This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Iran: Oh, No; Not Again

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by

Iran: Oh, No; Not Again

In each of the years 2008, 2009, and 2010, significant worries emerged that Western nations might attack Iran. Here again in 2012, similar concerns are once again at the surface.

Why revisit this topic again? Simply because if actions against Iran trigger a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's daily sea-borne oil passes, oil prices will spike, the world's teetering economy will slump, and the arrival of the next financial emergency will be hastened. Even if the strait remains open but Iran is blocked from being an oil exporter for a period of time, it bears mentioning that Iran is the third largest exporter of oil in the world after Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Once again, I am deeply confused as to the timing of the perception of an Iranian threat, right now at this critical moment of economic weakness. The very last thing the world economies need is a vastly increased price for oil, which is precisely what a war with Iran will deliver.

Let me back up. The US has already committed acts of war against Iran, though no formal declaration of war has yet been made. At least if Iran had violated US airspace with stealth drones and then signed into law the equivalent of the recent US bill that will freeze any and all financial institutions that deal with Iran out of US financial markets, we could be quite confident that these would be perceived as acts of war against the US by Iran.

And rightly so.

U.S. imposes sanctions on banks dealing with Iran

Dec 31, 2011

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama signed into law on Saturday a defense funding bill that imposes sanctions on financial institutions dealing with Iran's central bank, while allowing for exemptions to avoid upsetting energy markets.

The sanctions target both private and government-controlled banks - including central banks - and would take hold after a two- to six-month warning period, depending on the transactions, a senior Obama administration official said.

Sanctioned institutions would be frozen out of U.S. financial markets.


The impact of this law was quite pronounced and immediate, with the Iranian rial falling sharply against the dollar in the first few days after the bill was signed into law.

Iran's rial falls to record low on U.S. sanctions

Jan 3, 2012

Jan 3 (Reuters) - The Iranian rial fell to a record low against the dollar on Tuesday following U.S. President Barack Obama signing a bill on imposing fresh sanctions against the country's central bank.

The new U.S. sanctions, if fully implemented, could hamper the world's major oil producer's ability to sell oil on international markets.

The exchange rate hovered at 17,200 rials to the dollar, marking a record low. The currency was trading at about 10,500 rials to the U.S. dollar last month.

Some exchange offices in Tehran, when contacted by Reuters, said there was no trading taking place until further notice.

"The rate is changing every second ... we are not taking in any rials to change to dollar or any other foreign currency" said Hamid Bakhshi in central Tehran.


That represents a more than 70% decline in just a month. Assuming that Iran trades its oil in dollars, this will not necessarily cripple its economy, but the specter of hyperinflation looms large whenever a currency falls by that much. With hyperinflation comes economic, social, and political instability, and these are, of course, precisely the aims of the US in imposing the sanctions.  And of course, everything that Iran imports will become hideously expensive -- quite rapidly.

The US is deliberately poking and prodding Iran right now. Given the glacial pace of nuclear development, we must ask ourselves, why now?

The Story

As with most things today, there is a story created for public consumption that justifies waging war against Iran. The main narrative goes something like this: Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, and this is intolerable, so it must be stopped.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) issued a report, long denied under the prior director's tenure (Mohamed ElBaradei), finally declaring that Iran was unequivocally trying to build a nuclear weapon:

U.N. Agency Says Iran Data Points to A-Bomb Work

November 8, 2011

United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a “credible” case that “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,” and that the project may still be under way.

The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program. The findings, drawn from evidence of far greater scope and depth than the agency has previously made public, have already rekindled a debate among the Western allies and Israel about whether increased diplomatic pressure, sanctions, sabotage or military action could stop Iran’s program.


I've not yet read the report, but I am concerned about the gap between the headlines I've seen that say Iran is building a nuclear bomb and carrying out "activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device."  For example, much has been recently made of the fact that Iran has enriched some uranium to the 20% grade, but there is a huge leap between that and the 90%+ grade needed for a nuclear device.  Iran had told the world it needed the 20% grade for a medical reactor, and then created a fuel rod for that reactor.  To say that enriching to the 20% grade is the same thing as trying to build a bomb is not accurate and possibly deceptive.

As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) treaty, Iran has every legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, such as making nuclear fuel rods for a research reactor, and Iran is claiming that all their current work is towards this end.

Maybe it is; maybe not. But even if a nuclear bomb is being pursued, there's nothing in the NPT that provides for military action to pre-emptively prevent any nation-state from carrying out such development work. In fact, if a preemptive strike is carried out, it will be done without the benefit of any international laws or treaties that could justify the action. 

Also left out of the narrative is any explanation of why it was okay for Pakistan to develop nuclear weapons or why North Korea is permitted to hold them.

The simple answer is because they don't have any oil. A quick view of the US military presence surrounding Iran, coupled with the Iraqi experience of being attacked for supposed weapons of mass destruction that did not exist (nor were used by Iraq to threaten the US), reveals why Iran may be so motivated to develop a nuclear weapon:

If Iraq had a nuclear weapon in 2002, it is quite doubtful the US would have invaded -- a lesson that has not gone unnoticed.

While I am not a supporter of the current repressive theocratic regime in Iran, I strongly believe that it is up to the people of any nation to decide for themselves what sort of system they will choose to live under. The Arab Spring, as messy as it was, is vastly preferable to the blunt instrument of an externally driven war. 

The Curiosity

The most curious thing about this story is the apparent lack of awareness among US officials about how the oil markets work. I know they know better, but the context-free repetitions in articles such as this next one almost literally drive me crazy:

Geithner to Seek China’s Support on Iran

Jan 9, 2012

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner will urge Asia's two biggest economies to cut Iranian oil imports and seek to narrow differences with China on trade and currency disputes on a visit to Beijing and Tokyo this week.


The idea that the world can just stop buying Iranian oil, as though it were the same thing as boycotting McDonald's and buying Burger King instead, is just ridiculous. The world oil markets are far too tight for that.

How is it that China is supposed to cut its Iranian oil imports, exactly?  Oil is a fungible product. If China cuts its oil imports from Iran, it will simply have to buy the missing amount of oil from someplace else. The 2.6 million barrels a day that Iran exports cannot simply be instantly replaced at this time from other spare capacity elsewhere in the world. It doesn't exist at the moment. Where will it come from?

Perhaps Geithner is offering something behind the scenes, like providing China with extra petroleum from the US strategic reserve while events unfold (unlikely). But barring that, it is a remarkably naïve request as it stands and is curious on its own.

The Powder Keg

With the Persian Gulf being so small, and so many tense parties crammed into that tiny arena, the chance of some sort of mischief arising is quite high. One twitchy trigger finger -- such as the one that caused the USS Vincennes, thinking it was under attack by a jet fighter in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war, to shoot down an Iranian passenger airliner -- and the hounds of war may be let loose.

And it's not just the US. Practically everybody who's anybody has naval assets positioned for whatever may happen next:

Western forces react to Iran's Strait of Hormuz threat

Jan 9, 2012

TEHRAN, Jan. 9 (UPI) -- A buildup of Western naval forces in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea is a reaction to Iran's threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, military experts say.

U.S., Russian, French and British air and naval forces moved to the Syrian and Iranian coasts during the weekend, Israeli military intelligence Web site DEBKAfile reported Monday.

The Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov anchored earlier than planned at Syria's Tartus port on the Mediterranean Sunday, causing France to respond by consigning an air defense destroyer to the waters off Tartus, DEBKAfile reported. Canada also was sending a warship, the HMCS Charlottetown, to the Mediterranean where it would take over from the HMCS Vancouver.

Meanwhile, Britain has dispatched a missile destroyer to the Sea of Oman, due to arrive at the same time as the French Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier.

And the U.S aircraft carrier John C. Stennis and its strike group are cruising in the Sea of Oman at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz after Tehran announced it would not be allowed to cross through.


With all those boats chugging around in those little bathtubs, and with various other forces that would definitely like to see a shooting war develop (a false flag attack is an option here), the risk is quite high of some form of incident that would trigger hostilities.

Of course, there are those in the war rooms of the various OECD countries who think they have a plan for the conduct of that war, but no plan ever survives first contact with the enemy. The one thing we can count on is the war being messier, longer, and more expensive by at least a factor of two than whatever is currently occupying the minds of the war planners.

Iran's Responses

Of course, Iran has been none too happy over the years at being surrounded, poked, prodded, and now finally sanctioned for having done nothing more than cloak its nuclear program in the exact same sort of secrecy that has surrounded literally every other nation's nuclear programs, including Israel and Pakistan, Iran's notable nuclear neighbors.

And now, with the aid of enhanced missile technology obtained from China and Russia, Iran has a credible threat to make:

Iran Has Ability to Block Strait of Hormuz, U.S. General Dempsey Tells CBS

Jan 9, 2012

Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz “for a period of time,” and the U.S. would take action to reopen it, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman General Martin Dempsey said.

“They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz,” Dempsey said in an interview aired yesterday on the CBS “Face the Nation” program. “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.”

Should Iran try to close Hormuz, the U.S. “would take action and reopen” the waterway, said Dempsey, President Barack Obama’s top military adviser.


The admission here by the US military is that Iran has the ability to block the Strait of Hormuz "for a period of time," which they do, is an extraordinary admission (even if it really is stating the obvious) by the US brass.

Anti-ship missile technology has come a long way, and an offensive missile is much cheaper than either a large ship or defensive measures. The Falklands war in the early 1980s taught me that the navy is an outmoded concept if the opponent is armed with semi-decent anti-ship missiles, and such devices have improved remarkably since then.

During the most recent Iranian war exercises, the US military test-fired (more of a demonstration, really) their Qader anti-ship cruise missile, which has a range of 200 km and can be fired from a small truck. To visualize the difficulty of defending against such a technology, just imagine how many hiding places for a small truck might exist within this 200 km radius green circle :

In order to neutralize the entire missile, full air superiority would have to be established and every mobile launcher found and destroyed. 

