Iraq

We have now entered the fifth year of this Fourth Turning Crisis. George Washington and his troops were barely holding on at Valley Forge during the fifth year of the American Revolution Fourth Turning. By year five of the Civil War Fourth Turning 700,000 Americans were dead, the South left in ruins, a President assassinated and a military victory attained that felt like defeat. By the fifth year of the Great Depression/World War II Fourth Turning, FDR’s New Deal was in place and Adolf Hitler had been democratically elected and was formulating big plans for his Third Reich. The insight from prior Fourth Turnings that applies to 2012 is that things will not improve. They call it a Crisis because the risk of calamity is constant. There is zero percent chance that 2012 will result in a recovery and return to normalcy. Not one of the issues that caused our economic collapse has been solved. The “solutions” implemented since 2008 have exacerbated the problems of debt, civic decay and global disorder. The choices we make as a nation in 2012 will determine the future course of this Fourth Turning. If we fail in our duty, this Fourth Turning could go catastrophically wrong. I pray we choose wisely. Have a great 2012.

Previously we heard Pimco's thoughts on the matter of an Iranian escalation with "Pimco's 4 "Iran Invasion" Oil Price Scenarios: From $140 To "Doomsday"", now it is the turn of SocGen's Michael Wittner to take a more nuanced approach adapting to the times, with an analysis of what happens under two scenarios - 1) a full blown EU embargo (which contrary to what some may think is coming far sooner than generally expected), and the logical aftermath: 2) a complete closure of the Straits. The forecast is as follows: 1) "Scenario 1: EU enacts a full ban on 0.6 Mb/d of imports of Iranian crude. In this scenario, we would expect Brent crude prices to surge into the $125-150 range." 2) "Scenario 2: Iran shuts down the Straits of Hormuz, disrupting 15 Mb/d of crude flows. In this scenario, we would expect Brent prices to spike into the $150-200 range for a limited time period." The consequences of even just scenario 1 is rather dramatic: while the adverse impact on the US economy will be substantial, it would be the debt-funded wealth transfer out of Europe into Saudi Arabia that would be the most notable aftermath. And if there is one thing an already austere Europe will be crippled by, is the price of a gallon of gas entering the double digits. And then there are the considerations of who benefits from an Iranian supply deterioration: because Europe's loss is someone else's gain. And with 1.5 million of the 2.4 Mb/d in output already going to Asia (China, India, Japan and South Korea) it is pretty clear that China will be more than glad to take away all the production that Europe decides it does not need (which would amount to just 0.8 Mb/d anyway).

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Whatever their vitae, dreaming up a buddy relationship [built around Joe Biden] as solution to the troubled U.S.-China relations almost certainly ahead, is, indeed, preposterous. The little soap opera proves, were it not already self-evident, the “lessons” of the Cold War lie buried somewhere in the Library of Congress -- with no remnant at CIA, one surmises.

The fact is that the US has been on a slippery slope for decades, and it's about to go over a cliff. However, our standard of living, while declining, is still very high, both relatively and absolutely. But an American can enjoy a much higher standard of living abroad. On the other hand, if I were some poor guy in a poverty-wracked country with few opportunities, I'd want to go where the action is, where the money is, now. Today, that means trying to get into the United States. The US is headed the wrong direction, but it's still a land of opportunity and a whole lot better than some flea-bitten village in Niger...This is one of the advantages of studying history, because it shows you that things like this rarely happen overnight. They are usually the result of trends that build over years and years, sometimes over generations. In the case of the US, I think the trend has been downhill, in many ways, for many years. Pick a time. You could make an argument, from a moral point of view, that things started heading downhill at the time of the Spanish-American War. That was when a previously peaceful and open country first started conquering overseas lands and staking colonies. America was still in the ascent towards its peak economically, but the seeds of its own demise were already sewn, and a libertarian watching the scene might have concluded that it was time to get out of Dodge –

There is literally no difference between Obama and a moderate Republican when it comes to the truly important policies governing the nation's insolvent finances, its predatory financial sector, its corrupt and fraudulent sickcare system or its sprawling Empire. Obama's policies have all aided and abetted existing Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms. He has changed absolutely nothing of import except further eroding civil liberties. President Obama can be charitably characterized as an ineffectual Demopublican. From those demanding more, then he can be accurately described as a well-meaning puppet of Wall Street and the rest of the Status Quo cartels and fiefdoms.

