Doug Casey: Is A US-Iran War Inevitable?

Tyler Durden's picture

Previously we presented some alternative thoughts to the mainstream misperception of the Iranian "isolation" by some of its biggest oil trading partners. Unlike others, we simply believe that the gulf nation, together with the new axis of anti-USD (as confirmed once again earlier today) is simply preparing itself for a barter based economy, or alternatively, one with commoditized intermediates. However, this ignores the likelihood of geopolitical instability caused by intervening US and Israeli interest in the region. Below are some thoughts from Doug Casey of Casey Research on the likelihood of another full blown shooting war erupting in the Persian Gulf, as well as his thoughts on how one may prepare for such a contingency.

Submitted by Louis James of Casey Research

Doug Casey: Is A US-Iran War Inevitable?

US-Iranian saber-rattling or impending shoot-out? In his usual, candid manner, contrarian investor Doug Casey talks about why he believes it's serious this time… why the US is the greatest threat to peace today… why Iran might move towards a gold standard… and what smart investors should do.

L: Doug-sama, I've heard you say you think the US is setting Iran up to be the next fall guy in the wag-the-dog show – do you think it could really come to open warfare?

Doug: Yes, I do. It could just be saber rattling during an election year, but Western powers have been provoking Iran for years now – two decades, really. I just saw another report proclaiming that Iran is likely to attack the US, which is about as absurd as the allegations Bush made about Iraq bombing the US, when he fomented that invasion. It's starting to look rather serious at this point, so I do think the odds favor actual fighting in the not-too-distant future.

L: Could they really be so stupid?

Doug: You know the answer to that one. We're dealing with criminal personalities on both sides, and criminals are basically very stupid – meaning they have an unwitting tendency to self-destruction. One thing to remember is that most of those in power in the West still believe the old economic fallacy that war is good for the economy.

L: The old broken-window fallacy. Paraphrasing Arlo Guthrie, it's hard to believe anyone could get away with making a mistake that dumb for that long.

Doug: People like those in power still suffer the delusion that it was World War II that ended the Great Depression for the US. Actually, it was only after the end of the war that the depression ended, in 1946. In his book World Economic Development: 1979 and Beyond, Herman Kahn documented long-term growth throughout the 20th century. Between 1914 to 1946 – a very tough time, with WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII – the world economy still grew at something like 1.8%. I believe real growth would have been several times as great, were it not for the state and its products. But people still believe that spending money on things that explode and kill and destroy is somehow good for the economy.

L: I suppose they think it's okay if it creates jobs here and destroys lives and livelihoods "over there." But aside from the fact that it's not safe to assume today's enemies are not capable of bringing the battle onto US soil, it still ignores the fact that you're spending money on stuff that gets destroyed – like broken windows – and that impoverishes us all. Worse, the cost is not just economic.

Doug: That's right. This coming war with Iran has the potential to turn into something resembling WWIII, with enormous consequences.

Now, it's hard to speak with any certainty on such matters, because most of what we have to go on are press reports. Governments keep most really critical facts on their doings to themselves, and what you read in the press is as likely as not just a warmed-over government press release – in other words, propaganda. Meaningless, if not actively deceptive. It is correctly said that in war, truth is the first casualty.

L: But we do have the Internet these days, with indie reporters offering coverage ignored by the talking heads in the mainstream media.

Doug: True; it doesn't keep the chattering classes honest, but it does provide some diversity of spin, from which we can try to infer what's really going on. And from all the various sources – mainstream and alternative, Western and from within the Muslim world – I have to say that it appears to me that the Iranians are not actually developing nuclear weapons.

L: Then why do they act in such aggressive and bombastic ways?

Doug: Western powers are pushing them around, telling them what they can and cannot do, and treating them like children or mental incompetents with no right of self-determination. How else would you expect them to react? They may have a collectivist theocratic regime, but it's also a proud and ancient culture.

Now, as you know, I don't think there should be any countries at all – not in the sense of the modern nation-state, and I'm certainly no fan of the Tehran regime, but Iran is a sovereign state. The Iranians resent people from other countries assuming the right to tell them what they can and cannot do with their uranium enrichment program, just as people in the US would if Iranians told them what to do with… well, anything.

L: Do you have specific data to substantiate your view that Iran is not focused on creating nuclear weapons?

