This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Hyperinflation Comes To Iran

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Hyperinflation has struck again, this time at ground zero of the most sensitive geopolitical conflict in ages: Iran. EA WorldView reports:

An EA source reports that a relative in Tehran ordered a washing machine for 400,000 Toman (about $240) this week. When he went to the shop the next day, he was told that --- amidst the currency crisis and rising import costs --- the price was now 800,000 Toman (about $480). Another EA source says that the price of an item of software for a laptop computer has tripled from 50,000 Toman to 150,000 Toman within days.

And so the opportunity cost for the Ahmedinejad regime to preserve its status quo gradually grinds to zero, as the entire economy implodes (courtesy of a few strategic financially isolating decisions) making further escalation virtually inevitable, in a 100% replica of the US-planned Japanese escalation that led to the Pearl Harbor attack, and gave America the green light to enter the war.

Summary of McCollum's 1940 memo.

 

h/t L0gg0l

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:53 | Link to Comment dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

In an election year? TPTB want Obama back too much for them to let that happen, don't they?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:34 | Link to Comment stewie
stewie's picture

Disagree:  TPTB don't care who sits in that elliptical room.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:35 | Link to Comment Falcon15
Falcon15's picture

There is a little understood gem in the President's pocket:

PDD 51 AKA "Continuity of Government", signed by George W. Bush which is as follows:
The President has, right now, the ability in the case of a “National Emergency” (declared by him, entirely at his discretion) to take direct control of ALL branches of government. This would very literally make him, by definition, a dictator. Not only would Congress loose all power, but they could be dismissed by the President, and all decisions would be made directly by the President, with no Congresional oversight and no checks on powers for a minimum of 6 months. There is not limit… no limit… to what the Presidential powers would include.

A “National Emergency” could include a terrorist attack, a blackout, a hurricane or other natural disaster, or anything else the president says is a disaster, regardless of where it occurs in, and would be enough for the President to take over the government.

This is on the books.

The President could decide to cancel elections, he could decide whatever he wants.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:41 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

just for the record

The signing of this Directive was generally not covered by the mainstream U.S. media or discussed by the U.S. Congress. While similar executive security directives have been issued by previous presidents, with their texts kept secret, this is the first to be made public in part. It is unclear how the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive will reconcile with the National Emergencies Act, a U.S. federal law passed in 1976, which gives Congress oversight over presidential emergency powers during such emergencies. The National Emergencies Act is not mentioned in the text of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDD_51#Reception

definitely important to keep in mind.  +1

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:31 | Link to Comment Orange Pekoe
Orange Pekoe's picture

US is covertly at war with everyone, even its own people.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:01 | Link to Comment itchy166
itchy166's picture

*Especially its own people.  Are there any constitutional amendmends left that haven't been trampled?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:32 | Link to Comment shortnotgold
shortnotgold's picture

Since when is hyperinflation defined by two unconfirmed anecdotes?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:37 | Link to Comment Psquared
Psquared's picture

We are on the cusp of hyperinflation in the US for essentials like food. I went to Wal-mart yesterday and bought the following items for $35.

3 - A/C filters for the returns in my house (2 small and 1 large)

1 - quart of milk

1- package of butter (4 sticks)

1 - quart of juice

1 - package of sugar substitute (50 packets)

A year ago those same items cost about $25. 6 months ago they were about $30.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:40 | Link to Comment HighPlainsSnifter
HighPlainsSnifter's picture

 

Panetta: Iran not trying to build a nuke, they are trying to build capability

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xdiGahJItOA

 

 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:42 | Link to Comment non_anon
non_anon's picture

we need less ado

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:42 | Link to Comment pine_marten
pine_marten's picture

I'll bet you can still get a big hunk of hashish for a goat haunch though.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:43 | Link to Comment chaartist
chaartist's picture

financial terrorism 3.0, good luck to all of us. But it will be fun to meet with friends in the woods. 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:55 | Link to Comment dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

While I don't disagree with your premise of provocation, is Iran really in a position to attack anyone like Japan was in the 1940's? Seriously, why do we worry about this two bit country at all?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:06 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

You're missing the point entirely. Japan was never a real threat to the US either.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:18 | Link to Comment dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Perhaps, but at least they had a military capable of attacking someone........does Iran? Really?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:50 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

You still don't get it. The whole point is to scare the American people in to another war. To task and kill young men who would otherwise rebel against their own oppressors. The Japanese military couldn't even invade a small island during a "sneak" attack. Wow... what a threat they were... The Japanese attack was not an act of aggression, it was an act of desperation.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:43 | Link to Comment Augustus
Augustus's picture

Actually, it not an invasion that is the problem.  It is the destruction on the US or European economies that is the goal.  It is quite a bit easier now than in 1940.  Iran claims to have the rockets to strike Europe.  Now for the payload.