Further, Iran has a number of submarines capable of firing a new breed of torpedo that can achieve speeds in excess of 200 knots. As far as I know, these are extraordinarily difficult to defend against, let alone evade. 

Of course, China is paying close attention to the developments:

Iranian authorities reiterate threats to close Hormuz Strait if sanctions imposed on oil exports

Jan 8, 2012

TEHRAN, Jan. 8 (Xinhua) -- Iranian authorities reiterated threats to close Strait of Hormuz if Western countries impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, local media reported Sunday.



Once again, regrettably and mysteriously, we find the developed world in lock-step in its eagerness to attack Iran. "Regrettably," because Iran has not threatened any other country, and war should never be used simply because the current art of diplomacy is inadequate. "Mysteriously," because this is a particularly horrible economic moment to go about risking much higher oil prices. 

While we judge the risks of a war, either precipitated by legitimate escalation of frictions or by illegitimate actors seeking to cause the same, to be very high, it is our view that such a war will not go according to plan.  Iran has many more powerful allies, namely Russia and China, than did the extraordinarily isolated Iraq at the beginning of the Iraq war. 

Is it too waggish to suspect that certain Western political powers would love to be able to both divert attention from the crumbling economy and have a scapegoat upon which to blame the next leg of the financial downturn? 

Regardless of such speculation, the risk to each of us and the economy in general from an attack on Iran that closes the Strait of Hormuz is large enough to warrant your attention. Should oil spike in price, you can practically set an egg timer for the beginning of the next leg of the financial downturn.

In Part II: Are You Prepared for $200 Oil?, we explore what likely havoc the high oil prices from a major conflict with Iran will wreak on the financial markets and our petroleum-dependent lifestyle. We also detail specific steps prudent individuals should be taking right now, in advance of such a crisis, to position themselves defensively.

Click here to access Part II of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access). 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:57 | 2056809 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Furthermore, looking more deeply into the speech, he said it in the context of other odious regimes that appeared invulnerable and mighty but came to sudden ends:

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:29 | 2057067 delacroix
delacroix's picture


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:42 | 2056367 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Are you <.that semi- circular? Bone head, look @ the overall picture!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:43 | 2056372 Bear
Bear's picture

And the 'overall picture' is what?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:47 | 2056388 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 You tell me " Mantra Boy" ? Clive something? I post regularly!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:49 | 2056393 Bear
Bear's picture

I looked up "Mantra Boy" on google and found no references ... Clarity might help the discussion

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:59 | 2056414 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 You're just a basement child!   Teddy bear from Toy's R " us!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:11 | 2056489 Bear
Bear's picture

Three names called (bone head, mantra boy, and basement child) and not a single point of argument ... Although name calling may be the extent of your arsenal it is not very productive when serious discussions are to be had

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:39 | 2056599 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Names are relative! Basement Boy!  Would you like ( for me to go ( phychological) with you?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:00 | 2056649 Bear
Bear's picture

"Names are relative" ... Interesting comment but what does it mean?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:45 | 2056384 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

respectfully! FUCK the Los Angeles Times!  Those douche bags don't deserve " parens" !

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:43 | 2056371 dick cheneys ghost
dick cheneys ghost's picture


I like CM and his work , but this bit from Veterans Today, makes more cents to me "I think the stand-off with Iran in the Straits of Hormuz over sanctions is as much to do with the moves to replace the dollar as anything else.  The standoff is as much with China and its allies as it is specifically with Iran."


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:00 | 2056439 sushi
sushi's picture

The US states that other nations cannot transact trade via US financial institutions.

Ergo, the solution is to bypass US financial institutions completely and establish an alternate trade mechanisim.

Goodbye dollar!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:13 | 2056496 Left of Left
Left of Left's picture

Exactly, game over. It has been in the works for years.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:43 | 2056374 JustObserving
JustObserving's picture

China refuses to cooperate:


Geithner finds Chinese resistant to Iran oil sanctions


Washington Post 2 hours ago

Xinhua has a different twist - also two hours ago

China says Geithner's visit "significant" for boosting Sino-U.S. trade, ties



Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:57 | 2056424 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 Do you work for the " Trioka"?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:46 | 2056385 spinone
spinone's picture

1.  Oil tankers cannot be insured against ballistic missile attack.  A credible threat is all thats necessary to close the Straits

2.  Iran has oil, the US has dollars. What do you think other countries want mor enow, oil or dollars.  The US better watch its step, or Iran will set up bilateral trade agreements with other countries for oil not in dollars.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:50 | 2056398 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 It's molotov cocktail! Out of sight / out of mind.

  Underwater Warfare!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:12 | 2056493 AUD
AUD's picture

Iran will set up bilateral trade agreements with other countries for oil not in dollars.

A better question is why haven't they already done so? The Rial is falling against the $ as the bid for Rial or Rial denominated deposits with Iranian banks, needed to buy Iranian oil, disappears. It would seem that the Iranians have done nothing to extricate themselves from the $ system, even after years of 'poking & prodding' by the US & other western 'powers'.

It's not as if the Iranians don't know the story, they've only got themselves to blame in the end.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:26 | 2056545 Left of Left
Left of Left's picture

They have. Ever hear of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization? China, Russia, Pakistan, all the "stan" countries, Iran, and  last week Japan agreeing to regional currency trades. India is set for admission into the SCO. How people could think that these countries would/will continue to finance aggression against themselves by buying worthless treasury bonds is beyond my comprehension. But I assure you that they won't. All having been buying gold, and resources throughout the world in preparation of pulling the plug on the allmighty dollar as reserve currency. They will never submit to a unipolar world and full spectrum dominance clearly laid out in the Project For the New American Century. Remember that?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:47 | 2056616's picture

Iran will set up bilateral trade agreements with other countries for oil not in dollars.

A better question is why haven't they already done so?


They have. Don't you read ZeroHedge?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:58 | 2056638 AUD
AUD's picture

If they have, why is the Rial falling against the USD?

It should be the other way around, haven't you been reading zerohedge?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:12 | 2056688's picture

Russia, Iran Proceed With Bilateral Trade, Drop Dollar; Russian Warships Park In Syria; Iran Accelerates Nuclear Enrichment

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:55 | 2056797 AUD
AUD's picture

So what? Why is the Rial falling against the USD & not the other way around?

Whatever they have done, likely nothing of substance, is not effective. I'd suggest the reason the Mullahs haven't successfully moved out of the $ orbit is because it would mean giving up their own vice like grip on power since the central bank would have to redeem its obligations in gold.

Like I said, they only have themselves to blame.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:56 | 2056996's picture

You asked why Iran had not yet started trading with other nations in non-US currency. I provided evidence that they have. You'll have to figure the rest out for yourself instead of trying to move the goal posts.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:46 | 2056386 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

"Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies" by glenn greenwald 12/31/11

Obama the "War President?"

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:57 | 2056427 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Salon's Greenwald is always worth a read. Even if he is a lefty.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:48 | 2057145 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

granted jim, but, his thesis was all to do about subtance, with less to do about mundane rhetoric as the msm have dictated the debates on a meaningless path to "Dancing with the Stars"?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:50 | 2057151 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

I'll agree with you halfway. Greenwald is definitely worth reading, which is why I gave you a +1 green arrow. He was a constitutional lawyer but, unlike Commissar Obama down in Vichy, D.C., his work defended the constitution instead of unraveling it.

Where I disagree with you is your label of "lefty". Greenwald's writing is consistent and reveals a clear perception of the phony left/right, liberal/conservative, republican/democrat divide as nothing more than the sham that it is.


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:59 | 2057166 pakled
pakled's picture

Interesting Stooge-ing (may I call you stooge-ing?). I do not follow Greenwald. But based on your characterization of his POV I will start.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 01:25 | 2057423 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Hell, just call me Shemp if you want.

BTW, here's a link to Greenwald's columns at Salon:


Thu, 01/12/2012 - 10:43 | 2058155 BigJim
BigJim's picture

...Where I disagree with you is your label of "lefty". Greenwald's writing is consistent and reveals a clear perception of the phony left/right, liberal/conservative, republican/democrat divide as nothing more than the sham that it is.

True, at least politically. What I meant is that he's a lefty in terms of economics... reading through his article, his reservations about RP (apart from the red-herring newsletter 'racism') are that he doesn't support

less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities... and a more progressive Supreme Court.

Greenwald is a fantastic voice for freedom. I just wish the guy invested the time it would take to read a few Austrian textbooks...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:43 | 2056604 seventree
seventree's picture

Notable quotes:


"The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.


"The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient"

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:55 | 2057085 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

"Pipeline Politics: Afghanistan and the New Great Game"__ by john foster *8/27/09 [sorry, home page & plug in article above via archive]

Please note: C.I.A. Chief William Casey was very close with Conoco [Phillips] being the 5th largest refiner in the world,... a shill for big oil,period! Ps. we know how his end came about, and sadly hillary's right-hand man,... who also met an untimely fate?

"Trading with the Enemy" - Halliburton, GE, made millions trading with Iran ___ **7/16/03

FWIW Dept: the date is ***2009/03 [?] --- the afghanistani's call this the "Great Game" and they love playing the major [only?] part in this dull-boring chess-game,... that is to say - only they no the outcome for this isolated/desolate parcel of land they call home --- others, haplessly call no-where-land - known only to the dead incarnate as the,... "Destruction of Empires"! 

