's sustainable capacity is 2.5 mmbl/day more than its
average 10.01 mmbl daily output in 1H 2015, while the UAE has announced plans to increase output
600,000 barrels per day in the next few years, and Kuwait by 1.4 mmbl/day by 2020.
... ... ...
In Sum
While it is likely Iran will increase crude output once sanctions are lifted, it is possible
that Iran will lack the domestic and foreign resources necessary to increase crude output to and
over 4 mmbls/day by 2020. Absent a thaw in its relations with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab
states, and the West, higher and more stable crude prices, and initial positive experience for
foreign companies in negotiating and implementing projects, it is more likely foreign investment
will trickle into the Iranian energy industry than gush into it.
"..."At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the
international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."
The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of
international trade and financial transactions..." .
"...Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given
that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of
the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and
budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery."" .
"..."If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's
financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no
longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status
would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the
dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the
US economy."" .
"...Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US
economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to
see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey. He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying
trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed
in 2007-08.... "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially
suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going
to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to
be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said
Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"..." . "...President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic
implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option..."
US President Barack Obama has given an extraordinary ultimatum to the Republican-controlled Congress,
arguing that they must not block the nuclear accord with Iran. It's either "deal or war," he says.
In a televised nationwide address on August 5, Obama said: "Congressional rejection of this deal
leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear
weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative. I am stating
a fact."
The American Congress is due to vote on whether to accept the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
signed July 14 between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers – the US, Britain, France, Germany,
Russia and China. Republicans are openly vowing to reject the JCPOA, along with hawkish Democrats
such as Senator Chuck Schumer. Opposition within the Congress may even be enough to override a presidential
veto to push through the nuclear accord.
In his drastic prediction of war, one might assume that Obama is referring to Israel launching
a preemptive military strike on Iran with the backing of US Republicans. Or that he is insinuating
that Iran will walk from self-imposed restraints on its nuclear program to build a bomb, thus triggering
a war.
But what could really be behind Obama's dire warning of "deal or war" is another scenario – the
collapse of the US dollar, and with that the implosion of the US economy.
That scenario was hinted at this week by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking in New York
on August 11, Kerry made the candid admission that failure to seal the nuclear deal could result
in the US dollar losing its status as the top international reserve currency.
"If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell [US allies], 'You're going to have to obey our
rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly for the American dollar to cease to be
the reserve currency of the world."
In other words, what really concerns the Obama administration is that the sanctions regime it
has crafted on Iran – and has compelled other nations to abide by over the past decade – will be
finished. And Iran will be open for business with the European Union, as well as China and Russia.
It is significant that within days of signing the Geneva accord, Germany, France, Italy and other
EU governments hastened to Tehran to begin lining up lucrative investment opportunities in Iran's
prodigious oil and gas industries. China and Russia are equally well-placed and more than willing
to resume trading partnerships with Iran. Russia has signed major deals to expand Iran's nuclear
energy industry.
American writer Paul Craig Roberts said that the US-led sanctions on Iran and also against Russia
have generated a lot of frustration and resentment among Washington's European allies.
"US sanctions against Iran and Russia have cost businesses in other countries a lot of money,"
Roberts told this author.
"Propaganda about the Iranian nuke threat and Russian threat is what caused other countries to
cooperate with the sanctions. If a deal worked out over much time by the US, Russia, China, UK, France
and Germany is blocked, other countries are likely to cease cooperating with US sanctions."
Roberts added that if Washington were to scuttle the nuclear accord with Iran, and then demand
a return to the erstwhile sanctions regime, the other international players will repudiate the American
diktat.
"At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international
payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."
The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct
of international trade and financial transactions.
Former World Bank analyst Peter Koenig says that if the nuclear accord unravels, Iran will be
free to trade its oil and gas – worth trillions of dollars – in bilateral currency deals with the
EU, Japan, India, South Korea, China and Russia, in much the same way that China and Russia and other
members of the BRICS nations have already begun to do so.
That outcome will further undermine the US dollar. It will gradually become redundant as a mechanism
of international payment.
Koenig argues that this implicit threat to the dollar is the real, unspoken cause for anxiety
in Washington. The long-running dispute with Iran, he contends, was never about alleged weapons of
mass destruction. Rather, the real motive was for Washington to preserve the dollar's unique global
standing.
"The US-led standoff with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons," says Koenig. The issue
is: will Iran eventually sell its huge reserves of hydrocarbons in other currencies than the dollar,
as they intended to do in 2007 with an Iranian Oil Bourse? That is what instigated the American-contrived
fake nuclear issue in the first place."
This is not just about Iran. It is about other major world economies moving away from holding
the US dollar as a means of doing business. If the US unilaterally scuppers the international nuclear
accord, Washington will no longer be able to enforce its financial hegemony, which the sanctions
regime on Iran has underpinned.
Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given
that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of
the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and
budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery."
As Paul Craig Roberts commented, the dollar's value has only been maintained because up to now
the rest of the world needs the greenback to do business with. That dependency has allowed the US
Federal Reserve to keep printing banknotes in quantities that are in no way commensurate with the
American economy's decrepit condition.
"If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's
financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no
longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status
would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the
dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the
US economy."
Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US
economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to
see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey.
He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying
trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed
in 2007-08.
The picture he painted isn't pretty: "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially
suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going
to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to
be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said
Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"
President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic
implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option.
"...Iran's energy supplies also devalue the energy exports from Russia. It's all part of Obama's full spectrum war against Putin."
. "...There are so many factions vying for power, many with ulterior motives, who are forming counter intuitive alliances based
on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategies. The whole shit show has become so convoluted that at this point we (the west) might
as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks. Better yet, we could mind our own business, and
take care of problems here on the home front. It seems like the linked picture is emblematic of world foreign policy."
. "...It was not long ago that media was abuzz with the fracking miracle, energy independence, USA the new Saudi Arabia etc. etc.
What everyone failed to realize is all energy is not the same. Some is low cost to produce and transport, others are high cost, out
at the margins of profitability. We know where Fracking stood on that scale. Not to mention Canadian Tar Mines, coming in at the top
of production costs. Harper bet Canada's future on a total Tar Sands development policy. That investment is looking questionable. And
I for one can find few if any new media coverage of North Dakota. Though they still produce in a desperate bid to keep meeting debt
repayments. Their hedges are the only thing keeping companies alive at present."
Many have questioned just why President Obama was so keen to get the Iran nuclear deal done - apparently with almost no real concessions
- in the face of allies home and abroad deriding the agreement. Well, if one were so inclined,
OilPrice.com explains
that Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, told Reuters that the country has
already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids - with the government pegging the value of these properties
at $185 billion...
Important news last week -- from a place that's quickly becoming the world's focus for high-impact oil and gas projects.
That's Iran. Where government officials said they are on the verge of revolutionizing the country's petroleum sector. Which
could provide big profit opportunities for foreign investors.
Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, told Reuters that the
country has already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids. With the government pegging the value of these
properties at $185 billion.
And officials are hoping to get these fields licensed out soon. With Zamaninia saying that the government plans to offer all
of the blocks over the next five years.
Perhaps most importantly, Iranian officials say they have designed a new petroleum contract structure for international
investors. Which they are calling the "integrated petroleum contract" or IPC.
Officials said that the IPCs will last for a term of 20 to 25 years. A substantial improvement over the older, shorter-term
contracts -- which have been a major stumbling point for the world's oil and gas companies.
Few other details on the IPC structure have yet been provided. But the government noted that the new contracts will address
"some of the deficiencies of the old buyback contract".
Deputy Minister Zamaninia said that full details on the new contracts will be announced within the next two to three months.
Along with specifics on the fields being offered by the government for bids.
Of course, all of this is predicated on the lifting of Western sanctions against Iran -- which is still not
a certainty. But if and when the country does open for investment, it appears there will be substantial prizes to won. Watch for
further announcements on projects and fiscal terms over the next few months.
* * *
Billions of dollars for the firms that lobbyists represent can be one hell of a motivation to do a deal with the devil it seems...
JustObserving
Iran's energy supplies also devalue the energy exports from Russia. It's all part of Obama's full spectrum war against
Putin.
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." -- Jefferson
Fahque Imuhnutjahb
There are so many factions vying for power, many with ulterior motives, who are forming counter intuitive alliances based on
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategies. The whole shit show has become so convoluted that at this point we (the west)
might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks. Better yet, we could mind our own business,
and take care of problems here on the home front. It seems like the linked picture is emblematic of world foreign policy.
we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks.
That's called American history, 1945-2015.
Fahque Imuhnutjahb
Agreed, but it seems we used to at least make the pretense of choosing sides, hell now it's a damn free for all, literally
free arms for all. It's no damn wonder 2.3 trillion of tax dollars fell down the rabbit hole, and we,
the damn taxpayers didn't even get offered any rabbit stew.
insanelysane
It's easier to go to war with someone that you have a treaty with because breaking the treaty is a slam dunk justification.
No one cared what was really in the treaty as long as Iran agreed to the treaty because they know Iran will break it.
roadhazard
uh, Russia was in on the deal. You mean they fucked themselves.
CrazyCooter
Or maybe in three to five years when that huge frack ramp has run its couse and the US mean reverts to its production trend
line the additional global supply coming online around that time will be sorely needed.
Don't forget one of the largest oil fields in the world is in Iran ... and it was discovered in the 80s. Saudis big field was
discovered in the 40s.
If the game is going to continue, it has to have oil - and they can't print that.
Regards,
Cooter
Winston Churchill
Iran could'nt become a full SCO member with sanctions on.
None of that money,which is theirs anyway, will be going to US companies.
You can bet the farm on that.