Doug: I was just reading about an official report that says that Iran is still not able to enrich uranium to the level needed to make nuclear weapons.

Uranium occurs in two isotopes with half-lives long enough to make it possible to find reasonable amounts of them in the earth's crust: U235 and U238. Most of it is U238 – 99.3% – but it's the U235 that's fissile, meaning, it's the one you want for making nuclear reactors and weapons. So you have to enrich your uranium – to about 20%-30% U235 to make reactor fuel and 90% or better to make weapons.

L: That's why the Russians are able to sell "downblended" uranium from decommissioned nuclear weapons for use as reactor fuel. So, you're saying the reports indicate that Iran is not capable of enriching uranium beyond the level needed for reactors?

Doug: Yes. But again, I have to stress that reliable information is very hard to come by. Remember when the US accused Iraq of having a program to develop so-called weapons of mass destruction? Apart from the fact that, except for nuclear weapons, that term is a complete misnomer, they had no such thing. It was either lousy intelligence or outright fabrication – and I suspect the latter. So how can we trust what they tell us today? Only a fool would be so naïve.

L: Indeed.

Doug: In any event, why shouldn't Iran have nuclear weapons? I wish none of these countries had them, but they do. No one stopped China, no one stopped North Korea, Pakistan, Israel, India, France, nor any of the others in the disreputable club that have them.

L: Wasn't it too late to intervene by the time those countries announced their nuclear capabilities?

Doug: I don't think so. Israel was friendly, so Western powers looked the other way. North Korea was too rabid, so they were left alone. The other countries are too big. The cat's out of the bag at this point; any country can develop nuclear weapons, if it really wants to. But it's easier and cheaper to bribe a general – or maybe just a supply sergeant – in India, Pakistan, or Russia to get what you want.

Moreover, with the US on the rampage, prosecuting its counterproductive and unwinnable War on Terror, a lot of governments, especially ones unpopular in the West, have got to be thinking about acquiring nuclear capabilities. If Saddam had actually had nukes, the US would have left him alone, just as they've left the Kims to rot in the workers' paradise they've made out of North Korea. It makes sense for a country stricken from the US's official "nice" list and moved over to the "naughty" category to have some nukes. Everyone needs and wants a slingshot to keep the bully of the block at bay.

If you oppose nuclear proliferation, your first target should be US foreign policy, which is the biggest impetus behind the scramble to arms.

L: What about the argument that Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel, if it had them?

Doug: That's ridiculous. It's true that just one or two nukes would turn most of Israel to glass, but it's a matter of mutually assured destruction (MAD), just as the détente between the US and USSR was. Israel is reported to have about 200 nuclear weapons, and the Iranians know it. Even if they launched a successful first strike against Israel, they would get wiped off the face of the earth in response. The regime in Iran is repressive and borderline lunatic, but they aren't that stupid. No way are they going to attack Israel with nukes. They not only cannot, but should not, be singled out for exclusion from the nuclear club.

L: But they're part of the axis of evil, don't you know?

Doug: Speaking of evil, it's evil to initiate the use of force or fraud. If Iran enriches uranium or even builds tools for war, that's not evil per se. But using force to stop them from doing something that is not in itself wrong is wrong, and that would make Iran's attackers the axis of evil.

In my mind, the US is the biggest threat to peace in the world today. I can easily imagine those in power in the US starting a war over any silly pretext, real or imagined. It could easily happen by accident at this point. Things go wrong. Maybe some young hotheads in Iran's Revolutionary Guard decide to take a boat out and attack a US frigate – launch a few RPGs at it before they're blown out of the water. Then the US feels it needs to mete out some punishment and launches a strike against the base the boat came from – which would be attacking the Iranian mainland – and the thing spins completely out of control. Could happen at the drop of a hat. Maybe the commander of a US ship has a streak of General Jack D. Ripper from Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove in him. Maybe the Russians or the Chinese – who are aiding the Iranians – mount a false-flag incident, because they want to see the US get involved in another tar baby.

L: So… another case of not just doing the wrong thing, but the exact opposite of the right thing, with economic, political, and ultimately physical world consequences.

Doug: That's right. Just look at what they're doing now, trying to isolate Iran from the world with an embargo. That could be seen as an act of war.

L: Well, wait a minute. A blockade is regarded as an act of war, but if Western countries decide to harm their own economies by not trading with Iran, that's unfriendly, but not force or fraud.