The Inmates Are Running the Asylum

There are dim lights at the end of the seemingly darker and darker tunnel. The proposed sanctions legislation allows Obama to waive sanctions if they cause the price of oil to rise or threaten national security. Furthermore, there is the wild card of Iran’s oil customers, the most prominent of which is China, which would hardly be inclined to go along with increased sanctions. But one thing should be clear in Washington – however odious the U.S. government might find Iran’s mullahcracy, it is most unlikely to cave in to either economic or military intimidation that would threaten the nation’s existence, and if backed up against the wall with no way out, would just as likely go for broke and use every weapon at its disposal to defend itself. Given their evident cyber abilities in hacking the RQ-170 Sentinel drone and their announcement of an indigenous naval doctrine, a “cakewalk” victory with “mission accomplished” declared within a few short weeks seems anything but assured, particularly as it would extend the military arc of crisis from Iraq through Iran to Afghanistan, a potential shambolic military quagmire beyond Washington’s, NATO’s and Tel Aviv’s resources to quell. It is worth remembering that chess was played in Sassanid Iran 1,400 years ago, where it was known as “chatrang.” What is occurring now off the Persian Gulf is a diplomatic and military game of chess, with global implications.

The political press has been abuzz with over the much anticipated signing of the NDAA by Barack Obama on Saturday: this move was not surprising because Obama had already made it clear he would go ahead and enact the law, even though he added some 'stern' language that is supposed to legitimize what some say is a precursor to the establishment of martial law in the US. To wit: "The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists." And yet he signed it (full text of Obama's statement on the NDAA, sent while on vacation in Hawaii, can be found here). Perhaps the reason for that unpopular move were some of the more nuanced contents of the Bill, among which is the decision to fully boycott not only Iran, but any bank, including central bank, and other financial institution found to deal with Iran. Which incidentally means most of Russia and China, and probably half of Europe, as all petrodollars generated by the country's petroleum export industry first have to make their way via the international financial community back into the country. The history buffs out there will realize that this form of couched antagonism is nothing short of the US approach to Japan during World War II, which was essentially provoked into attacking Pearl Harbor - read the details of the October 7, 1940 McCollum Memo here, and especially bullet point 10. And unfortunately, it appears that within 24 hours or so, Iran may have already taken the bait. As Reuters and BBC report, Iran has both test-fired a medium-range SAM during the ongoing wargames exercise previously discussed here, as well as made a formal announcement it has made and tested domestically made nuclear fuel rods: precisely the event that the Israel or US-borne Stuxnet was designed to prevent. So as the tennis match of escalation keeps on growing the ball is now once again in the US' court.

Julius Caesar undoubtedly was showing off with his Veni-Vidi-Vici (I came, I saw, I conquered) when referencing to his short war outside Zela (Zile) in Turkey over two millennia ago.  Similarly, if we were to use a short catchy-comment for the almost nine years America has invested in its “Iraq Mission,” we would be on target by condensing the US experience in also three Latin words, although not as melodic this time: Invasi-Eradicavi-Turbavi which sadly stand for, I invaded, I destroyed and I threw-into-chaos. No matter what the Pentagon and White House tell us, the fiasco in Iraq likely stands as the most costly mistake in America’s history, a true Keystone Kops type of political dark comedy.  And it wasn’t a bad or flawed decision by a singular moron or group of morons – Bush the Younger, Sadist Cheney and Loquacious Rumsfeld composing the original warpath triumvirate, together with two dozen equally deranged staff of their inner circles.  Unfortunately, this time Congress, together with a brainwashed public, closed rank with an evil and criminal White House.  So, whether the American citizenry likes it or not… the Iraq conflict wasn’t just Bush’s war, but “the peoples’ war,” a war with a dangerous aftermath yet to come, one we’ll likely be paying for in the future with additional blood and treasure.

Back in 2004, following the disastrous Iraq war, started on false Weapons of Mass Destruction pretenses, and which was nothing but a backdoor subsidy to various energy contractors close to the Bush administration, the US government decided to impose a mini Marshall Plan and literally flood the country with billions in crisp $100 bills. The LA Times reports: "Pentagon officials determined that one giant C-130 Hercules cargo plane could carry $2.4 billion in shrink-wrapped bricks of $100 bills. They sent an initial full planeload of cash, followed by 20 other flights to Iraq by May 2004 in a $12-billion haul that U.S. officials believe to be the biggest international cash airlift of all time." And here we are making fun of the Chairsatan and his puny helicopter. Yet where the story gets very disturbing is that it now seems that more than half of this "reconstruction" funding was blatantly stolen! "Despite years of audits and investigations, U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion in cash — enough to run the Los Angeles Unified School District or the Chicago Public Schools for a year, among many other things. For the first time, federal auditors are suggesting that some or all of the cash may have been stolen, not just mislaid in an accounting error. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an office created by Congress, said the missing $6.6 billion may be "the largest theft of funds in national history."" Is another huge political embarrassment in store for the current US administration (even if on this occasion it can legitimately be blamed on the predecessor?): it appears so: "The mystery is a growing embarrassment to the Pentagon, and an irritant to Washington's relations with Baghdad. Iraqi officials are threatening to go to court to reclaim the money, which came from Iraqi oil sales, seized Iraqi assets and surplus funds from the United Nations' oil-for-food program." Prepare for many more hearings involving Halliburton et al. As for where the money is - why, it has long been spent.