Colonel Klink
Just goes to further prove how our politican's sell out to corporations. That's called Fascism!
Billy the Poet
Isn't it better to trade for energy than to bomb for freedom? Each scenario can be seen as supporting corporations but assuming
that the corporatist paradigm is presently inescapable which corporations would you rather see prevail?
greenskeeper carl
Say what you will about the deal, but aside from all the noise, anything that avoids another war that kills a few thousand
more Americans, a few hundred thousands innocent civilians, and racks up another 2-4 trillion in debt is a good thing.
Who knows, maybe those lobbyists not wanting to get their investments nationalized by the Iranian govt(which would happen in
the event of a conflict) will exert more influence on whatever stooge occupies the White House than the regular neocon cheerleaders
constantly looking for a new war.
Probably not , but one can hope.
roadhazard
But it's an OBAMA deal so fuck all that saving lives crap. BushCo would have hung another banner and the repubicans would cheer.
FreeMoney
There was no need for deal to made at all. Iran's oil can sit in the ground un used and unsold, while the West continued
to block trade with the Mullahs. I think the Mullahs were loosing power over the prople slowly drip by drip.
No we have eliminated barriers to Iran going NUC, are dropping import and export sanctions against a regeme that calls for
our destruction daily, and next we are going to give them billions of dollars for their oil so they can buy or develope weapons
to use against us.
Without question, this is the stupidest course of action we could take for America.
Billy the Poet -> FreeMoney
No we have eliminated barriers to Iran going NUC
Cite the specifics or shut the fuck up. Iran was already a signatory to the NNPT which barred them from developing nuclear
weapons and this treaty sets the bar even higher.
DutchBoy2015 -> FreeMoney
Stop with your stupid goddam LIES.
Iran never threatened the USA , you fucking MORON. You believe bullshit.
A group of 30 paid agents screaming ''Death to America'' does NOT a revolution make.
I bet you have never been to Tehran. You just parrot the bullshit your lying ZioNazis feed you.
Pathetic.
DutchBoy2015 -> FreeMoney
Morons like you don't have a fucking clue about the real world. YOu support despotic regimes like Saudi where women can't drive,
and they behead people daily , and have actually asked Pakistan for nukes.
monoloco
So many logical fallacies there I don't know where to start. For one, what would be the motive to "buy or develop weapons to
use against us" ? If the sanctions are lifted and they are participating in the world's economy by selling oil on the open market,
it would be completely counter-productive to attack a country that could totally destroy the economy that lifting the sanctions
enabled. But don't let logic or facts get in the way of pushing the Zionist/corporate agenda.
Babaloo
There is so much wrong with this post it almost defies belief. Let's start with this quote: "...in the face of allies home
and abroad deriding the agreement." How can the writer seriously expect sentient humans to believe this? Our "allies" England,
France, Germany, as well as non-allies, China and Russia were signatories to the deal! If by "allies" we're saying Israel, well,
that's a whole different set of "allies" isn't it?
ajkreider
This is brilliant stuff. Obama is such a darling of the oil services industry. Is Cheney still VP?
$185 billion is chump change, and the U.S. isn't getting that anyway.
Do the people who write this garbage have paying jobs?
DutchBoy2015
German and French company CEOs are already in Tehran making deals. Not oil companies but companies like Bosch,AEG, Stihl, Miele
etc.
Iranians use washing machines, power tools etc etc also.
Everything in my home is German or Korean. NOT one USA product because they don't make anything but weapons and burgers anymore.
assistedliving
185 Billion Reasons
You got a problem with that?
I lived in Iran awhile back. Imo, best place in entire Near East except maybe Lebanon. Only Iran far richer, culturally and
every other way except maybe cuisine.
Jack Burton
How do you say "American frackers are dead, and several hundred thousand jobs will die." already identified 50 oil and gas
projects it will offer for bids - with the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion...
It was not long ago that media was abuzz with the fracking miracle, energy independence, USA the new Saudi Arabia etc.
etc. What everyone failed to realize is all energy is not the same. Some is low cost to produce and transport, others are high
cost, out at the margines of profitability. We know where Fracking stood on that scale. Not to mention Canadian Tar Mines, coming
in at the top of production costs. Harper bet Canada's future on a total Tar Sands development policy. That investment is looking
questionable. And I for one can find few if any new media coverage of North Dakota. Though they still produce in a deperate bid
to keep meeting debt repayments. Their hedges are the only thing keeping companies alive at present.
smacker
OK. Obola bends over for Big Oil and gets his kicks by stuffing the US workforce that will go to Iran full of CIA spies.
"I know nothing about this stuff, can you tell me what you think is the true long-run marginal cost?
Is the $67/barrel futures number close to it in your opinion?" ... "xo: I think $75 is a better estimate,
though I second-guess the market only with trepidation."
"...If you do the supply-demand pairs, the resulting graph suggests that it will be quite difficult
to hold the price below $85 Brent over the long run. This appears to be above the marginal cost for
shales, but it's important to keep in mind that the relevant measure is system-wide marginal cost, not
just that of shales. "
"...Interesting enough, the case histories tend to show that regardless of how oil exporters
treat internal consumption, given an ongoing production decline, the net export decline rate tends to
exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate tends to accelerate with time. "
Given an ongoing production decline in a net oil exporting country, unless they cut their domestic
oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production or at a faster rate, the resulting
net export decline rate will exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate will
accelerate with time. Furthermore, a net oil exporter can become a net oil importer, even with rising
production, if the rate of increase in consumption exceeds the rate of increase in production, e.g.,
the US and China.
"...A deal with Iran could bring an additional 1 mbpd onto the market, substantially depressing
prices for as much as six months, I would guess. But timing and certainty are hard to predict. "
The WSJ brings up something I was going to, and I bet it explains the difference between the
DMR and EIA.
About half the cost of a fracked Bakken well is the frac job, drill rigs are typically under
long term contract which are slowly expiring by the month, but the equipment leased for frac jobs
is typically on a shorter timeframe. Some drilling is also necessary to hold land leases. Increasing
stringency of DMR requirements on gas flaring also are delaying some completions.
However, I posted something that I found very interesting, at the bottom of the prior thread.
Earlier this year, Steven Kopits' staked out a pretty lonely position regarding the outlook 2015
supply and demand (total liquids basis), and I thought it very interesting that Art Berman has
an article on increased consumption that is quite supportive of Steven Kopits' (January, 2015)
article on supply less demand:
World oil demand increased by 1.1 million barrels per day in February
This is a potentially important data point that suggests a crude oil price recovery sooner
than later. It is also important because it further supports the view that a production surplus
and not weak demand is the main cause for the recent oil-price fall.
The latest data from EIA shows that February world liquids production was flat with January
but consumption increased 1.1 million barrels per day. This reduces the relative production
surplus (production minus consumption) from 1.68 million barrels per day in January to 0.56
million barrels in February.
Steven Kopits' (January, 2015) outlook for global supply less demand:
Having noted Steven Kopits' continuing track record of being remarkably prescient regarding
global oil supply and demand analysis, I do have one issue with global supply & demand analysis
-– consumption in net oil exporting countries versus consumption in net oil importing countries,
to -- wit, to paraphrase "Animal Farm," in my opinion some consumers are more equal than others.
Let's assume a scenario where all oil production and refining operations are in oil exporting
countries and let's ignore things like refinery gains. Total petroleum liquids production is 80
mbpd and consumption in the oil exporting countries is 40 mbpd, and they therefore net export
40 mbpd to oil importing countries.
Production rises by 2.5 mbpd in the oil exporting countries, so total supply increases from
80 mbpd to 82.5 mbpd. However, consumption in the oil exporting countries rose by 5 mbpd. So,
Net Exports = Production – Consumption = 82.5 mbpd – 45 mbpd = 37.5 mbpd.
My point is that a global supply and demand analysis would not accurately represent the situation
in the net oil importing countries, i.e., a 6.25% decline in the supply available to net
importers (40 mbpd to 37.5 mbpd), although global supply is up by 3.125%, 80 mbpd to 82.5
mbpd.
Of course, the crux of what I call "Export Land Model" or ELM, is that for a number of reasons
(subsidies, proximity to production, legal restrictions, etc.), consumption in oil exporting countries
tends to be satisfied before oil is exported.
Interesting enough, the case histories tend to show that regardless of how oil exporters
treat internal consumption, given an ongoing production decline, the net export decline rate tends
to exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate tends to accelerate with
time.
For example, Indonesia subsidizes petroleum consumption and the UK heavily taxes petroleum
consumption, but both former net oil exporters showed accelerating rates of decline in their net
exports (in excess of their respective production decline rates).
Here are the ELM Mathematical Facts of Life:
Given an ongoing production decline in a net oil exporting country, unless they cut their
domestic oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production or at a faster
rate, the resulting net export decline rate will exceed the production decline rate and the net
export decline rate will accelerate with time. Furthermore, a net oil exporter can become a net
oil importer, even with rising production, if the rate of increase in consumption exceeds the
rate of increase in production, e.g., the US and China.
The (2005) Top 33 net exporters showed a slight increase in production from 2005 to 2013, from
about 62 mbpd to 63 mbpd (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA), but their rate of increase
in consumption exceed their rate of increase in production and their combined net exports (what
I call Global Net Exports, or GNE) fell from 46 mbpd in 2005 to 43 mbpd in 2013.
Furthermore, China and India ("Chindia") consumed an increasing share of a post-2005 declining
volume of GNE. What I call Available Net Exports (ANE, or GNE less Chinidia's Net Imports, CNI)
fell from 41 mbpd in 2005 to 34 mbpd in 2013.
Here's the Available Net Exports problem:
Given an ongoing decline in GNE–and it's when, not if–then unless the Chindia region cuts
their oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in GNE, or at a faster rate, the
resulting rate of decline in ANE will exceed the GNE decline rate and the ANE decline rate will
accelerate with time.