Doug: Well, it would be forcing citizens in those Western countries to pay higher prices for things, denying them the choice of buying oil from Iran if they wanted to. But I agree; that's more a matter of criminal tyranny and stupidity than an act of war. Still it sure is prodding Iran, throwing rocks at the hornets' nest, as the US did with Japan before WWII. The Japanese basically have no domestic oil production and were getting their oil from the US and the Dutch East Indies. The US cut off both supplies, backing them into a corner, leaving them little choice but an aggressive response.

At any rate, I think all of this could backfire on the US. Since the Iranians apparently can't clear deposits through New York, where international dollar trades clear, they've made a very commonsense move to cut the US out of the middle and sell their oil directly to India, without using dollars. I think other countries will follow – and then what? Iran isn't going to want bushels and bushels of rupiah or yen or whatever. I think the odds favor them turning to gold. It's said that's one of the means of payment the Indians will be using.

Gold is the logical choice and the next step in the demise of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency. There's a lot of demand for the dollar to buy and sell oil. If countries stop using it, demand for the dollar would fall, at the very time the US is greatly increasing the supply of dollars. The day is coming when trillions of dollars outside the US will only be spendable inside the US. At that point it's game over for the dollar.

L: You've talked about the world going back onto a gold standard before. What do you say to the people who say that gold is a barbaric relic from the past that doesn't work in a modern economy – they can't go around with pockets full of doubloons to buy cars or chests full of treasure to buy houses…

Doug: Such people are not thinking rationally and are economically ignorant. As always, we should start with a definition: what is money? The short answer is that it's a store of wealth and medium of exchange. For reasons we've discussed and as Aristotle outlined over 2,000 years ago, gold is simply the best form of money ever adopted. And in our modern world, you don't have to physically cart the stuff around. You can, but you can also transfer ownership of physical gold electronically, through services like

L: Note: We do endorse as a convenient and reliable way to own, trade, and transfer gold, but readers should be advised that Doug is an investor in it.

Doug: Right. I like to put my money where my mouth is.

L: Okay, so you see this trend being bullish for gold, clear enough. But most of the gold ever produced in the world still exists in purified form in various vaults around the planet. Gold doesn't get used up like silver does, so there's plenty of supply. So, would the physical need for gold as money really impact the price of gold and related equities, or would that be more a function of governments further debasing their currencies?

Doug: Well, it's estimated that there are some six billion ounces of refined gold in human possession around the world, or, somewhat less than one ounce per person. Global gold production is said to be about 80 million ounces a year, or about a 1.3% annual increase in the supply of gold. That would be the steady, "natural" rate of inflation if we were on a gold standard. The amount of various currency units in the world is increasing at a much, much faster pace than 1.3%. Nobody really knows, not even the Fed, but depending on how you define the money supply, it would take $10,000 to $50,000 – or more – per ounce to back all of the dollars in existence with gold. Whatever the correct number is, I expect gold's price in dollars to increase dramatically as the world moves closer to and eventually adopts a gold standard.

L: So, any investment implications beyond the obvious? Buy gold and silver for prudence and protection, buy gold stocks for speculative leverage?

Doug: That's the basic recipe. And diversify your holdings internationally. You can never tell when the government of your home country will have a psychotic break.

L: What do you say to the people afraid that in a world so traumatized as to go back onto a gold standard, the risk of owning any paper asset, including gold stocks, would be too high? No one will trade gold stocks for a can of dog food in a Mad Max world…

Doug: That's a valid concern. You can't eat paper, and even owning shares in a gold mine may not be of much use in a real economic cataclysm – the US government shut down gold mining during WWII as a nonessential industry. It could happen again. But that's why, as you said, we own gold for prudence, and the stocks are strictly speculative vehicles.

But let's have some perspective. The security of your stock portfolio may become the least of your concerns if the US starts a war with Iran that touches off WWIII. If that happens, the US government and population will both turn hysterical, and the whole country will be locked down like a prison. What was once America will become even more of a police state than it is now. Who knows where that would end?

So, one of the most intelligent things you can do is as I've been saying for years: diversify your assets and your physical presence internationally. Having some place you like to spend time off the beaten track, where you can ride the storm out, should be top priority for everyone who can afford it. Preparing for the worst at home should be top priority for those who can't.