Further, if you do a bit or reading on the intentions of the Iranian leaders, you will find that they do not care about losses of Iranians.  Any cost of life is acceptable as long as the Joooss are destroyed and the western cultures are reduced.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:57 | Link to Comment zerozulu
zerozulu's picture

Not very convincing story. I visited IRAN few times in late 90's, they built most of the daily use items locally. This include even cars.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 15:58 | Link to Comment junkyardjack
junkyardjack's picture

All wars should be fought this way, bankrupt the country so the citizens revolt.  No Americans killed

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:07 | Link to Comment YHC-FTSE
YHC-FTSE's picture

Could we do that to you, please? Wait, you're already doing to yourselves.

I wonder how you would feel if EU ministers went on tv to tell the world that killing more than a million (out of 300 million) American children under 5yrs old through sanctions is "worth it"? 

Madelein Albright - The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it for Iraq's non existent WMDs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:21 | Link to Comment LULZBank
LULZBank's picture

Until it happens in America.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment Bob Sacamano
Bob Sacamano's picture

No one is causing the bankruptcy of Iran -- nor any subsequent revolt.  The US (or any other country) is under no compulsion to buy Iran's oil.  Not buying their oil is not an act of military aggression.  Customers can shop where they want.  Surely Iran likes the money they get from their oil, but no one compelled them to become so dependent on oil exports.    

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:06 | Link to Comment Ronstradamus
Ronstradamus's picture

Obama = Sunni Muslim, Iran = Shiite Muslim

 

 

Game On Baby!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:11 | Link to Comment Pancho Villa
Pancho Villa's picture

If sanctions actually worked and prevented a substantial fraction of Iran's output from reaching the market, oil prices would soar. I don't think there is sufficient spare capacity to replace Iran's output at the moment.

And the last thing that US politicians want before an election is soaring oil prices. Sanctions are just for show.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:16 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Normally, you are correct.

These are not normal times, though- are they?  Knocking $.10-.15 off the price of a gallon of gas is not really going to make Obama America's premier Hope'n'Change specialist again, is it?

If he starts a war in Iran, it not only directs a number of voters to keep him in power, it also creates an excuse for the gas prices.

You and I know it's stupid, but they don't care about you and I- they just care about having enough votes to stay put (and if they don't get them, they'll make them.)  There's nothing the President can do about the oil price at this point- hyperinflation already occured when Bernanke implemented QE1&2.  The only thing left is for enough people to become aware of the problem and change their behavior in response to the pre-dilluted money supply- when enough people understand what happened, we'll get our Weimar moment.

When that happens, and it will happen sooner or later, the politicos will need an excuse for it.  It'll be that Iran's "aggression" created the oil crisis, and the high price of oil is driving all the other prices.  Idiots will vote for Obama again, because he is the incumbant and they won't want to change leaders in the midst of a war.

 

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 16:25 | Link to Comment Poetic injustice
Poetic injustice's picture

Incidentally, attack on Iran would de facto dissolve NATO.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:27 | Link to Comment lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

BS. Who would stand up to the US in NATO? Nobody.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:11 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

So the Article is saying that the US is creating the hyperinflation in Iran to corner them into waging war with the West?  Isn't that a tall task for the US when they can't even control the strenght of their own currency?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:20 | Link to Comment LULZBank
LULZBank's picture

They're just trying to convince the world that USD QEs will only cause hyperinflation in Iran and other Axis of Evil countries. Rest of the world will just see price rises due to steep demand.

I ran and then they all ran.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:16 | Link to Comment Isis
Isis's picture

Earthquakes everywhere, one just hit of of Indonesa, 1 Jan 2012 of the coast of Japan, take a look at the NOAA earthquake charts, everywhere is shaking.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:26 | Link to Comment LULZBank
LULZBank's picture

Iran has over 250 nuclear sites, scattered all over the country. It has been hoarding wheat and food grains bought from Pakistan and have made deals to sell natural gas to the country which is getting crippled by the shortage of energy.