From 2005 to 2013, GNE fell at 0.8%year. From 2005 to 2013, ANE -- the supply of Global
Net Exports of oil available to importers other than China & India -- fell at 2.3%/year.
"we will settle down to a price around the true long-run marginal cost."
I know nothing about this stuff, can you tell me what you think is the true long-run marginal
cost? Is the $67/barrel futures number close to it in your opinion?
If you do the supply-demand pairs, the resulting graph suggests that it will be quite difficult
to hold the price below $85 Brent over the long run. This appears to be above the marginal cost
for shales, but it's important to keep in mind that the relevant measure is system-wide marginal
cost, not just that of shales.
Much below $80 Brent, conventional supply falls off and demand grows, and shale growth is more
muted. So it looks pretty hard on paper to hold prices below $80 Brent for a longer period of
time. On the other hand, if we assume that shales can produce what they have recently, then prices
above $90 Brent are again starting looking dicey. At this level, not only are shales more incentivized,
but conventional is also more viable, and demand growth should be more muted. Therefore, I would
put longer-run system-wide marginal cost in the $85 Brent range.
I disagree with JPM and some of the consultancies that prices can be kept below marginal cost
for as long as two years. I believe 12 months is about the limit. Therefore, if you think I think
mid-year 2016 Brent futures are compelling at $63.30, you are right. I would caution, however,
that we may still have a big overhang coming in Q2, so any investment of this sort should have
sufficient downside protection.
The thing is nobody knows what that long-run marginal cost of production will be, and transportation
costs and demand and regulation (eg limits on US crude exports) all matter. The 2020 futures contract
price is no guide. We do need to think about what happens when the major US tight oil fields deplete,
but the estimates that had that coming already around 2020 look very pessimistic now.
When horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing boom hit natural gas, a lot of executives were
saying at drilling was uneconomic when gas was below $4.50 but it's been seven years now.
We have seen some substantial regional declines in predominantly dry gas areas, like the Haynesville
Shale Play, and to a lesser extent, in the Barnett Shale Play. The Haynesville Play is an interesting
case history. EIA data show that Louisiana's shale gas production increased from 1.1 BCF/day in
2009 to 5.8 BCF/day in 2012. At this rate of increase, Louisiana's shale gas production would
have been up to about 31 BCF/day in 2015.
However, primarily due to a decline in Haynesville Play drilling, Lousiana's marketed gas production
(from all sources) fell by 20% from 2012 to 2013 and by another 17% from 2013 to 2014. Note that
these were net declines in production, after new wells were put on line. The gross declines, from
existing wells in 2012 and from existing wells in 2013 would be even higher.
The Louisiana data provide some support for a Citi Research estimate that the underlying gross
decline rate for US gas production is on the order of 24%/year. In round numbers, this decline
rate estimate implies that in order to maintain current US gas production, we have to put on line
the productive equivalent of current Marceullus gas production–every single year, just to maintain
current gas production.
The Haynesville Play is interesting for another reason, since it shows the lag time between
a decline in drilling and a decline in production in this play:
Can you tell me if the following is a reasonable approximation of this new reality? Due to
the near limitless supply of shale that can be pumped profitability at around $75-$80/barrel,
it represents a ceiling for future US gas prices of about $2.75, no matter what the Saudis, Opec,
Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria etc. do.
Crude breaks to a new low today. Once time had transpired and crude showed it could not break
out of the 3-day range set immediately off the January bottom, that failure meant resolution
would eventually be to the downside. This has now happened. The market will now establish a new
range. And all markets will reset off this. Crude oil prices>energy pass-through>core inflation>overall
inflation>eventual bottom in inflation as perceived by the Fed>fed funds rate>rest of yield curve.
This resetting will be a multi-month process. The element of time needed for processes to play
out in an economic system means an inflation bottom cannot now be perceived (confirmed) before
the June FOMC meeting. The only way the Fed could hike in June without seeing the higher back-to-back
PCE numbers needed to confirm a bottom is by abrogating on the inflation prong of their mandate.
The market would punish that.
In the first link, the author states the gap between production and consumption has shrunk
to the lowest level since last April. The data show otherwise. An error of this nature puts his
entire argument in jeopardy. The care taken in writing a piece reflects on the author's mind and
gives us information.
The globe hardly needs more inventory this calendar year. Hence, if production is above consumption
then pressure on price will continue to be downward. The salient chart is EIA 2015 World Liquids
Production and Consumption Forecast. If inventories were already in excess, and if production
is greater than consumption, as is the case each month on the chart, why would price rise? Unless
I am missing something, inventory increases (flows) each month drive the level of inventories
to greater and greater excess, but for the insignificant increment needed for trend-inventory-growth.
Hence the first author's main argument doesn't hold water.
This takes us to the Kopits' article. It is much more nuanced. Which makes any useful forecast
more difficult to ferret out. Nonetheless, the thinking is quite useful as it gives us insight
into various aspects that may otherwise remain hidden. Kopits' main thrust harkens back to the
1986 episode as a parallel to today. At that time, Kopits says, both production and consumption
responded quickly to the huge drop in price. Not to split hairs, but I recently (Dec 22nd) looked
at this episode and concluded an 8-month lag time. That seems longer than the Kopits article expects.
Be that as it may, something else is vitally important. The world is quite different – different
in two ways.
Today a new supply force is in the picture. For the horizon of its short life, US fracking
and increasingly non-US fracking must now be reckoned with. With no blame here, estimates of the
average global marginal cost are all over the place. But when all is said and done, the dynamically
changing technology of fracking and its global spread will keep downward pressure on price. Equally
important, the demand situation is different today. Hamilton estimated 45% of the drop in price
last fall was due to global demand. In 1986, demand was stagnating because of high price. The
price decline in 1986 was wholly due to tapering demand growth. The Saudi's finally had
to relent and increase supply, otherwise Saudi revenue would have fallen to zero. But the prime
initiating cause back then was dwindling demand in a market where price was being held artificially
high by a cartel.
Today's episode has a different source on the demand side. That of stagnating global economic
demand because the Chinese economy is (this is too harsh a word) imploding. The global locomotive
has derailed. Oil demand is suffering from the deceleration of global growth that's radiated out
from China. This is quite unlike 1986. So, things are going to play out differently as well. The
deflationary pressures from China's inevitable and now-arrived slowdown press down on all prices
everywhere. This is not going to go away overnight. At the same time, fracking presses down on
price from the supply side. This is a one-two punch. Forget the monthly numbers. This is the big
picture. It is layered over the very large template of conventional oil well depletion which works
the other way on price. Nonetheless, this one-two punch is the marginal mover and promises to
keep oil prices down for a very long time. Surely through 2016. As at a higher level of causation,
the globe has entered a box canyon with walls of too much debt from which there is no escape.
That debt grew since the 2008 crisis nowhere faster than in China. The unintended consequences
have just now begun to reveal themselves.
The quarterly data from 1986 show that Q2 was the big quarter, with OECD demand rising by nearly
5% in this quarter alone. I think we'll see something like that again. Obviously, 5% growth is
not needed to rebalance the market. 1.2% growth would do it nicely. So we're not talking about
a huge gap.
I don't know how you keep oil prices low once the market has rebalanced. You need at least
sufficient price signals to turn around the NA rig count. We can debate the number. Pioneer, for
example, seems happy at $70-80 WTI. Some claim lower prices. I personally don't think $70 WTI
will stop the rot in onshore conventional and at the IOCs. At that price, shales will both have
to grow rapidly to meet new demand, as well as displace existing supply. It's quite a challenge.
And then we have Whiting, a leading Bakken producer, which put itself up for auction in the
middle of the biggest price downturn likely for a decade. Why would someone do that? If shale
is effectively the entire source of incremental supply globally, then prices must be high
enough to reward shale oil producers for dynamic production growth over the next twelve months.
Why wouldn't the company seek to refinance debt or make a modest capital increase to provide interim
liquidity? Why would management head for the doors? Makes you wonder about the underlying economics.
1986 is the only template. So it attracts like a flame to moth. Yet the macro context
is very different. Then there was a big three: Europe, US, Japan. Today there is a big four. China,
the locomotive of this tepid recovery, is now derailed. You can get off on the wrong foot by not
fully recognizing this. China was the straw that broke the oil camel's back. Nor is China's slowing
transitory.
In '86, central banks had begun forcefully taking the dollar down. Though for different reasons,
the direction is quite the opposite today. The US economy had a swift undercurrent coming off
the '82 bottom. Because that recession was a true, healthy cleansing, the economy was poised for
a long run ahead. Japan was a powerhouse. All these conditions (and more) are reversed today.
Always dicey picking comparison starting points. That said, let me take the two oil peaks and
look two years ahead. Sep '85 WTI at $30.81, fell to $11.59 by Jul 1986 and by Sep '87 had rebounded
to $19.53. June 2014, oil at $105.79. We don't yet know the bottom. If it's not until a 62.4%
drop as in '86, oil will go to $39.80. A proportionate rebound would then take it back to $67
in Jun 2016. The market is itching to take oil to $39. The market has a very long memory, and
coincidentally $39 was the 2009 low. Within this 2-year horizon, the sharper the drop the bigger
the rebound. If oil stops today at $42, it's less likely to get to $67. Momentum must never be
denied.
Suppose it goes to $39 (which I judge is where it is going, if not further), now we can look
at the comparisons. Year-over-year, world real GDP grew 3.4% in '86. The US 3.5%, EU 2.9%, Japan
2.8%. There was a hit to growth in '86 of ½ ppt. Then an equivalent rebound in '87. The oil dislocation
was temporarily stunning.