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:46 | 2057117 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:54 | 2056403 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Oh, No; Not Again,,, Yes again 

After about two and a half years during which the danger of war between the United States and Iran was at a relatively low level, this threat is now rapidly increasing. A pattern of political and diplomatic events, military deployments, and media chatter now indicates that Anglo-American ruling circles, acting through the troubled Obama administration, are currently gearing up for a campaign of bombing against Iran, combined with special forces incursions designed to stir up rebellions among the non-Persian nationalities of the Islamic Republic. Naturally, the probability of a new fake Gulf of Tonkin incident or false flag terror attack staged by the Anglo-American war party and attributed to Iran or its proxies is also growing rapidly.

The moment in the recent past when the US came closest to attacking Iran was August-September 2007, at about the time of the major Israeli bombing raid on Syria.1 This was the phase during which the Cheney faction in effect hijacked a fully loaded B-52 bomber equipped with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles, and attempted to take it to the Middle East outside of the command and control of the Pentagon, presumably to be used in a colossal provocation designed by the private rogue network for which Cheney was the visible face. A few days before the B-52 escaped control of legally constituted US authorities, a group of antiwar activists issued The Kennebunkport Warning of August 24-25, 2007, which had been drafted by the present writer.2 It was very significant that US institutional forces acted at that time to prevent the rogue B-52 from proceeding on its way towards the Middle East. The refusal to let the rogue B-52 take off reflected a growing consensus in the US military-intelligence community and the ruling elite in general that the Bush-Cheney-neocon policy of direct military aggression towards all comers had become counterproductive and very dangerous, running the risk of a terminal case of imperial overstretch.

A prominent spokesman for the growing disaffection with the neocons was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who had been a national security director in the Carter administration. Brzezinski argued that no more direct military attacks by the United States should be made for the time being, and that US policy should rather focus on playing off other states against each other, while the US remained somewhat aloof. Brzezinski’s model was always his own successful playing of the Soviet Union against Afghanistan in 1979, leading to the collapse of the Soviet empire a decade later. A centerpiece of Brzezinski’s argument was evidently the claim that color revolutions on the model of Ukraine 2004 were much a better tool than the costly and dangerous US bombing and US invasion always championed by the monomaniacal neocons. There was clearly an implication that Brzezinski could deliver a color revolution in Iran, as he had done in Ukraine.

Brzezinski’s Nightmare of 2007 Is Back

Brzezinski formulated his critique of the neocon methods of aggression and imperialistic geopolitics in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 2007, going so far as to point out the likely scenario of a false flag event or Gulf of Tonkin incident designed to embroil the United States in direct military hostilities with Iran. The heart of Brzezinski’s analysis was this: ‘If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.’ 3 Today we could add Lebanon and Syria to that list, plus perhaps Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and some others in central Asia.

The factors contributing to the current increased danger level include three major trends:

The CIA’s Green Movement in Iran Has Fizzled

The US sponsored Green Movement in Iran has now demonstrably failed in its project of overthrowing the Achmadinejad government. Back in 2006-2007, the Brzezinski-Nye-Trilateral “soft power” or “smart power” group attacked the stupidity of the neocon plan for a direct US military attack on Iran by pointing out the opportunities for staging a color revolution in Iran, just as the Brzezinski faction had successfully staged the Orange Revolution to install NATO puppets in Ukraine. Why attack Iran directly, argued Brzezinski and his friends, when a US puppet regime in Teheran could be used against Russia and China in much the same way these same people had played Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, with catastrophic results of the latter. The apex of these subversion efforts came in June 2009, with the so-called Twitter Revolution, which was celebrated with hysterical gloating in the Anglo-American media. The Mousavi-Rafsanjani faction left no doubt about its CIA and MI-6 parentage with its signature chant of “Death to Russia, Death to China.” The illusion of an easy coup in Iran has died hard in Washington and London. But by June 2010, the impotence of the Green forces in Iran had become evident. Hillary Clinton is even complaining that Achmadinejad now represents a military-backed government which has marginalized the mullahs, whom the US has demonized in public but privately relied on to prevent the economic modernization of Iran. This gives rise to the tendency to fall back on the previous neocon plan for some combination of direct military attack by Israel and the United States, combined with escalated subversion efforts among the Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, Turkmen, and Kurds of Iran.

Russian Policy Now Uncertain

During the time that the neocons were attempting to launch aggression against Iran, that task was rendered much more difficult by pervasive uncertainty about the possible reaction of Russia. One of the targets of any bombing campaign against Iran would necessarily be the Bushehr nuclear reactor, being built by Russian technicians. Neocon war planners had to worry about events like the visit to Tehran of Russian President Vladimir Putin on October 16, 2007. During the Putin era, Russian media and figures like General Leonid Ivashov took the lead in calling attention to suddenly increases in US-UK war preparations, as in the case of Operation Byte, the attack on Iran proposed for Good Friday, April 6, 2007.4 While it was thought very unlikely that Russia would risk general war as a result of an attack on Iran, there remained nevertheless the question as to what Russia actually would do. This dangerous uncertainty was a very serious obstacle for the pro-war agitation by the neocons.

In this way, Putin was able to make a decisive contribution to the maintenance of world peace during the years after 9/11. As of mid-2010, it would appear that the foreign policy of Russian President Medvedev is momentarily evolving away from the fierce independence and Russian nationalism championed by Putin, and is placing more value on projects of cooperation with the NATO countries, sometimes obtained by unilateral concessions to the US. Part of this can be ascribed to the increasing influence of the free market ideologue Anatoly Chubais, the architect of the nomenklatura privatization of Soviet state property during the 1990s, whose concept of the modernization of the Russian economy depends very heavily on information technology, in which he portrays the United States as being in the lead. Newsweek has reported the approval of a new foreign policy outline drafted by the Russian foreign ministry which has allegedly gained provisional approval by President Medvedev. This document is entitled “Program for the Effective Exploitation on A Systemic Basis of Foreign Policy Factors for the Purposes of the Long-Term Development of the Russian Federation.” 5 The main immediate effect of the reported new Russian policy is the apparent willingness of the Kremlin to make important foreign policy concessions to the United States with very minimal returns. This in turn means that key unknowns surrounding a US attack on Iran have become less of a concern for the resurgent neocon war faction in Washington. This adds up to a situation in which an attack on Iran is now more likely.

The US-UK Hedge Fund Blitzkrieg Against the Euro Falters

It is a grave error to imagine that normal relations with the Anglo-American financiers can be obtained in the current world depression through conciliatory behavior. The US-UK are experiencing cataclysmic instability in the form of a financial breakdown crisis, and this crisis impels these powers towards irrational, adventuristic, and aggressive behavior. A key lesson of the 1930s is that, when imperialist financier elites are faced by a disintegration of their fictitious speculative bubbles, they often respond with strategic flights forward of the most lunatic sort. In the wake of the 2007-2008 disintegration of the Anglo-American banking system, the New York and London elites have shown signs of going collectively bonkers, although these clinical tendencies have been primarily expressed in the area of their reactionary domestic socioeconomic policies. The specific form assumed by this tendency after the second half of 2008 involves the severe weakening of the US dollar as the world reserve currency by the creation of a $24 trillion credit line by the Federal Reserve, US Treasury, and FDIC for the purpose of bailing out the Wall Street zombie banks. This tidal wave of dollars led to a severe weakening of the US greenback on international markets during most of the second half of 2009. In late 2009 and early 2010 a group of Anglo-American hedge funds around Soros, Paulson, David Einhorn, and others launched a speculative attack against the government bonds of Greece, Spain, and Portugal, with the goal of using a crisis in the southern tier of the euro to bring on a panic flight of hot money out of the euro, thus collapsing that currency to Third World levels. Partly because of the countermeasures instituted by the German government, including the banning of naked credit default swaps on Euroland bonds and naked shorts of German stocks, and partly thanks to direct support from China, the planned Anglo-American blitzkrieg against the euro has now bogged down after eight months of effort, with the euro currently oscillating at a price of about $1.25 – $1.30. This means that, unless the city of London and Wall Street can come up with a new plan, the forces of world economic depression represented by $1.5 quadrillion of bankrupt and kited derivatives may now find a new victim, most likely in the form of either the British pound or the US dollar.

The immediate threat of a pound or dollar currency collapse is leading the ruling financier factions to reconsider a very dangerous flight forward in the form of an attack on Iran, precisely because such an aggression would likely lead to a blocking of the Straits of Hormuz or in any case to a serious disruption of one third of the world’s tanker traffic. Following the tested model of the Kippur war/oil boycott of October 1973, the US-UK financiers would bid up the price of oil to $500 or $1000 per barrel, thus creating enough demand for dollars to soak up much of the dollar overhang and prop up the greenback, at least for a time.

An Astronomical Oil Price As Salvation for The US Dollar

As Jean-Michel Vernochet of the Réseau Voltaire has pointed out, the likely Iranian retaliation for the looming attack in terms of interdicting Hormuz and the Gulf is actually built into the US-UK war plan as a positive contribution towards saving the dollar by massively driving up the price of oil, which is of course still quoted mainly in dollars.6 Energy and Capital editor Christian A. DeHaemer, an oil market analyst, commented: “The last oil price shock in the Middle East was in 1990 when the United States invaded Iraq for invading Kuwait. The price per barrel of oil went from $21 to $28 on August 6… to $46 by mid-October. The looming Iran War is not priced in,” he warned in his newsletter. Iran has the third-highest oil reserves in the world and is second only to Saudi Arabia in production. If any action prevents the flow of Iranian oil, the price of “black gold” would soar, he added.’ (

Playing The Arabs Against The Iranians

One important prerequisite for US aggression grows out of the Trilateral group’s strategy, starting from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group of 2006, of forming a block of the Sunni Arab nations against the Persian-speaking Iranian Shiites and their allies in the Lebanese Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas, as well as Syria. The Anglo-American hope for this tactic of divide and conquer is that hostility between Arabs and Persians will eclipse the more recent enmity between Jews and Arabs. “The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at (it) for a thousand,” wrote Jeffrey Goldberg on The Atlantic’s website.8

With many reports that the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are ready to support the US aggression, great importance must be attached to the current struggle over the future shape of the government of Iraq. Here The secular Shiite Allawi is a US puppet, while his rival Maliki prefers Iran. Sadr and his Mahdi army, closely linked to Iran, represent a key stumbling block for US intentions. The US requires an Iraqi puppet state which will pursue at least a pro-US neutrality in case of war, and above all prevent Iranian special forces or guerrillas from cutting the long US supply line alone Route Tampa from Kuwait City. This is why the question of the Iraqi government was so important that Vice President Biden had to make a special trip to Iraq in the vain hope of quickly setting up a suitable puppet regime there. If the Iraq army turns against US, the situation of US forces could become extraordinarily critical.