Both countries on not so good terms with US, will be brought even closer for the sake of their survival.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:41 | Link to Comment z123
z123's picture

good lesson for them to stop their anti dollar policy

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 17:50 | Link to Comment pakled
pakled's picture

After viewing the video SheepDogOne posted earlier in the thread, I am thinking more than ever we need to NOT bomb Iran. The women are really hot and I don't think hot women should be blowed up. Reduces my chances, if you get my meaning. Keep in mind that my Avatar is an actual photo of my face. :<

1/2 sarc now off.

Idea: we the American people need to connect via social networking with the Iranian people and start some kind of occupy the greedy idiots who are forcing this on us and who won't be dieing in the war. Has this been mentioned in the thread so far? Didn't read 'em all. Even if, it bears repeating.

"We have the technology"

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:20 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Maybe we should just invite everyone there to be "foreign exchange students" until the warmongers get done dropping their bombs.

Only half sarcasm- I'd be willing to let a family of Persians stay on my land if they wanted to avoid the inevitable senseless bloodshed.  

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:05 | Link to Comment lolmao500
lolmao500's picture

And some more bullshit from NATO... this time DIRECTLY aimed at Russia...

http://rt.com/politics/us-georgia-iran-war-441/

‘US builds hospitals in Georgia, readies for war with Iran’

The United States is sponsoring the construction of facilities in Georgia on the threshold of a military conflict in Iran, a member of Georgian opposition movement Public Assembly, Elizbar Javelidze has stated.

According to the academician, that explains why President Mikhail Saakashvili is roaming the republic opening new hospitals in its regions.

“These are 20-bed hospitals…It’s an American project. A big war between the US and Iran is beginning in the Persian Gulf. $5 billion was allocated for the construction of these 20-bed military hospitals,” Javelidze said in an interview with Georgian paper Kviris Kronika (News of the Week), as cited by Newsgeorgia website.

The opposition member stated that the construction is mainly paid from the American pocket.

In addition, airports are being briskly built in Georgia and there are talks of constructing a port for underwater vessels in Kulevi on the eastern Black Sea coast in Georgia.

Javelidze believes that it is all linked to the deployment of US military bases on the Georgian soil.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Augustus
Augustus's picture

The US did not have to entrap the Japanese into anything.  The Rape of Nanking was in December, 1937 and the Japanese designs on other countries in Asia were evident.  I suppose that some here have no concern for any murder, pillage or plunder of any third world country.  After all, the Japanese emperor was a devine entity and could not be responsible for anything, including the murder of hundreds of thousands of Chinese.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Jeez, the jewish Bolsheviks already murdered 40 million European Christians by that time and the same gang is planning to repeat that right here in the good ol U S of A and all you care about is the Rape of Nanking? And why was the Rape of Nanking an American concern anyway?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:52 | Link to Comment Augustus
Augustus's picture

Find a better source for plagiarizing your lies.  The Bolsheviks were not Jews.

If you don't care about several hundred being murdered in one Chinese city by the Japanese, why would you complain about bombing a few thousand Iranians?  Don't concern yourself about the little colored people anywhere. 

Your love of butchery may be appreciated by others here, just not by me.  Maybe you can get Saddam returned to life.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:05 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

"The Bolsheviks were not Jews."

Trotsky wasn't a jew?

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:26 | Link to Comment Global Hunter
Global Hunter's picture

Many of the top Bolsheviks until Stalin's great purge in 1937 were from Jewish middle class backgrounds, not all of them but many yes.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:02 | Link to Comment Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

Most of the top ranks and nearly all of the Cheka. Even Lenin had jewish background and spoke highly of jews. And some who were said not to be jews were likely jews also.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:09 | Link to Comment rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Well here we are right back at it "Just buy US stocks, nothing else matters". 

Wall Street is the planet's asshole.

Oh well. I just got my beer machine today at least that's something to look forward to. It only makes 28 beers though so I better order a few more.  Actually i better just learn to make it from total scratch just in case.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 19:11 | Link to Comment rsnoble
rsnoble's picture

Hyperinflation has come to Wall Street. LOL.  Did you read that Argentina article?  Damn.  If it gets that way in the US I won't make it long that's for damn sure.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:22 | Link to Comment Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

I don't know.  With that beer machine, you might do ok.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 20:27 | Link to Comment Hannibal
Hannibal's picture

People are stupid!