Even more critical differences. The funds rate fell from 7.9% to 5.9% the first year, and averaged
6.6% in the second. The 10-year fell from 10.4% to 7.5%, and averaged 8% in the second. Today
the funds rate is going up, and just maybe the 10-year will average 20 basis points lower in year
two than where it was last June. The consensus actually expects it to average higher. US monetary
policy is a headwind for global growth, and hence oil. Economic fundamentals were strong in '86
thanks to the recessionary cleanse of '82, and sensible policy including deregulation. The expansion
was 3-years young when oil prices started collapsing, and the expansion ran 4 more years. Hence
the bull market in stocks was real. The expansion was 5 years along this time when oil dropped.
And today the stock market is at the cusp of being the 3rd largest bubble ever! World oil consumption
rose 2.9% '86 over '85; US rose 3.5%. That in the context of tailwinds from monetary policy, the
energy-intensive US economy benefiting from a falling dollar, and Japan ramping up to 4% growth
in '87 and 7% in '88. Today there are only headwinds, and they are severe. Add to that the fracking
boom on the supply side, no matter that it is being muzzled. (Depletion of conventional oil cuts
the other way, of course.)
The biggest headwind is debt! In the '86 episode, debt was not far from optimal. This cushion
allowed US credit to increase 14% in '86 and 10% in '87. Hence aggregate demand got a big boost,
and hence so did oil demand. Today global debt is at an historic high. Far, far beyond optimal.
Precisely why China is slowing, the eurozone is at stall speed, and Japan is and will not get
anywhere. Nothing but stagnation until the debt ratio comes down. For comparison, US credit rose
1.9% last year and is on track for 2% this year. That's below nominal growth, precisely the opposite
of the 1986:Q2 surge you refer to. On top of all this, financial fragility has to be reckoned
in. Over the remaining course of the 2-year horizon, there is a non-zero probability the next
– for there will be one – financial calamity may strike. This has to be factored into the oil
analysis.
Global growth is a function of the dollar and global trade, exchange rate problems emerging
markets are now having, wrenching change in the oil patch, monetary tightening in the US, QEs
abroad that may have some minor positive effect during our horizon, asset markets across the globe
in bubbles, and a level of debt that is highly constricting. These larger forces make vehicle
mileage etc. minor players. Arguing from Texas as Kemp does is a classic mistake. It is narrow
and monotonic. Not only that, the current Feb-over-Feb change he touts as his main argument is
not much bigger percentage-wise than the prior one. The marginal impact on Texas motor fuel tax
receipts of the drop in oil has hardly been a big one. And "as the economy strengthens" is contrary
to what is happening. The flow of economic reports since September is showing the largest cumulative
net negative since 2010. Q1 growth will be dismal. Nor do we know when this will turn up, as we
have never been in a place like this before. Specifically, in (a) an artificial economy post-crisis
with (b) China now decelerating. Though not well understood, the second derivative is always a
dominant force. All this means $67 oil by June 2016 is unlikely.
So Far, Saudi and Global Net Exports of Oil Peaked in 2005
A crucial point about Saudi Arabia that almost everyone overlooks is that Saudi net oil exports
have been below their 2005 net export rate of 9.1 mbpd (total petroleum liquids + other liquids)
for eight, almost certainly nine, straight years.
As annual Brent crude oil prices rose from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005, Saudi net exports
increased from 7.1 mbpd in 2002 to 9.1 mbpd in 2005.
As annual Brent crude oil prices averaged $110 for 2011 to 2013, Saudi net exports averaged
8.7 mpbd for 2011 to 2013 inclusive, versus 9.1 mbpd n 2005.
While it's possible that the Saudis chose to reduce their net exports after 2005, a more
plausible scenario in my opinion is that they could not exceed their 2005 net export rate, at
least without doing long term damaged to their reservoirs.
Global Tight/Shale Plays to the Rescue?
Regarding tight/shale play potential globally, a key question is whether wells like the Bakken
Play, i.e., quickly declining wells with an average production rate of a little over 100 bpd and
a median production rate of less than 100 bpd, will work in much higher operating cost areas around
the world.
Also, one has to consider the quality of the liquids production from tight/shale plays.
What refiners want and need is generally 40 API gravity and lower crude oil (and when we ask
for the price of oil, we get the price of 40 API and lower crude oil). The EIA's own data and
projection show that it took about half the global (oil and gas) rig fleet to increase US 40 and
lower API gravity crude oil production by just 0.5 mbpd from 2011 to 2014.
EIA chart showing actual and projected US liquids production by API gravity (light blue and
lower on the chart is 40 API and lower):
On the upside, there are two wildcards today, that is, Iran and Libya.
A deal with Iran could bring an additional 1 mbpd onto the market, substantially depressing
prices for as much as six months, I would guess. But timing and certainty are hard to predict.
Big demand numbers coming out of India and Europe, by the way.
California (Bay Area) is still $3.25/gallon at the pump. California gets mostly Brent prices,
not WTI, but still. Cheap oil has not made gas prices much lower in the Bay Area.
As Steven noted, many things are possible, but it's worthwhile reviewing some previous scenarios
regarding Brazil & Iraq.
Circa 2009, the Iraqi Oil Ministry claimed that Iraq could hit 12 mbpd of production within
about seven years, and following is a graph prepared by Stuart Staniford, showing a simple extrapolation
that would put Iraq's oil production at 12 mbpd by 2016. In 2014, based on the projection, they
would be at about 9.6 mbpd.
Iraq's actual production in 2014 was probably about 3.3 mbpd (total petroleum liquids).
And following is an April, 2009 Bloomberg column talking about Brazil's projected rising oil
production "Taking market share away from OPEC." In reality, Brazil is a net oil importer, with
a recent track record of increasing net imports, even if we count biofuels as production. In 2009,
Brazil's production was basically equal to production, but by 2013 their net imports had increased
to 0.4 mbpd.
Iraq's net exports increased from 1.8 mbpd in 2009 to 2.3 mbpd in 2013 (total petroleum liquids
+ other liquids, EIA). So, the combined increase in net exports from Brazil + Iraq from 2009 to
2013 pretty much rounds to zero (0.1 mbpd).
Also, in regard to the April, 2009 Bloomberg column and the following quote from said column,
"As OPEC nations make their biggest oil production cuts on record, Brazil, Russia and the U.S.
are pumping more, threatening to send crude back below $50 a barrel as demand slows," monthly
Brent crude oil prices were then in the process of rising at 43%/year, from December, 2008 to
February, 2011.
April 14 (Bloomberg) - As OPEC nations make their biggest oil production cuts on record,
Brazil, Russia and the U.S. are pumping more, threatening to send crude back below $50 a barrel
as demand slows. U.S. imports from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries fell 818,000
barrels a day, or 14 percent, to 5.02 million in January from a year earlier, according to
the latest monthly report from the Energy Department. At the same time, imports from Brazil
more than doubled to 397,000 and Russia's increased almost 10-fold to 157,000, a trend that
continued in February and March, according to data from each country. . .
Petroleo Brasileiro SA, the state-controlled energy company, said in January that it plans
to invest $174.4 billion through 2013 to boost production oil and gas production to the equivalent
of 4.63 million barrels a day by 2015 from 2.40 million in 2008.
And don't forget
Iran.
In early 2016, once economic sanctions are fully lifted, it is expected to join the SCO, turning
it into a G9. As its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, made clear recently to Russia's Channel 1 television,
Tehran considers the two countries strategic partners. "Russia," he said, "has been the most important
participant in Iran's nuclear program and it will continue under the current agreement to be Iran's
major nuclear partner." The same will, he added, be true when it comes to "oil and gas cooperation,"
given the shared interest of those two energy-rich nations in "maintaining stability in global market
prices."
philipat
Add also a pissed-off Saudi Arabia agreeing to China (It's largest customer) paying for oil
in CNY much sooner than would otherwise have been the case. Then too the peoples of Europe are
waking up to the fact that sanctions against Russia are unwarranted and are not in the best interests
of Europe itself and that further tensions with Russia, created by the US, could result in nuclear
war IN EUROPE whilst the US mainland would probably be unaffected,
So, all in all, yes a brilliant strategy by the neocons who seem to be living in the past....
ebworthen
The U.S.A. deserves to have rings run around it; we have been incredibly arrogant, and fomented
war instead of heeding the instructions of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution (which has
been trampled by those sworn to protect it).
I think much more the 23 billion is distressed. And this is by design...
"...More than $22 billion of the $235 billion of the debt owed by 62 North American oil companies, however, is "distressed"
and unlikely to be paid back."
As prices continue to fall, concerns are increasing on Wall Street as to the quality of their loans to unprofitable oil and gas
companies. Many banks are starting to set aside money to cover bad loans which eat into banking industry profits. In recent years
Wall Street has been the biggest ally of the "shale revolution" by allowing companies to exceed their debt limits time after time
in hopes that they would someday turn profitable. With US oil prices now below $50 a barrel and unlikely to climb significantly during
the next year or so, bankers are demanding that drillers reduce their credit lines and increase equity. In response US oil producers
have raised some $44 billion by selling bonds and shares in the first half of this year. More than $22 billion of the $235 billion
of the debt owed by 62 North American oil companies, however, is "distressed" and unlikely to be paid back.
The recent drop in oil prices is giving Moscow second thoughts about the economic recovery in 2016 that President Putin has been
talking about. Russia will face recession or stagnation if oil trades near $50 a barrel next year. If oil is trading near $40 a barrel,
Moscow is facing a 7 percent decline in its GDP next year.
"...The oil companies and service companies have already made deep spending cuts with substantial
redundancies. Nevertheless, the momentum built in the last 5 years continues to feed through to higher
production levels. Many companies will have been hoping for signs of a robust recovery in price by now,
hanging tough to retain staff for when the upturn comes. I suspect that over the next 6 months we will
see a second wave of cuts. Things are indeed already austere here in Aberdeen."