L: Would you care to put odds on open war between the US and Iran?

Doug: I'd say it's highly probable within the next two to four years – say, between 50% and 75% – that an actual shooting war will break out.

L: Not much time to prepare. I sure hope all our readers are doing what they can.

Doug: Me too.

L: Right then. Thanks for your thoughts and guidance, Doug.

Doug: You're welcome. We'll talk again soon.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SheepDog-One's picture

2-4 years? LOL dream on, this Iran war which kicks off WW3 is on deck within a few months max. All parties need it to get out of their debt box canyons, and keeping 3 battle groups in the region costs big bucks...theyre not just there to hang around for 4 years thats for sure.

Nobody special's picture

"L: Then why do they act in such aggressive and bombastic ways?"

I would contest that it isn't Iran that's being aggressive and bombastic. MSM et al are demonizing the Iranian people. As an example, consider the article linked here, where Iran's words were reasonable. It started with an Iranian statement that they would continue to deliver oil to Europe but they needed a long term agreement and assurance they would be paid. This morphed into a falsified slap in your face announcement that Iran's nuclear program was making record time. Don't believe me? Click the link.

At this time, you can verify the claim by typing the original article title into a search engine. It will be packed with hits and the previews will match the first article. Now click a link and see the modified version. Voila. The propaganda machine at work in your very own home. 

john39's picture

Judge Napalitano on the Iran War.  No surprise that his show didn't get renewed.  The surprise was that he was ever on a Fox network:

Michael's picture

I just hope when the US/Israel starts WW3, hundreds of millions of people die including lots of Americans and Israelies.

tarsubil's picture

Nothing better for the oppressed to suffer the consequences of the oligarchs' actions. How about instead the oligarchs release mankind or die?

spiral_eyes's picture

No way is war inevitable.

If it was, Panetta would never have revealed the Israeli "plan" to hit Iran in April, May or June.

Simply, neither Israel nor America can afford a shooting war. Too many risks — like dragging in Russia or China or Pakistan. Too much debt. And they can merrily go about the covert war option instead, which costs less and carries fewer risks.

xela2200's picture

You will never make it as a politician. you still think in terms of costs, human lives and moral values instead of power and subjugation.

jeff montanye's picture

not just "as a politician".  apparently as a "serious journalist" as well:

San Diego Gold Bug's picture

You should be banned you fool.  Go hide under your little desk!  Hoping millions of people die??...where is the monitor on this site!!!!!!!!!!!

psychobilly's picture

Hundreds of millions is a bit excessive.

In actuality, only the millions (tens of millions?) who support the war deserve to die. 

Would reduce some of the congestion on the freeways and shorten my commutes, as well as rid the world of millions of assholes who are a total waste of oxygen.

Joseph Jones's picture

I struggle, and I mean struggle, with this daily.  I believe in only pure pacifism: love my neighbor, love my enemies, feed my enemies, cloth my enemies, loose my physical life to save my eternal soul, be a lover of peace, etc.  Yet my anger and hostility toward war mongers is so great I almost daily wish for their soon deaths. 

It's wrong to wish this, I know it is, yet it's tough to think the right way toward war mongers whose greatest desire is death and torture for millions of innocent human beings.  War mongers aren't just my enemies, they are enemies of the human race.

"Those who hate me love death." Proverbs









jeff montanye's picture

"God has numbered the days of your reign and brings it to an end. Your possessions will be divided, and given away to others. You have been weighed on the scales, and found wanting." 

BoNeSxxx's picture

And by 'monitor' you mean 'censor'.

How non ZeroHedge of you.  You must be new around here...

matrix2012's picture

what a bad spirit, you give TRUTH the BAD name!!

And you just insult the logic and senses of ZHers here by your futile falsification!

TRY HARDER Ghost Spirit!!!

American34's picture

Monitors!?!?! Are you for real this is ZH! We don't have monitors! The day ZH has monitors is the day ZH dies! Not to mention "YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT MONITORS!" is the first AND second rule.

DaveyJones's picture

Patrick Swayze thanks you (dancing is speech)

GetZeeGold's picture



Vee don't need no stinking monitors......just cover your tender ears and tape a sheet of paper to your screen. There you go....all fixed.



q99x2's picture

The CIA and government financial spooks monitor this site first and foremost among internet sites. Anyone who comments on ZH is free to write their ticket into a FEMA rendition center.