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:21 | Link to Comment kill switch
kill switch's picture

Some thoughts...

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.’ (IsraelNationalNews.com)

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.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:44 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Ok, but I think hyperinflation really matters if also occurring in the staples you need to live on.

But put that in the context of these two rather detailed comments I made yesterday:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/iaea-confirms-iran-has-started-20-uranium-...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/iaea-confirms-iran-has-started-20-uranium-...

Who needs a black swan? It's all quite foreseeable.  I said a couple of weeks ago that it may take maybe 3, 10 or 15 weeks for war to start, but that it would be soon, and I still think that timeline is about right.

Heavy intervention and assistence from Russia and China may push it back some, but probably can't halt it.

 

This is the US-NATO prepared to blow their strategic and economic foot off, to go all-in, to get a really dramatic large war and an enormous global geo-political crisis rolling--Russia, China, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria can see that also.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 21:36 | Link to Comment Stevious
Stevious's picture

Coming soon!  Similar inflation--to a shop in your neigborhood....

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 22:38 | Link to Comment TheDuke
TheDuke's picture

Clearly this is not a result of inflation but due to sanctions imposed. Both items mentioned were no doubt imports. I wouldn't think Iran produces too many laptop computers or washing machines.

A bit sensationalist methinks.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:49 | Link to Comment laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

And so the opportunity cost for the Ahmedinejad regime to preserve its status quo gradually grinds to zero, as the entire economy implodes (courtesy of a few strategic financially isolating decisions) making further escalation virtually inevitable, in a 100% replica of the US-planned Japanese escalation that led to the Pearl Harbor attack, and gave America the green light to enter the war.

 

Mr. Tyler, you still do not seem to grasp the thinking of the person the west is dealing with in iran. Correllations to WWII have no more internal validity than saying a rooster crows and the sun rises.

Judge Amadinejad according to his own words not historical comparisons between usa and japan:

  • “Is there a craft more beautiful, more sublime, more divine, than the craft of giving yourself to martyrdom and becoming holy? Do not doubt, Allah will prevail, and Islam will conquer mountain tops of the entire world.” 5
  • "suicide is an invincible weapon. Suicide bombers in this land showed us the way, and they enlighten our future.“ Amadinejad said the will to commit suicide was "one of the best ways of life." 7
Wed, 01/11/2012 - 02:17 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

Oh come on, Dick Cheney mumbles sillier crap than that when he's on the shitter, or at a CFR meeting, to discuss the new amerikan century ... shoots friend in the face ... calls it a 'hunting accident'.  Yeah, happens to me all the time. 

Ronald Raygun and GW Bush were both complete fucking fruit-cakes who said the dumbest most aggressively arrogant things I've ever heard, a lot of it under the ruse of false 'christian' principles that simply don't exist in scripture; like "a Just War" and "Moral Clarity". Globalist homocidal psychos, evoking 'christianity' as the basis for their policies and actions.

Since 1990 we've had little in the way globally of a strategic balance, due to soviet financial and economic collapse, and this has lead the US and NATO running amok all over central Asia and MENA.  But it's begun turning back the other way with the new wave of USA and NATO collapses--get used to it. 

Iran is just one of the resurrgent powers in a new-multipolar power-balance.  Islam is a religious tool used to to gain political control, to create order (or disorder), that is necessary to counter-balance other aggressive external forces.  It has a limited shelf-life, even in Iran. Islam has zero chance of dominating the world, any more than Christianity does.

People realise its just shallow political bullcrap, that has hijacked a 'religion', to power the drive for even more power. That's what big powers do. Governments are about mass mind-control, and mainstream religion just happens to be one of the best and easiest ways to get into someone's mind, to push its buttons, and pull its levers.

Just wait until later this year when all the US Presidential phoneys start trundling into Churches again and praying and talking shit about being a 'Christian'.  Cocksuckers!  Just look what Obama and his fellow violent hypocrits did on their Inauguration days:

Almost all Presidents since George Washington have placed their hand on a Bible when taking the oath of office. And all Presidents have included some reference to the Almighty in their Inaugural addresses. ... The following list provides information on Inauguration Day worship services attended by Presidents and Presidents-elect since 1933. ...

George W. Bush
Saturday, January 20, 2001
Attended private service at St. John's Episcopal Church

William J. Clinton
Monday, January 20, 1997
Attended private prayer service at Metropolitan AME Church

William J. Clinton
Wednesday, January 20, 1993
Attended private prayer service at Metropolitan AME Church (8:00 a.m.)