War Warnings, Calls For War

Over recent days, warnings about imminent war and direct calls for war have been proliferating in the world media. The veteran Cuban leader Fidel Castro gave his most detailed media interview since the beginning of his illness several years ago, apparently for the express purpose of issuing a warning about US aggressive plans for Iran, and also for North Korea (DPRK). According to a wire dispatch of July 12, ‘the 83-year-old former president talked about how tension between the United States and both North Korea and Iran could ultimately trigger a global nuclear war …. Castro warned that an attack on Iran would be catastrophic for America. “The worst (for America) is the resistance they will face there, which they didn’t face in Iraq,” he said.’

On July 11, the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad stated that ‘the US compelled the UN Security Council to impose sanctions against Iran in order to weaken the country and lay the ground for a military attack. The former Malaysian premier added, “It is a matter of time before the war criminals in Israel and the United States launch another war of aggression, once Iran has been weakened by sanctions.”’ 10

Around the same time, former Senator Chuck Robb and former NATO deputy commander General Charles Wald issued an editorial call for the US to begin preparing an attack. Their argument was that the fourth round of economic sanctions extorted by the United States from UN Security Council on June 9 would never be effective, and that military action had to be geared up in parallel to these sanctions. They also warned that the Cold War doctrine of deterrence would not work in regard to Iran: ‘Absent a broader and more robust strategy, however, sanctions alone will prove inadequate to halt Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons…current trends suggest that Iran could achieve nuclear weapons capability before the end of this year, posing a strategically untenable threat to the United States. Contrary to a growing number of voices in Washington, we do not believe a nuclear weapons-capable Iran could be contained…. We cannot afford to wait indefinitely to determine the effectiveness of diplomacy and sanctions. Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort. Indeed, publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely. Instead, the administration needs to expand its approach and make clear to the Iranian regime and the American people: If diplomatic and economic pressures do not compel Iran to terminate its nuclear program, the U.S. military has the capability and is prepared to launch an effective, targeted strike on Tehran’s nuclear and supporting military facilities…. The stakes are too high to rely on sanctions and diplomacy without credibly preparing for a potential military strike as well.’ 11
The Neocons Promise A Cakewalk — Again!

One of the most blatant calls for war with Iran comes from the former CIA agent and neocon ideologue Reuel Marc Gerecht. The Weekly Standard, the central organ of the neocon warmonger party, devotes the cover story of its current issue to urging the Israelis to put an end to Obama’s dithering by mounting the attacks themselves, thus presenting the feckless tenant of the White House with a fait accompli.12

In the inimitable style of neocon Kenneth Adelman, who notoriously promised a cakewalk in Iraq the last time we went down this road, Gerecht impatiently dismisses a series of arguments against such a fateful act of incalculable folly, and does not miss the opportunity to settle accounts with Brzezinski, whose alternative model of imperialist management is now losing support within the ruling elite. Gerecht writes: ‘… concerns about an Israeli bombing are no more persuasive. Hezbollah would undoubtedly unleash its missiles on Israel after a preventive strike…. Hundreds of Israelis could die from Hezbollah’s new and improved store of missiles. Israel might have to invade Lebanon again, which would cost more lives and certainly upset the “international community.”…. The Obama administration might fume, but it is hard to imagine the president, given what he has said about the unacceptability of Iranian nukes, scolding Jerusalem long. He might personally agree with his one-time counsel, Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, that Israel has become a pariah state, but politically this won’t fly.’ 13 Three years ago, Brzezinski had the upper hand and the neocons were in disarray, but now the tables have been turned to a significant extent.

There is nothing to worry about, Gerecht assures us, since the Iranians are a paper tiger and the results will be a cakewalk: ‘American fear of Iranian capabilities in Iraq and Afghanistan has been exaggerated. The Americans are leaving Iraq; within a year, most of our troops are due to be gone….’ 14 Back in 2002-2003, the neocon line was that Saddam Hussein was so powerful that he had to be attacked. This time around, their field is reversed, and the main argument is that the Iranians need to be attacked because they are a pushover: ‘If the Iranians tried their mightiest, they could give us only a small headache compared with the migraine we’ve already got courtesy of the Pakistanis, who are intimately tied to Afghanistan’s Taliban. And the Israelis know the U.S. Navy has no fear of Tehran’s closing the Strait of Hormuz. If Khamenei has a death-wish, he’ll let the Revolutionary Guards mine the strait, the entrance to the Persian Gulf: It might be the only thing that would push President Obama to strike Iran militarily. Such an escalation could quickly leave Khamenei with no navy, air force, and army. The Israelis have to be praying that the supreme leader will be this addle-headed.’ 15 The tried and true ‘cakewalk’ argument is neither the first nor the last notorious neocon trick which is being brought back these days.

But what about the awesome threat of Iranian state-sponsored terrorism, the danger which these same neocons have been incessantly harping on for the past decade? No problem, says Gerecht. All we would need to do at that point is to issue a bloodcurdling thermonuclear ultimatum to Iran about incinerating that country with nuclear missiles, perhaps killing tens of millions of Iranians. As a matter of fact, Gerecht suggests, the US had better start issuing this sort of threat right now, without any further dithering: ‘It is entirely possible that Khamenei would use terrorism against the United States after an Israeli strike. That is one of the supreme leader’s preferred methods of state action, which is why he should not be permitted a nuclear weapon. The correct response for the United States is to credibly threaten vengeance. President Obama might be obliged to make such a threat immediately after an Israeli surprise attack; whether the Iranians would believe it, given America’s record, is more difficult to assess.’ 16 Note carefully that these statements amounts to the public advocacy of aggressive war, a behavior which may run afoul of the Nuremberg precedents of 1945.

The Iranians are crazy, says Gerecht, so the old-fashioned nuclear deterrence of Mutually Assured Destruction will never work. There is no point in wasting time any longer, and it is time for the Israeli missiles and bombers to fly: ‘‘It is possible the Israelis have waited too long to strike. Military action should make a strategic difference….If we’re not at the end of the road, then the Israelis probably should waste no more time. Khamenei is still weak. He’s more paranoid than he’s ever been. The odds of his making uncorrectable mistakes are much better than before. Any Israeli raid that could knock out a sizable part of Iran’s nuclear program would change the dynamic inside Iran and throughout the Middle East…..Unless Jerusalem bombs, the Israelis will soon be confronting a situation without historical parallel…. In the best case scenario, if things were just “normal” in Tehran, Israel would likely be confronting Cuban Missile Crisis-style brinkmanship on a routine basis.

De Borchgrave: Obama Wants Three Wars And Both Houses Of Congress

The veteran columnist Arnaud de Borchgrave offers the following estimate, which gives considerable attention to the US military opposition against the coming strike, as well as to Iranian capabilities for retaliation in the region: ‘A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, “All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won’t work.” The temptation for Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan that is bound to get worse and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Obama a three-front war — and a chance to retain both houses of Congress. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also expressed reservations from time to time. The Joint Chiefs and former CENTCOM commanders know better than most experts that Iran has formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities. For example, all of these are vulnerable to Iranian sabotage or hundreds of Iranian missiles on the eastern side of the Gulf: from the narrow Straits of Hormuz, which still handles 25 percent of the world’s oil traffic; to Bahrain, the U.S. Fifth Fleet’s headquarters where the population is two-thirds Shiite and the royal family is Sunni; to Dubai, where about 400,000 Iranians live, including many who are “sleeper agents” or favorable to Tehran; to Qatar, now the world’s richest country with per-capita income at $78,000, which supplies the United States with the world’s longest runway and sub-headquarters for CENTCOM, and whose LNG facilities are within short missile range of Iran’s coastal batteries; to Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura, the world’s largest oil terminal, and Abqaiq, nerve center of Saudi’s eastern oil fields.

On The Eve Of A New False Flag Provocation?

Naturally, the traditional Anglo-American method for neutralizing any possible opposition from military leaders or members of Congress, to say nothing of the increasingly atomized US public, has been to stage a provocation along the lines of the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964, or an event like 9/11, quickly followed by the appropriate congressional resolution which can be used in lieu of an actual declaration of war, as needed. Vernochet finds that these ingredients are really the only ones missing in the current constellation of forces to get military operations going in grand style.58 Vernochet estimates that the only possibility for stopping this war would be the creation of a large block of states led by Russia and China, and that this possibility seems very remote at the present time. But instead of seeing the denizens of Manhattan and the city of London as power crazed, it would be more accurate to regard them as living in mortal fear of their own imminent financial bankruptcy, and desperately seeking some way to convince the world that their empire of derivatives, zombie banks, and hedge funds actually represents the economic future of humanity.59 In the meantime, one thing which antiwar activists can unquestionably do is to begin inoculating public opinion to regard any terrorist act or military clash attributed by the mass media to Iran as a provocation deliberately staged by the US-UK war party.