I have become an avid reader of the International Energy Agency Oil Market Report. A "free" synopsis
is published mid month with the full report and data tables made public at the end of the month.
Here are the bullets from the
report summary published
on 10th July:
Crude oil prices fell to their lowest in nearly three months in early July, pressured
by ever rising supply while financial turmoil in Greece and China unsettled world markets. At
the time of writing, Brent was around $59/bbl and US WTI at $53.10/bbl.
Global oil demand growth is forecast to slow to 1.2 mb/d in 2016, from an average 1.4 mb/d
this year, with strong consumption expected in non-OECD Asia. World oil demand growth appears
to have peaked in 1Q15 at 1.8 mb/d and will continue to ease throughout the rest of this year
and into next as temporary support fades.
Global oil supply surged by 550 kb/d in June, on higher output from OPEC and non-OPEC.
At 96.6 mb/d, world oil production gained an impressive 3.1 mb/d on 2014, of which OPEC crude
and NGLs accounted for 60%. Non-OPEC supply growth is expected to grind to a halt in 2016, as
lower oil prices and spending cuts take a toll.
OPEC crude supply rose by 340 kb/d in June to 31.7 mb/d, a three-year high, led by record
high output from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. OPEC output stood 1.5 mb/d above the previous
year. The 'call on OPEC crude and stock change' for 2016 is forecast to rise by 1 mb/d, to 30.3
mb/d.
OECD industry inventories hit a record 2 876 mb in May, up by a steep 38.0 mb. Product
holdings led the build and by end-month covered 30.7 days of forward demand. Global supply and
demand balances suggest that the rate of global stock builds quickened rapidly to an astonishing
3.3 mb/d during 2Q15.
Robust margins spurred stronger-than-expected OECD refinery runs, lifting 2Q15 global throughput
estimates to 78.7 mb/d. Global refinery throughputs are forecast to increase by a further
0.7 mb/d in 3Q15, with annual gains shifting to the non-OECD. New capacity start-ups in 2015 and
2016 will put margins under pressure.
The title of this post, "The bottom of the market may still be ahead", is the last line of
the July IEA OMR summary. Those companies and investors hoping for an early end to this low
price crisis may be disappointed. Global supply was up again in June by 550,000 bpd. Demand growth
looks set to slow. Inventories are at record levels. And not surprisingly prices have once again
yielded to the gravity of glut and have fallen below $60 / bbl. To add insult to injury US oil rig
count has risen these last two weeks and UK North Sea oil production looks set to rise in the years
ahead.
Rig Count
The US oil rig count has fallen every week since December 2014, that is until two weeks ago when
it rose for the first time in 7 months a feat repeated last Friday.
The US oil rig count has risen over the last two weeks by a total of 17 units. So what is going
on? Why have the shale producers not all gone bankrupt as some industry watchers forecast.
An interesting article in
Breitbart, posted by Roger Andrews in
this week's Blowout, gives some clues.
The U.S. "fully burdened exploration and production "break-even" cost is now $51 per barrel,
and falling fast. Furthermore, with hundreds of American oil companies having already paid
the exploration lease acquisition costs to accumulate tens of thousands of drilling sites, the
production-only break-even cost for positive cash-flow is about $29 a barrel. After tacking
on a 9 percent profit, U.S. domestic oil companies are now incentivized to produce domestic oil
any time the price is above $32 a barrel.
The operating cost base for drilling and producing shale oil has followed the oil price down.
If these figures from Breitbart are anywhere close to correct then many OPEC members should be extremely
concerned. Can they run their social services on $30 per barrel?
UK Oil Production to Increase
Not only do the oil companies and the oil price have to contend with robust US production but
there is a prospect of UK oil production increasing for the first time since the year 2000. The forecast
scenario below is from Derek Louden who provides a tremendous overview of UK oil production in
this presentation.
UK oil production has a historic decline rate of about 9% per annum. It was always the case that
when production declined so far that it would become easier to reverse basin decline. For example,
when production stood at 2.9 Mbpd, 261,000 bpd new production capacity was required every year to
replace declines. Now that production is closer to 0.8 Mbpd, 72,000 bpd new capacity will do
the job.
The record high price of recent years has led to record levels of investment that are only now
working through the system with several major new field developments due to come on line in the next
couple of years. Derek Louden lists all new developments on pages 42 and 43 of his report. The big
ones are: Schiehallion redevelopment, Clair phase 2, Kraken and Mariner. If all goes according
to plan then UK production will rise before falling again before the end of the decade.
Oil Stocks
One of the big surprises of the IEA OMR is the record crude oil and products inventory levels
that they do not fully understand. In the past I have never managed to make much sense of inventory
changes and it is hence a variable that I have not followed. It is perhaps time to put that right.
The chart shows the development of stock levels in the USA based on
EIA data.
In a recent comment Jim suggested that the flood of LTO may produce a flood of propane and NGL
that currently has no where to go but storage. In the USA this does seem to be a part of but not
the whole story. It is a rise in crude oil stocks that underpins the recent surge in US inventory.
Concluding Thoughts
The oil companies and service companies have already made deep spending cuts with substantial
redundancies. Nevertheless, the momentum built in the last 5 years continues to feed through to higher
production levels. Many companies will have been hoping for signs of a robust recovery in price by
now, hanging tough to retain staff for when the upturn comes. I suspect that over the next 6 months
we will see a second wave of cuts. Things are indeed already austere here in Aberdeen.
One thing we seem to have heard little about so far is austerity within OPEC. There seemed to
be solidarity for the current strategy at their June meeting. I wonder how much longer this will
last?
"Unfortunately for Iran, the timing could not be worse. Oil prices are depressed and already
there is a glut of oil on the market. Adding Iran's crude will put further downward pressure on oil
prices." -- May be that was the idea form the very beginning ;-)
Handjani also said it was likely that Iran would soon be able to sell crude. "I think that is
where we will see the most immediate loosening up of restrictions," Handjani said. "Iran has between
40m and 50m barrels of crude at sea. Expect this crude to come to the market in short order. They
will start competing fiercely to regain market share that they have lost to their Persian Gulf neighbours.
Unfortunately for Iran, the timing could not be worse. Oil prices are depressed and already there
is a glut of oil on the market. Adding Iran's crude will put further downward pressure on oil prices."
"...Each time, the shale driller came close to violating debt limits set by its lenders, endangering
a credit line that provided as much as $1.05 billion in much-needed cash. Each time, Halcon's banks,
led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., loosened their restrictions, allowing Halcon to keep
borrowing."
"...When the Iran effect hits (by design), perhaps one the triggers in months upcoming, things
will "fall" into place (edit: meaning oil slides further and further...GOD will have one very stumpy
leg come September...)..."
"...Chesapeake is just an obvious turd floating on top. I live in oil country and I've got bets
with friends on exactly which crash first, but I lost on Chesapeake since I figured they'd go down months
ago....."
"...Shale plays are going belly up like no one is considering and the banks over sold their
junk bonds at high premiums"
Earlier today, Chesapeake Energy - in a mad scramble to conserve cash - eliminated its common
dividend, a move which i) will save the company around $240 million per year, but ii) caused the
stock to plunge to a twelve-year low.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, as we quipped earlier this month, drillers are about to be "zero
hedged" as the price protection which accounted for 15% of Q1 revenue for around half of North
American E&P companies (and which also helped keep bank credit lines open), rolls off.
Because
the
next round of revolver raids for the industry isn't due until October, investors may have been
lulled to sleep by exactly the kind of credit facilities Chesapeake cites as contributing to its
"extremely strong" liquidity position. In short, banks are about to run out of patience with this
industry.
Bloomberg has more:
Halcon Resources Corp. almost ran into trouble with its banks in June 2013. And again in March
2014. And in February 2015.
Each time, the shale driller came close to violating debt limits set by its lenders, endangering
a credit line that provided as much as $1.05 billion in much-needed cash. Each time, Halcon's
banks, led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., loosened their restrictions, allowing
Halcon to keep borrowing.
That kind of patience may be coming to an end. Bank regulators have issued warnings on the
risks involved in lending to U.S. drillers, threatening a cash crunch in an industry that's more
dependent than ever on other people's money. Wall Street has been one of the biggest allies of
the shale revolution, bankrolling thousands of wells from Texas to North Dakota. The question
is how that will change with oil prices down by half since last year to about $50 a barrel.
"Lenders in general are increasing pressure on oil companies either to raise more equity or
do some sort of transaction to pay down their credit lines and free up extra cash," said Jimmy
Vallee, a partner in the energy mergers and acquisitions practice at law firm Paul Hastings LLP
in Houston.
Banks are already preparing for the next reevaluation of oil and gas credit lines, reviews
which typically take place twice a year in April and October. The loans are based on the value
of drillers' producing reserves, which has shrunk as oil prices fell. Many companies are also
losing protection as hedges that locked in prices as high as $90 a barrel begin to expire.
"There's another redetermination cycle in the fall," Marianne Lake, chief financial officer
at JPMorgan in New York, said July 14 during a conference call to discuss the company's earnings.
"And I'm not going to say likely but it's possible we'll be selectively downgrading some clients."
Banks so far have been willing to keep the money flowing because drillers that come close to
maxing out their credit lines have paid them off by tapping public markets. U.S. producers have
raised about $44 billion through bonds and share sales in the first half of this year, the most
since 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and UBS Group AG.
Oh regional Indian
Shale and all it's derivative FIRE related activities have not even felt the Iran effect yet,
which is building, multi-billion dollar projects flying off the shelf, 21 nuclear reactors (dumbfucks).....