George H. W. Bush
Friday, January 20, 1989
Attended private service at St. John's Episcopal Church

Ronald Reagan
Sunday, January 20, 1985
Attended service at National Cathedral Monday, January 21; attended private service at St. John's Episcopal Church

Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, January 20, 1981
Attended private service at St. John's Episcopal Church

James E. Carter
Thursday, January 20, 1977
8:00 a.m. interfaith prayer service at the Lincoln Memorial

Richard M. Nixon
Saturday, January 20, 1973
No apparent church service Inauguration Day morning; attended church the next day

Richard M. Nixon
Monday, January 20, 1969
Attended official prayer breakfast in West Auditorium of the State Department

Lyndon B. Johnson
Wednesday,
Attended private service at National City Christian January 20, 1965
Church (9:00 a.m.)

John F. Kennedy
Friday, January 20, 1961
Attended Mass at Holy Trinity Church

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Sunday, January 20, 1957
Attended services at National Presbyterian Church (9:00 a.m.); took private oath of office that day; public ceremony the next day

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Tuesday, January 20, 1953
Attended service at National Presbyterian Church (9:30 a.m.)

Harry S Truman
Thursday, January 20, 1949
Attended service at St. John's Episcopal Church (10:00 a.m.)

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Saturday, January 20, 1945
Private service held in the East Room of the White House

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Monday, January 20, 1941
Attended service at St. John's Episcopal Church (10:30 a.m.)

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Wednesday, January 20, 1937
Attended service at St. John's Episcopal Church (10:00 a.m.)

Franklin D. Roosevelt
Saturday, March 4, 1933
Attended service at St. John's Episcopal Church (10:15 a.m.)

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/113868.pdf

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/presidents/

 

Notice a pattern?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 10:35 | Link to Comment laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

Notice a pattern?

 

Yes, deflection. Ronald Reagan is no longer the president.

 

The difference is you know those suckers you refer to know they are not following the teachings of their religion but that ahmidinijad is; he is quoting based on islamic teachings and scripture. In other words, he really believes what he is saying. He does not make political decisions. There is no distinction between islam and state in islam. That is the crucial distinction.

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 21:32 | Link to Comment Element
Element's picture

You don't know that, and nor do I.  He may be a believer but I think it's also clear that he's a practical, rational, pragmatist working to protect his country from a massive criminal enterprise that wants it for themselves, and he is acting accordingly where necessary.

Yeah, that might make you a 'believer', in something greater, and he's probably not be familiar with anything but Islam, and sees no need to go beyond it, so naturally he frames the world within that context.

So?

 

However, I do know Ronald Raygun and Nancy believed their Horoscope readings and made daily and long-term decisions according to them, and that I find very much more disturbing.

http://thereaganyears.tripod.com/divineguidance.htm

 

But I suppose that's just me deflecting?

Wed, 01/11/2012 - 23:41 | Link to Comment laosuwan
laosuwan's picture

Yes, deflecting. And also projecting your western world view onto a different set of circumstances.

 

By the way, if you investigate it, you will discover that technical analysis's Fibronaci retracements are derived from Astrology.

Tue, 01/10/2012 - 23:59 | Link to Comment Instant Karma
Instant Karma's picture

I'm rather late joining the discussion. I tend to agree with the article that one potential outcome of the sanctions is economic pain and political destabilization of the Iranian regime. Certainly a cornered regime such as Iran could lash out military if it believes it has nothing to lose. 

A win-win solution for Iran would be to cease Uranium enrichment, open it's nuclear facilities to international inspection, and defuse the whole situation. 

Iran has made quite the televison spectacle of its nuclear program the past few years, with President whats-his-name presiding over celebritory event after event in front of cheering crowds every time some milestone in Iran's nuclear program has been reached. A bit tacky and provocative.

Anywho, some of the world has had enough of Iran's regime and its sponsoring of some of the worst terrorist groups in the world, and its alliances with Chavez, etc. 

Sooooo, Iran's people would be best served if its Political Regime backed off the whole nuclear thing. But Iran's people are the last thing their Regime cares about, see Syria, etc. So things may get worse before President whats-his-name is taking a dirt nap. 

Sorry about the spelling the spellchecker thing isn't working on Chrome. 

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