While the market appears to be happy with promises for incremental crude output by Saudi Arabia which has now broken off from the broader OPEC cartel and is doing its own pro-US thing, JPMorgan, which at last check still had a Brent target of $130/bbl, once again introduces an unpleasant dose of reality in the crude story by noting that any increase in crude output by the rogue OPEC state may be offset by production drops in Iraq and Iran. Will Saudi now promise to offset even that drop and hike output to 11 mbd or some other more unbelievable number? Stay tuned for more lies from the "peak oiled" kingdom.

Contrary to ongoing wideranging skepticism, Saudi Arabia continues to posture that not only does it have substantial excess capacity, but that it will bring it online any... minute...now. After all, Saudi owes the US a big favor (i.e., lower gas prices) in exchange for America's (or rather its Fifth Fleet) continued presence in Bahrain, which even those living in a cave know has been under a full media blackout to keep the ongoing religious tensions under wraps and keep the Saudi-Bahrain border safe (not to mention the Ghawar oil field). So even as Saudi had promised to hike its output as Libyian production went offline only for it to be discovered that the country had in fact lowered production, so now too the song and dance has hit fever pitch. Reuters reports that "Saudi Arabia is planning to lift oil output sharply in June, whatever policy OPEC adopts this week, in an effort to rein in high fuel prices. Riyadh expects to lift production by more than 500,000 barrels a day in June to its highest for three years, a senior Gulf industry official familiar with Saudi oil policy told Reuters." We can't wait to hear how Saudi's unilateral plan to boost Obama's reelection chances is met by other OPEC members such as Iran, Venezuela, Iraq and Libya. "Worried about the impact on economic growth of
inflated energy costs, Saudi will act alone if necessary to keep a lid
on prices now at $114 a barrel for benchmark Brent crude." Wait, isn't OPEC a "cartel", or a place where unilateral decisions are not allowed, for precisely this reason? Of course, at the end of the day, with recent Wikileaks disclosure that Saudi Arabia admitted it has overstated its reserves by some 300 billion barrels, or 40% of total, this latest ploy to push gasoline prices lower into the summer season will have a half life that is shorter than the SNB's FX intervention attempts.

Well, if anyone was looking for the green light to invade Syria, here it is:

• UN SAYS SYRIA VIOLATED NUCLEAR AGREEMENTS
• SYRIA VIOLATED INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS, BUILT REACTOR

And in case there is any doubt who is next:

• UN NUCLEAR WATCHDOG EVALUATING NEW IRAN WEAPON DOCUMENTS

It's a good thing the UN found all those WMDs that were the pretext to establish Halliburton's oil extracting infrastructure in Iraq. Then again, history never repeats itself.

And another huge hit to future oil supply. After Goldman released a report on Friday, backtracking on its April recommendation that clients sell crude, instead warning that "critically tight supply-demand fundamentals" will likely cause oil prices to "return to or
surpass the recent highs by next year", "should Libyan oil supplies remain off the market", which it now appears they will considering Gadaffi is winning the Libyan civil war against the West-backed rebellion, here comes a stunner out of Iraq which has just slashed its 2017 oil production estimate from 12 million barrels to just 6.5-7 million bbpd. Oddly enough, Iraq is being rational: "Baghdad believes it would not be in its interests to try to achieve the
12 million target by 2017 because boosting global supply would depress
prices." Who would have though a cartel would think of itself first... Surely, this is great news for Saudi Arabia which will promise to hike oil production and replace the missing output only for it to be discovered a few months later that not only did it not to do that (as we just discovered now following the whole Libya fiasco), but that it just does not have the excess capacity. And, of course, "speculators" will be blamed once they take WTI from $97 to $140 daring to discount the future price of oil in a (inflationary) world in which demand increases by 50% over a decade, even as supply continues to trickle down with each passing year. In other words, the CME margin hike crew is actively studying how many margin hikes it will take to break the back of the recently record number of non-commercial net specs... for at least a week or two, especially once the Chairman goes to town with the printer Turbo button. And elsewhere, the upcoming scarcity of lubricating petroleum byproducts is about to be felt through the entire supply (and demand) chain.