When the Iran effect hits (by design), perhaps one the triggers in months upcoming, things
will "fall" into place. (edit: meaning oil slides further and further...GOD will have one very
stumpy leg come september...)...
One way or the other, the march to Agenda 21 will not be denied except by a deux ex machina...
Chesapeake is just an obvious turd floating on top. I live in oil country and I've got
bets with friends on exactly which crash first, but I lost on Chesapeake since I figured they'd
go down months ago.....
youngman
I think this is a 5 year playout....its going to be tough going for 5 years but by then oil
and gas will be back as a profitable investment game...
Soul Glow
^^ This is what will crash the markets. Shale plays are going belly up like no one is considering
and the banks over sold their junk bonds at high premiums. 2008 MBS all over again.
"...The price of oil has fallen from more than $100 per barrel in June 2014 to under $60 today, and
Brown said the company has believed for months that it will take until 2020 for the price to rise
to a mere $90 per barrel."
"...It will take several years [for oil prices to recover fully], but we do believe fundamentals
will return"
Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell,
and one of his senior executives envision low oil prices for some time unless energy producers
cut production and the demand for fuel doesn't rebound.
In a wide-ranging interview with
Oil & Gas Technology published July 14, van Beurden spoke of competing benefits of the low price
of oil for fuel demand, and its liabilities for those who produce it.
"Low prices have big implications for exporting countries like Iran, Russia and Venezuela,"
he said.
"But also for shale-producers in the U.S., and even the domestic budgets of producers
in the Gulf states. In consuming nations, low oil prices are an economic boon stimulating
growth and demand."
For the near term, van Beurden pointed to one key forecast that this year will see more worldwide
demand than in 2014. "Compared to last year, the International Monetary Fund expects the global economy
to grow [in 2015]," he said. "So global oil demand is expected to grow as well."
But he stressed that many oil producers also are reluctant to explore and drill for oil because
of smaller profit margins. Therefore, he said, "Supply … may even decline." As for Shell itself,
though, he said, "We're determined to avoid a start-stop approach to investment."
As for the global market, Van Beurden said that at best, "a rapid recovery could occur if projects
are postponed or even canceled. This would lead to less new supply – not so much now, but in two
or three years. Combined with economic growth, the market could tighten quickly in this scenario."
But he pointed to one major snag in that view: U.S. shale oil. A boom in North
American production over the past few years helped to create the glut that led to the steep decline
in oil prices that began a year ago. OPEC, under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, decided to fight
shale producers with a price war, hoping that keeping prices low would make shale extraction, already
costly, unprofitable.
But if shale producers cut costs and take other steps to keep producing, van Beurden said, "With
moderate economic growth, prices could stay low for longer."
Van Beurden qualified his outlook by stressing that "I can't predict the future," but his director
of oil and gas production outside America gave a more specific view of Shell's expectations in a
separate
interview with Reuters, published July 16.
Andy Brown, a top Shell official, said the Anglo-Dutch oil giant forecasts no quick rebound
in the average global price of oil, but only a gradual recovery lasting five years. He attributed
this sluggishness to a slowdown in China's economy, leading a drop in demand for fuel, and the continuing
oversupply of oil.
The price of oil has fallen from more than $100 per barrel in June 2014 to under $60 today, and
Brown said the company has believed for months that it will take until 2020 for the price to rise
to a mere $90 per barrel.
In fact, he said, that was a key driver for Shell to offer of $70 billion to buy rival BG Group
more than three months ago. This not only supports van Beurden's insistence that low oil prices won't
cause Shell to trim investments, but also expands Shell's capabilities in deepwater oil production
and gives it immediate entree to markets for liquid natural gas (LNG).
"It will take several years [for oil prices to recover fully], but we do believe fundamentals
will return," Brown said. "Until such time, we, like other companies, will have to make
sure we stay robust."
"..."I expect the United States will be exporting close to 300,000 barrels a day of processed condensate
by the end of 2015", says energy analyst Andrew Lipow, president of the consulting firm that bears his
name. That's still just a fraction of the oil exported by Saudi Arabia, or even Venezuela. But it could
become a flood if Congress acts to lift the 1975 ban altogether. "
"...Two years after the economic trauma caused in part by the Arab oil embargo of 1973–74, Congress
passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA. It directed President Gerald Ford "to promulgate
a rule prohibiting the export of crude oil" produced in the United States. "
"...Between 2007 and 2012 fracking sparked an 18-fold increase in U.S. production of high-quality
crude oil known as light tight oil, or LTO."
The United States should export energy in the form of oil to allies and leverage a new American
petro-diplomacy against adversaries.
America's energy security faces a strange paradox. On the one hand, we are the only leading industrial
nation that prohibits crude oil exports. On the other, foreign tankers regularly line up at the dock
in Galveston, Texas, to take on what is not supposed to leave the country, namely, crude oil-almost
half a million barrels to South Korea alone last September and October.
The paradox is explained by the fact that this exported oil is ultra-light condensate from natural
gas extraction, which the Commerce Department has decided is not crude oil as defined under the law
Congress passed back in 1975 to ban oil exports. That technical loophole has allowed U.S. producers
to export so much condensate that we are now shipping more oil than we did in the record year of
1957-more than 400,000 barrels a day, much of it condensate.1"I expect the United
States will be exporting close to 300,000 barrels a day of processed condensate by the end of 2015",
says energy analyst Andrew Lipow, president of the consulting firm that bears his name. That's still
just a fraction of the oil exported by Saudi Arabia, or even Venezuela. But it could become a flood
if Congress acts to lift the 1975 ban altogether.
The explosive growth of available condensate reflects the key new factor in America's energy equation,
namely the widely discussed shale revolution. Since 2008 America has been producing record amounts
of shale natural gas in addition to shale oil-more oil, in fact, than the current market can absorb.
The result is that we are now almost literally awash in oil that we can't ship abroad because of
a law built around erroneous 1970s-era assumptions about "peak oil", which kindled expectations of
looming oil shortages and dwindling supply.
For these reasons most experts, and a growing number of politicians, agree that the paradox of
America's current oil exports is passing into the realm of absurdity. But the question of whether
to lift the ban or preserve it has set off a major debate on Capitol Hill pitting free marketers
against those who fear that ending the ban will drain away our hard-won national energy independence.
Unfortunately, the debate tends to get stuck on conflicting economic priorities when the real
issue should be strategy, and when the real question should be not whether to lift the 1975 oil export
ban, but how. Other oil-exporting countries use the commodity to further their national interests,
and there is no reason the United States should not do the same. Without violating free-market principles,
we can turn our energy superpower status into strategic advantage to help friends and gain leverage
over enemies, and thus to restore American leadership around the globe.
Two years after the economic trauma caused in part by the Arab oil embargo of 1973–74, Congress
passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA. It directed President Gerald Ford "to promulgate
a rule prohibiting the export of crude oil" produced in the United States. At the time it seemed
a sensible if somewhat drastic response to a massive rise in the price of oil and to a domestic oil
industry that was nearly overwhelmed by growing demand (this was before completion of the Alaska
Pipeline). It also conformed to historical precedent: Congress and the Ford Administration knew that
the Eisenhower Administration had decided in 1957 that it was cheaper and strategically wiser to
buy what was then very inexpensive oil abroad and keep domestic oil in the ground as a strategic
asset. In 1975, the United States believed it had to keep every drop of oil it pumped-especially
when U.S. oil production was tumbling below ten million barrels a day, with no end to the fall-off
in sight. Indeed, even with the Alaska Prudhoe Bay fields, domestic oil production dropped to just
over five million bpd by 2000, a fourth of daily domestic consumption.
Then the shale revolution happened, otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Between 2007 and 2012 fracking sparked an 18-fold increase in U.S. production of high-quality crude
oil known as light tight oil, or LTO. U.S. crude oil production is now headed back to ten million
barrels a day, even as domestic demand first declined and then flat-lined. The result is more oil
than we can refine at home, as producers struggle to find ways to get around the 1975 export ban
through regulatory waivers like the one for condensate.
Light tight oil (LTO) is a lighter crude, meaning that it is less viscous and "sweeter", which
in petrospeak means it contains less sulfur, making it easier and less expensive to refine. It's
a product much in demand among refineries in Asia and Europe. Meanwhile, refineries in this country
are largely designed for handling the heavier crude that comes from Mexico, Canada, and South America.
America's heavy crude refiners can process LTO but only with a significant loss of efficiency, which
means they demand a considerable discount from producers. The point here is that LTO is an oil virtually
made for export rather than for domestic U.S. consumption. LTO is an oil virtually made for export
rather than for domestic U.S. consumption.
That's one reason why Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has recently introduced a bill, S.1312,
that lifts the ban on crude oil and which has found no less than eleven co-sponsors, including six
committee chairmen. Not surprisingly, the American Petroleum Institute has been strongly supportive,
predicting that an expanded export market would generate another half million barrels of oil a day
to meet global demand and directly and indirectly create as many as 300,000 jobs.
Proponents of lifting the ban have included President Obama's own Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz,
his former Director of National Economic Council Lawrence Summers, and his former Undersecretary
of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy. Still, resistance has been fierce, thanks to the efforts
of an unusual coalition of environmentalists, oil refiners, and protectionist-minded nationalists
who worry that lifting the ban will both drive up gas prices and dissipate our shale energy edge.
"As oil producers head overseas to fetch higher prices than they [can] get at home", says Tyler
Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, "domestic supplies will dry up, and the cost
will rise." This argument seems compelling from a strict supply-demand perspective, but it ignores
the fact that the oil market is integrated globally. Sending crude outside the United States will
therefore add to global supply and push global prices downward. A host of studies, including by both
the Houston-based energy research firm IHS Cambridge Associates and by NERA Economic Consulting for
the Brookings Institution, suggest that U.S. oil exports will not raise gasoline prices but lower
them.