US And Israeli Warships Mobilized

The US has recently deployed a second aircraft carrier battle group to waters near Iran. A large number of US warships, by some accounts 11 vessels, passed through the Suez Canal heading east towards the Gulf at the end of June. This was evidently the expanded battle group around the attack carrier USS Truman. An Israeli report says: ‘International agreements require Egypt to keep the Suez open even for warships, but the armada, led by the USS Truman with 5,000 sailors and marines, was the largest in years. Egypt closed the canal to fishing and other boats as the armada moved through the strategic passageway that connects the Red and Mediterranean Seas.’ 60 Some reports stated that an Israeli ship was part of the armada.

There are also reports that the Israeli Navy is expanding its operations into the Gulf: ‘Several defense websites have reported that Israel is deploying one to three German-made nuclear submarines in the Persian Gulf as a defensive measure against the possibility of a missile attacks from Lebanon and Syria, as well as Iran. “The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before,” DeHaemer wrote, “but the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.”61 These submarines fire nuclear missiles, and could destroy Iranian cities. They cannot defend anything, but they can launch a nuclear first strike.

US Troops In Eleven Countries Encircle Iran

US forces currently operate in at least 11 countries within striking distance of Iran. These are Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Pakistan, Kuwait, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Kyrgyzstan. While Manas Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan might be available for operations against Iran, there are currently no US bases in Uzbekistan, so far as is known. But the US is trying to re-open its Uzbek base, which was closed in 2005.62 Thus, US military forces are now present in virtually all of Iran’s neighbors, except Syria. Many of these are places which the US peace movement, to the extent that it has survived the coming of Obama, has never heard of. This includes more than 50,000 GIs in Iraq (where the US is now alone, after the departure of all coalition contingents) and Afghanistan, where there are some 100,000 US forces. There are US forces in various disguises in Pakistan. There are NATO bases, including the formidable Incirlik air base, in Turkey. Whether Turkey will allow its territory to be abused for aggression is another question.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:55 | 2056417 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Did you just rewrite an article; of the Constitution?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:58 | 2056430 Blano
Blano's picture

Jesus fucking anti-Christ just post a link next time.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:13 | 2056479 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Long reads fuck you up...Amerikan schools what can we say..And you read it in four mins??  EVELYN WOODS???

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:26 | 2056551 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

No man, long reads don't fuck us up. Most of us here are quite well read and avid readers. But posts that long just slow down our ability to work or way through the thread. It takes up a fuck of a lot of space.

Most of us would likely be more appreciative of the information if you would just provide a lead in to it with some information (the heart of the matter) and a link. That way, we're also more prone to go read it that just sit here and say "jesus fuckin christ what a long ass post" we skip it and get annoyed.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:58 | 2056637 kill switch
kill switch's picture

 Most of us here are quite well read and avid readers..I agree, So, whats your point??  Beacuse ZH posts rapid info, you can't keep up???

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:29 | 2056730 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

What's my point? Really? OK idiot...I'LL SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU:


Stop jerking off in community spaces!


I tried to be nice but if you insist on being a dick

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:45 | 2056767 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Ten + page document is over your haed in this thread??? Why this thread??  You must be the low bulb on the chandilieir. The cummunity spaces?? They are devient in your space?? You need a bus stop 3 am prospective.. And you didn't spell it out by the way     FUCK FACE!!! My sensitivity is so....John Wayne...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:15 | 2056879 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

You want to cloak yourself in the delusion that only you have the capacity to read a 10 page document because it helps you avoid the reality that we are all trying to point out...that posting a 10 page document on this thread is pure masturbation.

Now you seem to be getting angrier and angrier as more and more people point out that you are being a dick...and by getting angry at them for pointing out what is by now quite obvious to all (that you are in fact, a dick) you just make yourself seem even more like a dick.

You are in a spiral here. You really should just step away from your computer before you hurt yourself or your computer.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:31 | 2056927 kill switch
kill switch's picture

You want to cloak yourself in the delusion that only you have the capacity to read a 10 page document


You posted that it was an anomaly.....

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 23:13 | 2057207 pakled
pakled's picture

@kill switch. That was a helpful posting you made. Very instructive. Not sure why you are giving your power away and watering down both your own, and the posting's, efficacy. Be the wise man, take the counsel, and fold the information into your next posting. Looking forward to it.



Thu, 01/12/2012 - 19:47 | 2060171 kill switch
kill switch's picture

I'm sensitive....pakled,,,,you understand....THANX....

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:14 | 2056503 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

He's been spamming the shit out of that article.  It's only been useless "analysis" for 2 years--that could change at any moment.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:21 | 2056532 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Everything is dynamic you fucking moron.... And a link would be useless to this fucktard and his suppoters like you..

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:56 | 2056634 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If you don't have anything to say, don't bother.  If you have something to say, there's no excuse for cutting/pasting a 2-year old article.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:03 | 2056663 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Blunder, is Apropos... CP is my post MORON       WGT###

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:17 | 2056703 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You're pretty sensitive to be hanging on the Internet, Websie.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:27 | 2056727 kill switch
kill switch's picture

I'm not a feminist, I attacked the limp hand cell phone morons like you,,,Do I sound sensitive now?? FUCK FACE??


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:36 | 2056748 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You curse very well.  Print that out and give it to your mom--maybe she'll stick it on the fridge to show offer your writing skills. 

(I'm just fucking with you because you're a whiny crying little bitch.)

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:49 | 2056776 kill switch
kill switch's picture



to show offer ???????

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:58 | 2056818 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Did you have to run away from the other username here because the other kids were being too mean to you?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:03 | 2056835 kill switch
kill switch's picture

What user name?? Your falling into my trap.....WGT

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:15 | 2056878 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I wonder what's keeping a genius like you from landing one of those high-paying thinktank gigs.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:32 | 2056902 kill switch
kill switch's picture

I have a house in palm springs...Should I call you on your mothers cell phone to connect to the cellar??/basement

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:34 | 2056936 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

I'd love to hear from you.  I haven't gotten so much attention here in weeks.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:43 | 2056956 kill switch
kill switch's picture

You need get a check up from the neck up!!!  But it is entertaining to engage a man with his brain in neutral..Love to hear from you as well!!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:56 | 2056999 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

If you were to estimate, what share of your personal relationships are cybersex like this one?

(I have a few other lovers here, myself.)

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:02 | 2057013 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Sex??? How sad..

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:17 | 2057047 Use of Weapons
Use of Weapons's picture

@ a poster who has chewed me over a couple of times, but in support for some rather menial & mendacious junking.

Salient point.

CTRL+C / CTRL+V doesn't make your post a valid one. Succinct link and a bit of analysis please, that's what the big money pays for ~ if we can read through a 50 page PDF from a company, whilst hungover and without caffeine, we can all manage a small time blog post from yesteryear...

Whilst still reading the other six open tabs.

Now stop junking the man for being a non-fossil, and grow the fuck up.



Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:35 | 2057342 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Evening, sir.

Our illustrious Mr. Webbie may not be aware of the "nofollow" tag.  It's distasteful spam.  Any post of more than 100 words that shows up every other day is truly the worst the web can offer.  It was junk when geopol was pushing it a year ago, and it's junk now. 

I enjoy his persistence or I'd never give him so much love.  Nothing could invalidate the message more effectively than the followup.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:56 | 2056803 kill switch
kill switch's picture



You curse very well.    No shit....

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:39 | 2056755 Jena
Jena's picture

Well, since you asked... yes.  You rather do.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:54 | 2056792 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Jena FUCK YOU,  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!That is so sensitive.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:08 | 2056847 Jena
Jena's picture

You asked the question.  I answered.  Not my problem if you can't handle the answer, Mr. Sensitive As John Wayne.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:13 | 2056870 kill switch
kill switch's picture

Jena,,, Your so sweet...Your answer is handled.....JW You look cute


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:19 | 2056893 kill switch
kill switch's picture

He's been spamming the shit

Dispute it, you asshole... Give us a point by point rebuttal

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:10 | 2056484 sushi
sushi's picture

“All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won’t work.”



“All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want the US to take action to quadruple the price of oil and send their revenues to the moon so they can buy chateaux in France, estates in UK and billions in bullets and bombs from the USA.”

Fixed it for yah.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 03:29 | 2057525 harmonymonkey
harmonymonkey's picture

Attribution please?  Stratfor?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:01 | 2056420 Wakanda
Wakanda's picture

"Once again, regrettably and mysteriously, we find the developed world in lock-step in its eagerness to attack Iran."

What is mysterious about Iran's reserves of crude?  Iraq is #5 and Iran is #4 just behind Canada #3 eh?

The end game is to isolate China.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:42 | 2056461 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

Who is Silent but Violent? Dip Shit!   Who is the TOP exporter of " CRUDE OIL" in the world? Dip Shit!

  If you can't play with the " Big Dogs" / stay under the porch! Dip Shit!


 An answer would be appreciated? Dip Shit!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:11 | 2056684 Wakanda
Wakanda's picture

YC, you are in rare form tonight!  Eloquent, kind, and informative as ever.

We luv ya "Big Dog"!


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 18:58 | 2056431 Rastadamus
Rastadamus's picture

World war 22 here we come.....

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:06 | 2056467 OldE_Ant
OldE_Ant's picture

I have to agree that most of this is total whitewash BS to distract from the real BS going on in the financial markets.   I also think this articles analysis of how high oil prices will hammer the economy is mostly flat wrong or irrelevant when compared with the other systemic problems going on economically.  The main question is whether it causes a price/economic shock.  This is why I don't think we have war so prices rise slowly vs. shockingly.  I have a sneaking suspicion that Uncle Ben-wanky wants oil prices to climb for a couple of reasons:

1)  Try to get inflation going

2)  Try to get commodity markets moving for (1)

3)  If commodity markets move up then the associated stocks will move (i.e. stock markets move up)

I honestly think while IRAN may want a nuclear device, the powers that be know they won't let that occur (no way they want a rogue regime with that kind of ability).   Same deal with virtually every other country in that region, screw with them until somehow they come under your thumb.  I also think a lot of people think 'war' is good for the world economy since eventually one has to rebuild what was blown up.   Less people is a bonus.