Michael's picture

The government employees who start rounding up American citizens will have to deal with 400 million civilian firearms aimed at them. There will be civilian snipers killing government employees by the thousands. I hope their government paychecks are worth it. As for the dossier on me I bet it's a couple of inches thick, as is many hundreds of thousands just like me. They can't get all of us.

By the way, I have a squeaky clean criminal record.

New World Chaos's picture

That squeaky clean crimminal record is actually part of the latest terrorist profile.  It means you have some morality, which means you cannot be trusted. 

I also have no crimminal record, I cannot be trusted, and I have stopped caring about monitoring.  There are too many of us now.  Even if they do get me, they will get me in place of someone else who is probably more dangerous.  J BN TQBSUBDVT!

Michael's picture


Just in case anybody forgot, Jumbo and Prime loans are currently going into foreclosure.

I'm thinking how I can profit from it.

Hobbleknee's picture

Nobody put up a fight when the government rounded up guns after Katrina.

Nobody put up a fight when the government made us and future generations debtor slaves to the banks.

Nobody put up a fight when they groped our kids at the airport.

Nobody put up a fight when they put chemicals in our water, food and air.

We're already in prison- cleaned, shaven and sterilized.

prole's picture

'Nobody put up a fight when they groped our kids at the airport' indeed.

Everybody I know personally (who will comment) is railing at the media for being "against Romnel."

I mention that RP is the only candidate for Liberty, against molestation/radiation by .gov etc.  Response I get? "He's crazy" or just a bemused look like I'm crazy.  And these are sheeple with money, getting eagerly? radiated every time they fly. beam me up Scotty.

Romnel is going to molest and radiate the fck out of these retards, and they discuss how the 'media' is against him. (ei: they support the tool)

The sheeple I know who aren't commenting are the Hussain voters God only knows what's in their head.

smb12321's picture

By the way, no doubt you have attracted attention from the very government folks you spout hatred for.  Or (more likely) you're a plant to draw out the rest of the crazies. 

Poor Grogman's picture

So scared > might have to hide under the bed. 



Michael's picture

I actually think it will be more like 2 billion people dead, or we could just kill all the banksters, elites, and olgarchs I'm OK with that too.

Lets just say I've lost hope in humanity and I'm OK with the death spiral now.  

FeralSerf's picture

Ted Turner! Is that you? 100 million earthlings max!

Michael's picture

I would make sure Ted's number goes to zero and his ilk is fucked too.

Abitdodgie's picture

Micheal is right ,Most Americans don't give a fuck about what is going on and if they do they sure as hell are not going to march on the white house armed , so they deserve to die . The ones that do see the writing on the wall are" dug in" anyway.

10mm's picture

Until the day when i walk down the street,go into a cafe,bar,work place etc and the conversations start to come up about REAL events concerning the country as opposed to fucking sports,shit show events,fucking dead lifeless MSM meaningless blabber from dead fucking sheep and fucking chickin shit gossip,im sure to drop dead on the spot.Until then,were fucked.And if one attempts to bring up critical issues that require criticle thinking and yes,it will be negative and sooooo depressing,because fucking sheep don't want or care to address depresssssing issues.fuck em,fuck em all till the fucking SHTF.

xela2200's picture

I doubt it or not this time. Russia, China, India, and Iran can do more damage to us through financial means than with weapons. Heck, they are already doing just that. They are holding less bonds, collateral agreements, and buying all the resources of the world.Russia is now the biggest producer of oil in the planet surpassing Saudi Arabia.

We are in a hole, and they are shoveling dirt on to us. That is why the US is desperate to attack Iran and put the rest of the world in its place. The problem is that the kids in the playground are standing up to the bully now.

Raging Debate's picture

I'll go for mitigating losses on behalf of ALL Michael. Accountability and justice are part and parcel of such a package. If the losses can be two billion, why not work down? Does your statement mean your resigned to accepting two billion in losses even if it is you or your family that could be part of the loss? If so, your position personally is one of weakness or illogical.

As for FEMA camps or the threat of the chain gang. That also is immaterial to me if a republic is reborn and liberty is restored. The rest will carry on. There are no guarantees. I believe America is now very similar to where the Soviets were in 1981 or 1982.