More specifically, NERA estimates that even if the U.S. producers exported as much as two million
barrels a day-roughly one quarter of current production - the price plunge might be as much as $5–7
per barrel in the first year, with further price declines following over the next decade. The report
concludes that the price drop at the pump would be in the 8-12 cents per gallon zone, even if the
decline in supply of LTO for domestic production means a growing convergence of West Texas Intermediate
and Brent crude prices.
This touches on the heart of the resistance from refiners. Because domestic refiners don't relish
their product, LTO producers have had to sell at a discount, sometimes as much as $28 below world
prices. Ending the ban means ending the discount-which is in effect a non-market subsidy provided
by the 1975 law-that allows refiners to buy LTO cheaply and sell it as gasoline on the world market.
(Unlike crude oil, there are no restrictions on exporting gasoline.) This is such a lucrative market
distortion that even during the third quarter of 2014, when oil prices were steadily tumbling, refiners
still enjoyed a considerable premium based on the price differentiated between the crude oil they
bought from U.S. producers and the refined products they sold, including abroad. The NERA experts
conclude that the net effect of exports will be to introduce "greater efficiency in the refining
system due to the increased ability of U.S. refineries to utilize the types of crude oil for which
their design is optimized"-that is, the heavier crudes from U.S. producers and from Canada and other
countries.
The third and final argument against lifting the 1975 ban is a macroeconomic one, namely, that
the energy abundance the shale revolution has produced will dissipate if our surplus is shipped abroad.
Related to this argument is the fear that, if oil prices retain their historic volatility, the American
consumer could be caught in a vise if prices spike while U.S. producers are exporting too much of
the shale supply. On the other hand, a steep drop in prices will induce a cutback in new shale exploration
and production, undercutting our abundance at its very source. To support their claim, oil-export
critics point to the impact of the recent drop in the price of oil on new shale investment, especially
by smaller and mid-size producers.
This pessimistic scenario overlooks the fact that shale extraction technology has enabled producers
to adopt a much more flexible response to price changes than conventional producers, enabling them
to reduce production quickly when prices fall and resume with similar speed when prices rise again.
The overall impact has been to provide a new stability to global oil prices, even as other technologies
are allowing more efficient production from existing wells. Indeed, oil analyst Rusty Braziel has
recently reasoned that even at $35 a barrel, increased drilling efficiency, falling production costs,
and heavier reliance on the most productive oil areas will mean sustained production for a large
proportion of U.S. shale producers. "I just don't see a way that the brakes are going to be slammed
on", adds David Knapp of Energy Intelligence.
... ... ....
Which countries would make suitable candidates for such bilateral oil trade deals? One is certainly
Japan. It's the third largest petroleum consumer in the world, and the second biggest net importer.
It's also the fourth-largest supplier of goods to the United States, from cars and machinery to electronics
and medical instruments, worth a total of $73 billion in 2013. Today Japan is almost entirely dependent
on imported oil, 83 percent of it from the Middle East, and a third of that from Saudi Arabia. U.S.
light crude would be welcome to Japanese refiners, and also allow them to reduce dependence on an
increasingly volatile Middle East.
Indeed, Japan is one of the Asian countries that has already lined up at the condensate window
(another is South Korea). In October 2014 almost 300,000 barrels worth of condensate were shipped
to Japan's Cosmo Oil Company, while Houston-based Enterprise held term contracts with Japanese traders
Mitsui & Co. and Mitsubishi Corporation to supply condensate through the end of 2014. Japan is also
looking for alternatives to its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Barring a breakthrough on the American
market, it's been turning in desperation to Russia and buying East Siberian oil on the spot market
to the tune of 300,000 barrels per day. A bilateral trade deal with the United States could all but
erase Japan's need for Russian oil, delivering a sharp rebuff to Vladimir Putin's growing energy-supply
extortion racket in Asia.
Another candidate is India. Its crude oil bill came to $144 billion in 2013, the single biggest
of India's import costs. Indeed, 75 percent of its oil needs are imported, almost all from Gulf states,
including Iran. Just as Japan wants to reduce its dependence on Saudi oil, India is keen to reduce
its dependence on Iranian oil.Just as Japan wants to reduce its dependence on Saudi oil, India is
keen to reduce its dependence on Iranian oil. A U.S. trade deal could go a long way toward doing
that, while having an important impact on the U.S. trade deficit with India, now at about $20 billion
per year. A putative deal of 300,000 barrels per day at $50 per barrel would lop off one-quarter
of that deficit-not to mention other trade benefits the United States could negotiate as part of
the final deal.
Then there is Australia, perhaps the most acute case of an oil-poor ally. Once an oil producer,
Australia now imports 91 percent of its petroleum needs-up from 60 percent in 2000. A recent government
study concluded that, if that vital flow of oil were interrupted, the country's transportation system
would run dry in just three weeks. Australia's main sources of imported oil are Vietnam, Malaysia,
and Indonesia. A 300,000 barrel-per-day deal with the United States would provide much-needed relief
on the supply side and also breathe new life into Australia's stumbling refining industry (in 2014
almost one third of the countries' refineries were set to close).
Finally, there's Great Britain. This is ironic, since its North Sea oil discoveries in the 1970s
produced the Brent crude that still gives the name to the light sweet oil that dominates world financial
markets. Yet those North Sea reserves are on the wane. Production there has dropped to less than
one million barrels per day; Britain now imports almost half its fossil fuels from abroad, including
crude oil. Like other EU countries, Britain is increasingly dependent on oil from Libya, where a
chaotic political situation regularly threatens to cut off supply. A generous and reliable stream
of crude oil from U.S. producers, which is similar to Libya's light crude, could breathe new stability
to Britain's economic fortunes and those of other EU countries as well.
Interestingly, the national security case for U.S. energy exports to the European Union has already
been made and accepted-with regard to liquefied natural gas. The political battle over gas exports
is virtually over, with the Obama Administration all but conceding defeat after initial opposition
due to pressure from environmental groups. Creating a liquefied natural gas export infrastructure
will take years, however-perhaps as much as a decade. Oil exports to the EU could begin tomorrow
morning were the political will-and the right political strategy-in place.
A series of bilateral oil trade agreements would mark a new kind of diplomacy for the United States:
petro-diplomacy. It would leverage our current energy advantage in not one but three ways.
The
first and most obvious would be using oil exports to enhance the energy security of long-standing
allies like Japan and Britain, as well as relatively new ones like India or, to choose another likely
candidate, Poland. At the same time, it sends a powerful signal to the rest of the world that the
days of the American oil embargo, as the Financial Times once dubbed it, are over.
The second is that it would turn oil into a commodity that enhances our terms of trade with other
industrialized countries that want and need petroleum to sustain economic growth, and would do it
without literally opening the floodgates. It could even turn the status of Most Favored Oil Export
Nation into something worth trading in exchange for concessions on other traded commodities. South
Korea, for example, currently buys considerable quantities of condensate but refuses to import American
automobiles. A formal bilateral agreement could adjust that trade picture, while showing sustained
"soft power" support for an important ally.
The third advantage of the petro-diplomacy approach is less obvious but just as crucial. America's
reserves of shale oil are limited. Shale wells exhibit much steeper decline rates than conventional
wells, which implies that the boom could fizzle out much sooner than optimistic forecasters believe.
Even with a best-case scenario of discovering additional reserves through enhanced technology, there
may be only a twenty-year window for American LTO production to have a decisive effect on global
prices and supply.
This means that an outright lifting of the ban could quickly dissipate our current shale advantage,
whereas a carefully modulated petro-diplomacy strategy would husband and exploit it. Of course, some
will object that this approach borders on neo-mercantilism, thus overthrowing a sacrosanct principle
of American diplomacy, namely promotion of free trade. Yet the sober truth is that the vast majority
of bilateral "free trade agreements" are anything but; most contain loopholes for certain favored
industries and products that remain protected by tariffs, import quotas, or other mechanisms. A real
free-trade agreement need be only one page long; but there are no such agreements. Right now the
United States has very little leverage for advancing freer trade on a bilateral basis. Oil trade
deals with countries like South Korea or India could become among the most valuable levers we have.
"The first wave to look out for when these sanctions are removed is that stored oil coming back
into the market," Miswin Mahesh, an analyst at Barclays in London, said by e-mail on March 23. "Their
ability to sell from storage will depend on whether shipping and insurance restrictions are also lifted."
Mar 25, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com
Lifting oil sanctions on Iran could hit global markets long before the nation starts pumping
more crude.
That's because the OPEC member has been stockpiling oil onshore and in supertankers in the Persian
Gulf, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. While estimates of the hoard by shipbrokers and government
officials vary from as little as 7 million barrels to as much as 35 million, Barclays Plc and Societe
Generale SA predict this crude would be first to be sold abroad if there's an agreement on Iran's
nuclear program.
The U.S. and five other world powers are scheduled to resume talks with Iran this week, offering
relief from sanctions on oil exports, shipping and financial transactions if the Islamic Republic
curtails its nuclear program and allows inspections to verify compliance. If a deal is reached, the
Persian Gulf nation could add its stockpiles into an oversupplied oil market where prices have fallen
more than 50 percent since June.
"The first wave to look out for when these sanctions are removed is that stored oil coming back
into the market," Miswin Mahesh, an analyst at Barclays in London, said by e-mail on March 23. "Their
ability to sell from storage will depend on whether shipping and insurance restrictions are also
lifted."
Buyers Reluctant
It would take three to six months after an end-of-June deadline on a final agreement for the Iranian
oil to reach the market, according to U.S. government officials who asked not to be identified. The
discussions this week are aimed at agreeing on a framework for the accord by the end of this month.