In the back of their minds they have to be looking at Natual Gas prices (which are at decade lows) thinking even if we lose oil (or oil spikes) companies/people will start switching. (i.e. a significantly cheaper energy fallback exists)

Interestingly if such an event were to occur who benefits?!   Indirectly the FED because everyone will run to US Bonds (probably taking a negative rate of return) and so the FED can start offloading some of their bonds to others 'AT A PROFIT'.  Once that's done they can pump the market, bring bonds down (screw over the bond holders) and keep on, keeping on.

I think IRAN skirmish/war/saberrattling is a win, win, win across the board for the FED.  The only loser would be Obama, IRAN and joe sixpack of course.  A war with IRAN if not completed by election time would be very bad politically for Obama (which is why it's probably saber rattling).   The US would also probably have to expand the debt ceiling (which would be easier in times of 'war').   If the US wants war - it's a trivial matter to air drop a few trucks with missles and sink some robotically controlled ship and then launch in on IRAN.  Heck send in special forces to capture a few and launch.  If the US thought they had a hard time dealing with IRAQ I can't wait to see how they deal with IRAN after a war.

I've been looking at picking up some still beaten down foreign oil company stocks.  But also keep looking at getting more PM's with the fiat.   Though to be honest my recent buy was a Imperial Berkefeld with extra filters of course.  Seems like good clean drinking water and a potentially portable water filter (which requires no electricity, pressure, etc.) for decades is a better investment at this point.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:15 | 2056510 Meremortal
Meremortal's picture

"Simply because if actions against Iran trigger a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world's daily sea-borne oil passes, oil prices will spike, the world's teetering economy will slump, and the arrival of the next financial emergency will be hastened."

See, this is where I get lost. There are a lot of people here who want everything to collapse so they can spend their gold and laugh at everyone else, or something. These same people don't want war with Iran.

Given the statement above, you'd think they'd be all for it, bombs away.



Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:51 | 2056627's picture

Those who hedge against disaster don't necessarily want disaster. Simple stuff.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:16 | 2056518 MFL8240
MFL8240's picture

The perfect scenerio for Obama as the scapegoats are far and few between and this provides the best chance to blame the shameless recovery on yet another party.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:18 | 2056526 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Isnt the NPT just a piece of paper like the constitution? I mean for the US that is?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:19 | 2056529 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

Sorry CM.  A trade war (which is what the sanctions essentially are) is not "an act of war."  Iran may feel it is like an act of war because they decided to base their economy on exporting just one commodity, but it is not.   Everyone is free to choose who they want to do business with (or not) without being considered an act of war.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:36 | 2056589 Questan1913
Questan1913's picture


It sounds as though you might have an honorary television derived double degree in International Law and Internatioal Relations.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:01 | 2056658 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

Wow - you did totally shoot down my argument.  Nuts.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:43 | 2056629's picture

Enforcing sanctions means that people are not free to choose with whom they do business. That's the whole point.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:30 | 2057331 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

Sanctions are a decision by a nation not to do business with another country -- nothing wrong with that and not an act of war.  Nations should be able to make that choice if it thinks that is in their best interest.  Hence sovereign nations.  

Prefer free trade, just don't think any nation should be compelled to trade with any other nation without being labeled an act of war.  The point is sanctions are not an act of war. 


Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:42 | 2057354's picture

The US will sanction any country that does business with Iran. Threatening other nations not to trade with Iran constitutes a blockade and a blockade is now and always has been an act of war.

And blowing up people in cars is also an act of war. You don't believe that Iranian scientists are spontaneously combusting, do you? The US and Israel are using state sponsored terrorism against Iran. It's that simple.

Also note that the Pentagon and all US intelligence agencies unanimously agree with "high confidence" that Iran has no nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons program.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 01:45 | 2057448 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

Economic sanctions against a nation or any group of nations is not an act of war.  The US is not preventing (nor blockading) anyone else from doing business with Iran or any other country.   Iran is free to trade with whatever countries that want to reciprocate.

You can label it economic coercion.  But the sanctions are not an act of war as indicated in CM's post.

Economic sanctions are neither necessary nor sufficient to be at war. 

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 01:52 | 2057454's picture

Sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s led to the deaths of half a million children age five or younger. If any nation created conditions that killed a half million American toddlers do you think that Americans would see that as an act of war?

Sat, 01/14/2012 - 14:05 | 2064679 Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

There were sanctions.  People were killed.  Therefore, sanctions killed people and are an act of war.  Absurd. 

Sanctions don't kill people.  Conditions don't kill people.  Bad people kill innocent people.  It is what the victim class does -- blame others and their conditions for their behavior.  The US is full of victims -- entitled ones no less.  

By your logic, when China creates sanctions against buying US Treasuries and sells the ones they own, the US should consider it an act of war.  Absurd.


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:26 | 2056552 Max Power
Max Power's picture

Time to get out my bumper sticker from 1979. You know, the one with Mickey Mouse giving the finger and sayin "hey Iran".  I think I'll get out Back In Black also.  But I have that on CD now. :0)

This was an interesting read: 

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 23:07 | 2057189 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

It was an interesting read insofar as it being a good example of the propaganda eagerly consumed and regurgitated by chickenhawks.


Thu, 01/12/2012 - 01:06 | 2057393 Max Power
Max Power's picture

I'll trust Hanson and Co. over you and Martensen anyday. Unless you want to enlighten us with an article rather than your sound bites.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:41 | 2056582 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Thank you for bringing up the supercavitating torpedo (underwater missile) issue which I've been mentioning whenever Iran comes up. Some people think these babies could send our carriers to the bottom pronto! The little nasties can be fired from ships, subs, shore, and from the bottom as mines! Several U.S. warships have been heavily damaged by simple mines in friendly, open Iraqi waters. The narrow strait of Hormuz and this weapon presents a whole new level of challenge and lethality...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:28 | 2056729 Smiley
Smiley's picture

Those are one of the most deliberately ignored weapons of war in all of modern history.  The US leads the world in Stealth technology but while we were wrapped up in our "Bat Planes" Russia kept chugging along the Super Cavitation technology.  First wire navigated, now full autonomous; those things are fast, mean, and REAL.  If the fire control of the self guided versions is robust enough there is no reason you couldn't drop these off the back of cheap speed boats.  If properly equipped with the right warhead there is no reason that a couple of those couldn't send a carrier right to the bottom.  There is no defense against those things.

These also completely negate any defensive capability offered by the US's missile shield technology for coastal regions.  You can simply have one of these things equipped with a nuclear warhead jump out of the water a half mile from shore and take out a coastal city.  There would be a nuclear explosion before NORAD even knew a threat was inbound.  Remember, these are REAL not theoretical, but REAL working weapons being sold openly by Russia to those they deem to be friendly to their strategic causes; almost like the US giving Stinger missiles to the Afghan militia in the 1980's to shoot down superior Russian air power...hmm.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:20 | 2056896 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

Agreed... these torpedoes are the stinger missiles of the deep. Our carriers are huge slow moving targets in a very narrow, confined space.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:39 | 2056586 non_anon
non_anon's picture

Smedley Butler, a Marine officer from the early 1900's, told us, the Marines were sent into China in behest of Standard Oil to secure the oil assets in the name or Corporatism. Nothing has changed.

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Another good read is "Confessions of an Economic Hitman.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:54 | 2056990 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture


Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:16 | 2057309 frostfan
frostfan's picture

Actually yes, something has changed.   Everyone here would be Zionists for sending the Marines to China because only Jews and Zionists could come up with a plan like you mention unlike the white Christians who made all the decision at Standard Oil those days.  Nice history lesson though and informative!!!!!!!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:45 | 2056607 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 All these punk wana bees! Junk away 1 The lost generation!    Drug addicted parents/ Dirt Bag values!

   The " VENEER" , of society is being tested! 

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:54 | 2056794 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

Don't worry, ZHers....Yen Cross is from the DOD/CIA troll night shift!

You don't bother me at fact, you are a good laugh.....thanks!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:45 | 2056608 tony bonn
tony bonn's picture

thank you for bringing sanity to the situation with iran....the rabid foaming of the mouth by the neocon assholes is deplorable but certainly the hallmark of the times of the gentiles....

i loved the graphic which underscored my previous observation that the usa had strategically enveloped iran which has contributed to its insecurities....

the usa is hellbent on sacrificing more lives to keep the rockefeller-bush-obama oil jauggernaut in action....the war has nothing to do with the trumped up allegations of nuclear weapons but everything to do with oil....

iran will emerge as a major power in the middle east; therefore i am doubtful that the current actions by the warmongerers will have long lasting effects on iran....

for someone who is so concerned about the closing of the straights of hormuz it is hard to wonder how removing 2.6mm bbl per day from the world economy is not functionally underscores the lies and deceptions spewing forth from the great satan...

the rockefeller-mic-yale-cia cabal do not care about the economic consequences of the iranian sanctions....they are perfectly insulated from it and will continue to tyrannize thank you very much....raping and pillage of amerika will proceed apace....

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 19:46 | 2056614 besnook
besnook's picture

so cia/mossad has taken out another iranian nuke scientist /engineer.


i wonder how they will reciprocate.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:09 | 2056680 Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Awkwarddinnerjacket is on a World Tour!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:49 | 2056978 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

I don't know how they will reciprocate but sound bites of Hillary are all over the radio claiming categorical denial of any involvement. if you believe that i have some bars of soap to sell you.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:00 | 2056647 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 The " FOOD STAMPS" are out tonight!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:17 | 2056702 Scarticia
Scarticia's picture



Is that what you call yourself?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:22 | 2056713's picture


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:07 | 2056678 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 The Lefties are upon us! Huff & Puffsters!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:24 | 2056716 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

Sweetheart, you are posting drunk, yes? Folks are picking on you because it is hard to make sense of some of your posts.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:03 | 2056833 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

Nope...I suspect he is quite sober and displaying his intellectual apex.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:09 | 2056681 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

I'm gonna put my truck in the mountain range in the middle of the blue part on the map.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:10 | 2056687 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

And you can attribute drunk driving to that one.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:09 | 2056685 Missiondweller
Missiondweller's picture

Chris seemes to be utterly clueless of the events of the last 30 years where Iran has been at war with the United States.