Only the reserve currency is providing a few more years before final ruin. And China becoming the reserve currency is a feature, not a bug. It will happen in 2014 or so. Now I don't believe the value of the peg prize will be as expected from China's end but that is another story. I have maintained since 2008 the ME war will be after Q1 2013 and war in Asia will be 2015 (starts with North Korea).

memyselfiu's picture

If it's any consolation Micheal, humanity doesn't hold out much hope for you either.

Your clownish avatar is quite fitting.

smb12321's picture

Diego - On calling for hundreds of millions to die.   Like the Vietnam protesters cared little for the peace or the troops (they spit on them when they returned) this crew wants peace about as much as QE3. All the talk is killing bankers, rich (how Marxist), Jews or the American "Sheeple" who they hate with a particular vengeance.  I have not seens a single constructive comment.  Who in the world would want to live in such a hate-filled society? (Ready for the obscenities now)

fuu's picture

Fuck no and be ashamed of yourself for crying to the nanny.

memyselfiu's picture

Listen pal,


The only reason I frequent this site is because there is no gatekeeper- the cocksucker that said that will be pushed into a corner by the others as he should, but should at least be afforded the opportunity to speak his mind, hateful as it may be. If you want your news and commentary to be washed and sanitized for your viewing pleasure, go somewhere else (there are plenty of places for that).


chindit13's picture

Perhaps you'll be an embedded reporter and can update us all with casualty figures, until, of course you join the hundreds of millions you are so anxious to see go.  No doubt the world will mourn your passing, as you have probably added so much value to it in your brief existence.  Then again, you could always start the culling at home where it belongs and show us all how it is done.

While I am no fan of warmongering political types, I thank Darwin every day that at least people like YOU are impotent and powerless, raging in the dark against your own demons, and cannot make your sick fantasies come true.  Dealing with Bush/Obama is bad enough.

nmewn's picture

In regards to your down arrows, I'm trying to figger out if we have six reporters who read ZH or six eugenicists.

Though they wouldn't be mutually exclusive I suppose ;-)

SillySalesmanQuestion's picture

 I wonder why MSM is pushing for war with Iran

Eat The Rich!!!


Michael's picture

They want war so much, I'm just trying to shove it down their throats so the MSM and others realize how un-palatable it can be.

psychobilly's picture

Your post was brilliant, Michael. 

I swear I laughed as hard and as long as I've laughed in a while.

Thank you.

It flew right over the head of the stupider posters, and those with a trollish agenda would of course be upset.

Michael's picture

Thanks. My stealth sarcasm is virtually undetectable, but it does have a ring of truth to it.

In the end it's only money and I really don't see a need to go to WW3 over it. But then again I'm not an elite bankster oligarch.

Max Fischer's picture



You're fucking creepy and psychotic.  If memory serves me well, you're a Ron Paul organizer in Florida, right?

Once again, the biggest obstacle Ron Paul has to becoming president is his whacked-out followers.  No one wants to be grouped together with the FREAKS. 



Michael's picture

Do you work for the NSA Max, or one of those NAZI Fusion Centers?

Michael's picture

I hijacked this thread when it was down below and ZH put it on top as a sticky.

Thanks ZH, I did notice.

Michael's picture

Just in case anybody forgot, Jumbo and Prime loans are currently going into foreclosure.

I'm thinking how I can profit from it.

Michael's picture

It's nice to see their hanging ten.

NSA/CSS Unveils New Hawaii Center

"Wahiawa, Oahu, HAWAII, Jan. 6 – The National Security Agency/Central Security Service marked today the completion of a new regional operations center, officially named the CAPT Joseph J. Rochefort Building, at a ribbon-cutting ceremony where officials emphasized how the $358 million project will help to further integrate national security efforts. "

NSA/CSS Unveils New Hawaii Center Designed to Boost Intelligence Integration, Collaboration

"NSA/CSS has had an operations center in Hawaii for more than 14 years. But even with recent renovations, the original facility, first built during World War II, has limitations stemming from its age, location, and structures. The new building will provide cryptology professionals with the tools necessary to better access and collaboratively interpret data from a broad variety of sources at various classification levels. Moreover, its enhanced capabilities will augment work that will still be carried out in the original center – eliminating physical, virtual, and other barriers to information sharing. "

Surely the General knows you can't win a war against a tactic?