Iran has stored excess crude on tankers for the past 2 1/2 years as tougher restrictions on its
oil sales deterred buyers, according to the International Energy Agency. The country exports about
1 million to 1.1 million barrels of crude per day, down from 2.5 million before the U.S. and European
Union added oil sanctions in mid-2012, IEA data show.
"They'll probably start putting the oil onto the market immediately, once sanctions are lifted,"
Robin Mills, an analyst at Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting who worked with Royal Dutch Shell
Plc in Iran into the middle of last decade, said by phone from Dubai March 22. "They're desperate
for cash."
Iranian Tankers
Thirteen supertankers operated by the National Iranian Tanker Corp. were anchored offshore Bandar
Abbas, Assaluyeh or Kharg Island in Iran from March 15 to March 18, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg. The depth of their hulls in the water suggests the ships, which have spent from three
weeks to nine months at their current positions, are laden with crude. Each vessel is able able to
carry an average of 2.1 million barrels, the data show.
Four calls placed to National Iranian Oil Co. in Tehran by Bloomberg this week seeking comment
went unanswered. Many offices are closed for the Iranian new year.
The amount of stored Iranian crude may be less than half the level indicated by the data compiled
by Bloomberg, according to the U.S. officials. Iran has between 7 million and 17 million barrels
at sea and on land, said the officials. They cited estimates based on satellite photographs and other
evidence.
EA Gibson Shipbrokers Ltd. in London, which has been monitoring Iranian oil storage since 2009,
estimates the country has 34.5 million barrels aboard tankers in the Persian Gulf.
Selling Crude
There would probably be a delay between the June completion of a deal and the sale of stored crude,
said Mike Wittner, head of oil markets research at Societe Generale in New York. The stockpiles could
be sold over a three-month period, swelling the current global market surplus by 30 percent, Barclays's
Mahesh estimates.
While Iran's need for revenue may prompt it to sell some stored supplies immediately, the nation
would constrain the rate of sales to avoid depressing global oil prices, Manaar's Mills said.
Brent futures rose $1.81 to $56.92 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange at
2:13 p.m. New York time. The benchmark for more than half the world's crude has lost 47 percent over
the past 12 months.
The disposal of stockpiled oil would still be speedier than the revival of Iran's oilfields. Restoring
the country's output by 800,000 barrels a day to its full capacity of 3.6 million could be achieved
in three months of sanctions ending, according to the Paris-based IEA, an adviser to 29 nations on
energy policy.
Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said March 16 that the nation could increase exports
by 1 million barrels a day within a few months of sanctions being removed.
Other analysts are less optimistic, with Citigroup Inc. estimating an increase of that size would
take between six months and a year. A sustained expansion in Iranian production won't become a factor
for the market until late 2015 or early 2016, Societe Generale's Wittner said by phone on March 23.
"Once the oil and banking sanctions are lifted or suspended, and they're allowed to put additional
oil in the market, the first oil that's going to be sold is what's in storage," Wittner said.
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the "narrative" coming from Wall Street analysts is
purposely meant to drive down the price of oil. More than 90% of the NYMEX futures contracts are
now held by non-commercial "speculators". Many of them are now "short" oil, hoping the price of WTI
will fall.
Once Wall Street gets oil prices as low as they can, they will suddenly change their tone
and point out that demand for oil is going up and supplies are falling. I have seen this happen several
times in my 35+ years in the industry. What's happening now is not new.
... ... ...
On March 13, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published their monthly Oil Market Report.
It cause quite a stir on Friday the 13th and oil dropped more than $2.00/bbl. You can read the highlights
of the report here: https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
I thought the IEA report contained some rather bullish long-range forecasts, not the least of
which is that the IEA believes global demand for refined products will increase 2.0 million barrels
per day from where demand is today by the 4th quarter.
They believe low fuel prices will continue to increase global demand, pushing demand for refined
products up over 95 million barrels per day by year-end. I think their estimates may prove to be
quite conservative. A year after the last big drop in oil prices that occurred in 2008, demand for
liquid fuels increased by 3.3 million barrels per day in 2009.
So, why are oil prices still so low?
There is a lot of "FEAR" being generated by concerns over the rapidly rising amount of oil
in storage. In my opinion, this is way over-blown.
U.S. oil production continues to rise, despite the sharp drop in the active rig count.
Seasonal and unplanned refinery outages have lowered demand for oil.
Traders are worried that President Obama will agree to a deal with Iran and lift the sanctions
that are keeping an estimated million barrels per day off the market.
Strength of the U.S. dollar continues to weigh on commodity prices.
Let's take these issues one at a time.
Oil Storage: At the end of February, the EIA reported that working oil
storage capacity in the U.S. was 40% empty. The most talked about storage location – Cushing, Oklahoma
– still has about 20 million barrels of working capacity remaining.
As the tanks at Cushing approach capacity, the storage fees go up and oil will be directed elsewhere.
There are many pipelines that take oil out of Cushing, so the oil is not "stranded" there. Oil will
not start overflowing the tanks in central Oklahoma or anywhere else.
It is very important to understand that the weekly EIA oil storage reports (published on Wednesdays)
includes pipeline fill and field level storage. Although it is somewhat hazy, it is estimated that
the U.S. oil pipeline system and upstream field tanks have approximately 120 million barrels of above
ground oil in "storage". It is not included in the ~525 million barrels of commercial storage capacity
that many analysts compare to the oil inventory number each week.
U.S. Production Growth: Investors are puzzled by the reports that U.S.
production continues to rise while the number of rigs drilling for oil has dropped more than 45%
in six months. The reason for this is simple; the drilling of new wells is not what increases production.
It is the connection of those wells to a gathering system that adds production. The lag time from
spudding a horizontal well to completing it to connecting the supply to a pipeline can be over six
months. There was a large inventory of wells "waiting on completion" when all of this started back
in June and it takes time to work through this inventory.
Several of the companies I follow are now saying they plan to drill wells and hold off on completing
them until oil prices move higher. Although I agree with this strategy, it is impossible to estimate
how much this will impact daily production rates. My guess is not very much.
U.S. onshore production should peak this summer and go on decline in the 3rd quarter. There are
several Gulf of Mexico projects coming on-line this spring that will increase total U.S. production
by approximately 200,000 barrels per day. Gulf of Mexico production is expected to peak at close
to 1.7 million barrels per day (BOPD) in the first quarter of 2016, up from 1.4 million BOPD currently.
The dollar is up approximately 25% from where it traded during the 2nd quarter of 2014 and is
responsible for at least $25/bbl of the drop in the price of WTI crude oil. Since oil trades in U.S.
dollars, there is an inverse relationship between the dollar and the price of oil. This tops my list
of "real" concerns when it comes to my long-term outlook for oil prices.
Conclusion: Your guess as to where oil prices are heading in the next few months is as
good as mine. Even though there are plenty of places to store oil, the record high U.S. oil inventories
will continue to give the bears support for lower price forecasts. In my opinion, we are nearing
the mid-point of the bottoming process for oil. At the beginning of the year I predicted that oil
would test the lows several times during February to May, and then begin to rise. I've seen nothing
yet to change my opinion.
In the short-term, I am expecting energy investors to remain on the sidelines until they see U.S.
production growth slow and demand increasing.
Dan Steffens for Oilprice.com
Jim on March 19 2015 said:
Unfortunately, demand likely won't spike but will succumb to a worldwide recession. The
Chinese slowdown is real, as is the one in North America and Europe. Ditto Latin America.
The dynamics next year and in the medium term may firm up oil prices around $65 WTI/$75 Brent,
but that new normal still will squeeze Russia, OPEC and Latin America with serious geo-political
implications.
istvan peterman on March 19 2015 said:
"...Although it is somewhat hazy, it is estimated that the U.S. oil pipeline system and upstream
field tanks have approximately 120 million barrels of above ground oil in "storage"..."
...the pipelines are empty, you pour the oil in and wait for it to come out on the other side
- wrong; they are full and pressurized, you add at the entry point x barrels and remove at the
endpoint x barrels - sorry they are not empty and available .
Kimball Kaleach on March 19 2015 said:
Dear Writer,
You've neglected one thing ... all of the production that has been shut down or tapered
back will come back with a vengeance as soon as the break even price is reached.
And the break even price keeps going down because of continuous improvements. $100/bbl price
is a pipe dream now - you be lucky to get past $75 on the best day, and that will be, for all
intents and purposes, FOREVER. FOR - EV - ER.
nihal on March 20 2015 said:
Thank you for a very well written article explaining your view. I would like your take on the
contango between the current month wti contract and the 1,2,3 month future contract. Its very
high, I understand it reflects rising storage costs, but what would explain the extremeness of
it.
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.
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Parliament © Islamic Consultative Assembly News Agency / AFP In a rare statement Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lashed out at the country's authorities, accusing them of poorly handling internal issues. The mismanagement is even worse than US sanctions, he said. "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation is the result of [government's own] actions," Khamenei said, according to Irna, as he was addressing thousands of Iranians in Tehran on Monday.
Rouhani blasts Trump's 'psychological warfare' as Iran braces for US sanctions
Sara Vakhshouri is founder and president of SVB Energy International, a strategic energy consulting firm based in Washington, DC. She advises international corporations, think tanks, investment banks, and law firms on global energy markets, geopolitics of energy, and investment patterns. During 2000-08, she worked in the public and private sectors of the Iranian energy industry. From 2004 to 2005, she worked as an advisor to National Iranian Oil Co. International, a division responsible for marketing and sale of Iranian crude oil and products. Vakhshouri holds a PhD in energy security and Middle Eastern studies and was a visiting fellow at Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. She has MA degrees in business management (international marketing) and international relations.
Print
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. '