  1. The kidnapping and murder of Colonel Higgins
  2. The Beruit Bombing of US troop barracks
  3. A possible link between Itan and the Kobar Towers bombing
  4. Selling missiles and material support for Hezbolah.
  5. Manufacture of armored penetrators that killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq.

The list goes on and on. What Chris Martenson seems to be completely clueless about is that we have been in a low level war with Iran since they took over the US embassy and held Americans hostage for a tear and a half.


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:19 | 2056706 alien-IQ
alien-IQ's picture

And you also are being quite selective with your history.

While it is true that they took Americans hostage when they took over the American Embassy, you do not mention what events led to that.

Did we not overthrow their democratically elected president in 1953 and install a puppet dictator that while selling the nations resources to America for cheep also put in prison and tortured any and all who opposed him?

So while they may have held Americans hostage for over a year, we did in fact overthrow their government and held them hostage with a puppet dictator for 25 years.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:56 | 2056805 moroots
moroots's picture

Further, Iran seees that if you have oil but don't have a nuke, the u.s. will invade you. 

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:46 | 2056968 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

You can spot these weinertards a mile away.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:09 | 2057033 Bazza McKenzie
Bazza McKenzie's picture

Leaving aside the one-sided view presented about the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government and the world at the time, it was almost 60 years ago.  If your principle is that justifies a continuous war on the US by Iran, then obviously the US should feel free to regularly bomb Germany and Japan, as well as North Korea.

Missiondweller simply pointed out there was been a continuous series of aggressive action by Iran against the US over the decades up to the present, not in the distant past, and those actions have involved killing numerous US citizens.  Had either Bush or Obama had the balls to seriously defend the US they would have given Iran's military the hiding needed to persuade it to stop killing Americans and their allies in Iraq.  But they didn't and they have continued the lesson to Iran that as long as it engages in attacking the US by proxy it can get away with it.

The US does a number of stupid and damaging things in the world, but I am getting tired of the stupidity that tries to present countries like Iran, China, NK, Russia as just poor innocents, badly treated by the terrible US (and those even more dastardly Israelis) and who, left alone by the US would just live very peaceable lives without any harm to their own citizens, the rest of the world and the US.  That wasn't how the world operated before the US came into existence and it was not how Persia, China, Russia, etc conducted themselves in the past.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 23:33 | 2057234 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Bazza McKenzie, strutting and preening while displaying his ignorance:

Leaving aside the one-sided view presented about the overthrow of the Mosaddegh government and the world at the time, it was almost 60 years ago.

It's always a good idea to get more than one point of view. Here is the CIA's view of the Mossadeq overthrow. I can't understand why they wanted to keep it so quiet.

CIA Clandestine Service History, "Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran,
November 1952-August 1953," March 1954, by Dr. Donald Wilber

Also, why do people like Missiondweller bring up the US embassy hostage situation? I mean, it was more than 30 years ago, right?

Missiondweller simply pointed out there was been a continuous series of aggressive action by Iran against the US over the decades up to the present, not in the distant past, and those actions have involved killing numerous US citizens.  Had either Bush or Obama had the balls to seriously defend the US they would have given Iran's military the hiding needed to persuade it to stop killing Americans and their allies in Iraq.

No, Missiondweller was just parroting more garbage propaganda because it's easier and less painful for him than doing any actual thinking. The IEDs used in Iraq appear to have been made in Iraq and surrounding countries, with the exception of Iran:


Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:20 | 2057314 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Excellent post!

It is great idea to get multiple interpretations of the same facts.

Iran really hasn't been conducting a low level war against the US via proxy for decades,

it is all propaganda.

I read it here on ZH all the time.


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:30 | 2056731 besnook
besnook's picture

no, chris is just politely saying israeli influence upon the usa has to end even if israel has to end.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:13 | 2056690 sjamesje
sjamesje's picture

People forget...20% enrichment is 90% of the effort to get fissile material.  

Experts point out that the process of obtaining 20 percent enriched uranium represents most of the work needed to get the uranium enriched to the level of 90 percent or above required for atomic weapons.

The Fordo news "is worrisome because 20 percent is so close to being weapons-usable and because there is absolutely no civilian need for it now," Mark Fitzpatrick from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:59 | 2056723's picture

The Pentagon says they're not worried about Iran making a nuke without our ability to know about it and stop it. Do you consider "Mark Fitzpatrick from the International Institute for Strategic Studies" to be more expert in this matter than the DoD?


PS -- Wow. Folks down voting the Pentagon. I wonder where all these America haters are coming from?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:13 | 2056692 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 You ass hats make me laugh!  The cluster F..k never ends! Tyler please post in Europe session. Lot's of figures coming out over the next 48! Thank You.

   Love those charts!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:41 | 2056762 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

The only thing I don't like about the charts is that it's a "known fact" that this place turns into a complete fucking nuthouse when they are at the bottom.  So are we going to turn back up?  Evidence suggests otherwise but my bank account suggests I don't know shit.  So I guess time will tell.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:39 | 2056947 Yen Cross
Yen Cross's picture

 You are a thoUORGHLY COOKED? Meat Ball!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:40 | 2056757 ilovefreedom
ilovefreedom's picture

So the US strategy is to defeat closure of the Straight if that indeed happens. But considering the minimal level of chaos and instability it would take to screw with normal passage through the straight (after which the US would have to completely destroy ALL installations within range of the straight AND escort EACH ship through), then adding in unorthodox warfare methods that would further exacerbate the risk it sounds like the military proposal would be to put the proverbial Gennie back in the bottle.  Not to mention what China would say about their largest oil supplier being targeted.

Remember, Japan attacked Pearl harbor after US actions cut off their fuel supplies. Pearl Harbor was an act of desperation and perhaps asymetrical but it certainly was not unprovoked.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:02 | 2057012 Pancho Villa
Pancho Villa's picture

Remember, Japan attacked Pearl harbor after US actions cut off their fuel supplies. Pearl Harbor was an act of desperation and perhaps asymetrical but it certainly was not unprovoked.

Considering that Japan at that time was using US fuel to support its occupation of Korea, Manchuria, and coastal China, the US had a perfect right and even a moral obligation to stop selling fuel to them.

It is true that the Roosevelt administration was very much aware that the fuel embargo would certainly anger Japan and possibly lead to an attack. But the main reason for the embargo was to prevent Japan from attacking Russia. The embargo allowed Stalin to move his Siberian divisions to Moscow and counterattack the Germans who were within 15 miles of the Kremlin in late Nov. 1941.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:02 | 2057280 frostfan
frostfan's picture



No no no.  Using common sense and history here?   Please!!!   If you're not here to blame the USA for all your problems and the world's problems, please go elsewhere.   If you are not voting for Ron Paul in the hope that he helps annihilate Israel, please go elsewhere.  But this common sense stuff and history and moral obligations?  No.  This is Zerohedge where you're supposed to say that the US was responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:48 | 2056774 xcehn
xcehn's picture

"The Obama administration presently has its hands full with its wars in Central Asia, the Middle East and Africa. But as soon as Obama is finished “liberating” Tehran, it’ll be on to Venezuela. You can bet on it. After all, Venezuela sits on the biggest ocean of oil in the world, “over 500 billion barrels”. That means it’s only a matter of time before WMD and Al Qaida training camps are discovered in Caracas."

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:29 | 2057069 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

That hard to refine, expensive, and difficult to extract crap (oil sands) in Venezuela and Canada will not make a big difference in the long or short term. The declining supply of the high quality, cheap stuff will crash the global system long before that crap (oil sands) could ever possibly make a real difference. Skip forward to "Beyond The Peak" at 2:23:43 of Zeitgeist and you'll understand...

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:53 | 2056790 moroots
moroots's picture

Meanwhile the leaderless braindead House and the sleeping-at-the-moment Senate don't do a goddamn thing while King Hussein asserts his Marxist-Imperial-autoerotic-Military Fantasy.  Do we even have a fucking legislature anymore?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:18 | 2056890 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

They're the guys who have to get together and raise the debt ceiling every few months.  They're a critical part of the system.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:55 | 2056798 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Just rambling on in a drunken state, but let's put the NWO aside from a moment.  What if the intellect in the Pentagon are projecting decades into the future in regards to peak oil.  The US would thus be in serious trouble(esp since exploding $40k electric vehicles can't be sold to mcdonalds employees) and the decline of our society would result, eventually, in massive amounts of suffering and death.  Enter 9-11.  The prior situation is inevitable.  Therefore we have to find a way out of it. At any cost.  Since our current war planning has a possible outcome(according to crazy people) of success that is a better alternative than a known outcome of the forementioned disaster.  So all of the victims of 9-11 were actually the demise of the few for the greater of the many.   Any great mathematicians etc could probably had projected this out decades ago.  Since it was a given, a select group of super assholes emerged as well, knowing full well what is going to happen, and intend being in charge of it all when it comes down to it.  In other words, all this was going to happen anyhow and a few select pricks are positioning to see that they own and control it all when it does.  None of this is being done so much on purpose as it is out of necesity because our collapse and demise here in the US is a given at the current rate and it was the only alternative.

Not so sure I worded this the best but it's something i've wondered about, even while sober.

So thoughts on this? Impossible?  Likely?  Shut up and have another beer? LOL.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:58 | 2056817 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

So I guess my ideas are all based around peak oil.  The entire planet runs on oil.  It is mathematically impossible to maintain society in it's current form thru a substitue form because there simply isn't enough time.  Time is the entire problem.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 22:32 | 2057088 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture



This is sumed up with AMAZING CLARITY in "Beyond The Peak" which is at 2:23:43 of Zeitgeist...



Wed, 01/11/2012 - 23:46 | 2057247 honestann
honestann's picture

With enough effort, it is possible to rationalize anything.  However, the facts do not support your viewpoint.  Take this fact, for instance.  The amount of money wasted on pointless wars and 900 military bases in 130 countries in the past 10 years is enough to have built solar and wind power to replace all the oil consumed for power in the USSA.  There would still be a need for some oil to make plastics and other products, but the point is, ALL these arguments for war based upon economic issues are blatantly FALSE.

Furthermore, consider this.  The cost to buy oil or any other commodity product is typically only 10% more than the total cost to manufacture (including finding it, mining/pumping it, purifying it, etc).  And this is true whether the supplier is in the USSA or elsewhere, though shipping from the other side of the planet might add a very modest 1% extra cost.

Therefore, if we just accept that the USSA wants to consume more oil than it produces, it can get that oil from ANYONE, ANYWHERE on earth for roughly the same price as those who have the commodity under their own feet.  And get this.  We do not suffer the pollution involved in getting the commodity out of the ground or processing it in foreign lands, so arguably it is MUCH CHEAPER for us "all things considered" to buy these products from overseas.

ALL that's necessary is that we produce enough of SOMETHING, ANYTHING to trade for the products people produce "elsewhere".  Sucking 1~2 trillion dollars out of the economy to pay for counterproductive military actions costs far more than the products even these war-mongers claim we will gain from their wars.

IN NO WAY does current policy of the USSA make sense, except to enrich the corporate predators who lobby and bribe congress to fight endless wars and play bully around the world.  Unfortunately, if you repeat lies often enough, lazy-brained people will believe almost anything.  So that's what the corporate war-mongers spew on their mainstream media day after day after day.  Take GE for instance.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:54 | 2057372 my puppy for prez
my puppy for prez's picture

This shows that their goal REALLY is ultimately POWER.  I think they are at their core just evil, as well.  There is too much documentation to support that their goal is world government,global serfdom and eventual massive depopulation of the planet.  They have a spiritual problem....they worship at the altar of power and themselves, and some of them, literally, worship Lucifer.  The death of innocents is their blood sacrifice to to their satanic master, even though some of them might not even think of it in those terms.

Only truly evil creatures would spread depleted uranium onto a whole country of innocents (Iraq) which also is harming our returning troops.  Only evil would force all manners of toxic poisons into our bodies through numerous ways.  Only evil would purposefully withold technologies that could freely power all of humanity.  Only evil would destroy live crops while nearby people starve.  You get my point.  I won't go on.  

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 02:28 | 2057474 honestann
honestann's picture

Yes they are evil, and self-consciously so (from the definition and viewpoint of honest, ethical, productive human beings).

However, in so many questions over the years and decades I have struggled to get to the fundamentals of issues.  And when, after years or decades of struggles I finally identify the ultimate fundamental, everything else falls into place.

So don't see them as evil.  See them as predators.  THAT is what they are, and they KNOW THIS.  And yes, I do mean that they themselves see themselves as predators.  They do, and self-consciously so, and proudly so.  They are predators.  Period.  If you follow that strange get-together that the predators-that-be have once a year (I forget the name), you'll recall their mascot is an owl, which is a predator.  I'm not sure why they chose that particular predator as their primary symbol, but they chose it because it as a symbol of predator.

This is why they are not honest or ethical.  You see, the entire idea, field and notion of ethics only applies to producers, but not to predators.  The philosophy and modus-operandi of predators is "get away with whatever you can".  That is not a type of ethics, that is a complete rejection of ethics.  And guess what?  Before man learned to become productive, every animal was a predator or a parasite and none were producers.  And as such, the animal population of earth (including humanoids and early humans) was limited to the quantity of goods created by naturally occurring processes.

When man discovered he could gather up seeds, then plant and water them to create massive quantities of food, then do the equivalent by raising food animals in confined spaces, the food supply simply exploded in quantity.  The point is, producers could create massive quantities of goods, vastly beyond what the natural processes of earth created.  And so, the population exploded, and mankind started looking for more and more ways to produce goods.

Now here's the important point to remember.  There is no benefit to being a producer if predators take what you produce.  The producers needed some way to stop those human predators who kept stealing the goods they produced.  So the producers organized, wrote down what seemed like reasonable behavior for a species of producers, and that was the first ethics.  Note that it was only the fact and nature of production that led to the need and justification for ethics in the first place.

So fast forward to today.  The entirety of what you see today is simply the FACT that a segment of the human population has steadfastly refused to become producers, has steadfastly and self-consciously decided to be predators, and therefore completely ignore ethics.  They do retain their modus-operandi, however, which is to "get away with whatever they can".  They know they are unethical.  In fact, they are proud to be unethical.

Once you understand the problem, you realize the disadvantage producers have.  They need to treat human predators like they treat other predators --- exterminate them or securely cage them if they come into "civilized areas" or otherwise threaten producers.  If they want to wander the open plains with the lions and tigers and panthers, fine.  If they want to wander the halls of congress?  Well, what do you think?  I know.  A predators is a predator, and can only be dealt with as a predator.  They cannot be reasoned with, because they have no ethics and are restrained by nothing but "what they can't get away with".  Since producers don't understand the phenomenon that I just described, the predators can now get away with absolutely anything.

Humans need to wake up, identify what is happening here, identify the nature of the distinction between predators, parasites and producers... and act accordingly.  Otherwise the predators shall permanently enslave and destroy mankind.  Those are the stakes, but humans are indeed FAR too much like sheep being herded by a pack of predators for the slaughter.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:55 | 2056801 Obesitycrisisso...
Obesitycrisissolution's picture

An attack on Iran would be a disaster for humanity, and that includes Israel. Many courageous Israelis understand this as do many American Jews. The sanctions on Iraq during the 1990's were awful. Supposedly targeted at the regime, the end result was many, many dead children because the west wouldn't allow imports of chlorine. As a result, drinking water couldn't be purified, and scores of Iraqis died of preventable illnesses. Sad dam did just fine though and didn't suffer one bit.

Iran is suffering under the sanctions, and ordinary people there are doubtless having trouble buying food or milk. I doubt the generals in the revolutionary guard or the ayatollahs are affected. The governments of the world are ruining life for their citizens. If the people had a choice, they would get rid of the sanctions, party together buy each other's rugs, watch each other's movies, trade gas and petroleum, spend less on the military and let bygones be bygones. Instead, our leadership basically tells us we have to start world war iii to 'prevent another holocaust.'. Ouch! I thought when the last world war was started, the Holocaust moved into high gear. I have written some cruel and bitter things about American Jews and the Israel lobby in the past few years, but I guess it's better to win over nice Jews to the cause of peace and fairness in the middle east instead of pretending aipac speaks for all Jews everywhere. Anyway, I hope the nice Jews read this and see an 'ordinary German' in the mirror; we need you to stand up to the warmongering chicken hawks that give the rest of the Tribe a bad name. My justification for my bitter commentary these past few years is being slightly psychotic; don't worry, guys, I didn't physically harm any of you. And yes, some Saudis and other groups are pushing for war pretty hard, so it isn't just the right-wing 'new York money people.'. But I think we can all agree can't we that this is not Germany's fault. Germany gave up on war a long time ago. Maybe we could all learn something from that country whose post-war motto was 'nie wider krieg' (let's never wage war again). I know many of you will say 'but it's different now.'. And I'll just sit here like a wise old German man enjoying his ice cream in the middle of the town square, watching as the ami soldat rolls by in his loud, noisy tank.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:05 | 2056841 rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Your a sane, ungreedy,  caring soul.  That's why it will never work. Because people like you don't have what it takes to fuck everyone else over and get in charge.  Sad to say.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 00:53 | 2057368 MsCreant
MsCreant's picture

I liked his post very much too. By the time the fuckers get kicked out and killed, the fuckers who will be left in charge will be so changed by the experience, it may indeed be horrifying (or worse, more of the same). If that is true, we are doomed to be like this for all time because it is the repeating of a cycle via the expression of our nature. The framers of the constitution knew this. I am pretty jaded and have a hard time believing in anything any more, but we need to get back to checks and balances and things that are outside of our egos. I like the constitution a lot for that.

Thu, 01/12/2012 - 01:04 | 2057387 resurger
resurger's picture

I can do the fucking!!!

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 20:57 | 2056807 disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

The only term i needed to see was "powder keg." After that i think i pretty much understood..."the whole thing"...and though i read more...did i need to? There is of course the option of..."not being there at all in the first place." Interestingly i highly any of you...especially those who keep junking me...would agree with that...even if you wanted to.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:00 | 2056825 moroots
Wed, 01/11/2012 - 23:45 | 2057256 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

+[equivalent of US national debt and unfunded obligations, expressed in green arrows]


Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:01 | 2056826 spondoolix
spondoolix's picture

Was Chris Martenson ever in the service?  If so, which country?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:16 | 2056886 gwar5
gwar5's picture

I have to admit Obomba's geopolitical strategery has been brilliant so far. 


With a hostile Iran already trying to get nukes, and an unstable MENA, he first took US retaliatory strategic weapons off the table before he was even elected. Then he further strengthend our hand by cutting off US offshore drillling, preferring instead to use taxpayer money to drill offshore in Brazil so we don't mess up our own water. Barrack's recent stoppage of the NG pipeline is also sure to scare Iran by sending the clear message that Barry is more than willling to sacrifice the livelihoods of 310 million Americans in this brilliant plan.

(yes, this is sarc)


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!