Behind Korea, Iran & Russia Tensions: The Lurking Financial War

Authored by Alastair Crooke via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

What have the tensions between the US and North Korea, Iran and Russia in common?


Answer: It is that they are components to a wider financial war. 

Russia and Iran (together with China) happen to be the three key players shaping a huge (almost half the global population) alternative currency zone. The North Korean issue is important as it potentially may precipitate the US – depending on events – towards a more aggressive policy toward China (whether out of anger at Chinese hesitations over Korea, or as part and parcel of the US Administration’s desire to clip China’s trading wings).

The US has embarked on a project to restore America’s economic primacy through suppressing its main trade competitors (through quasi-protectionism), and in the military context to ensure America’s continued political dominance. The US ‘America First’ National Security Strategy made it plain: China and Russia are America’s ‘revisionist’ adversaries, and the US must and intends to win in this competition. The sub-text is that potential main rivals must be reminded of their ‘place’ in the global order. This part is clear and quite explicit, but what is left unsaid is that America is staking all on the dollar’s global, reserve currency status being maintained, for without it, President Trump’s aims are unlikely to be delivered. The dollar status is crucial – precisely because of what has occurred in the wake of the Great Financial crisis – the explosion of further debt.

But here is a paradox: how is it that a Presidential Candidate who promised less military belligerence, less foreign intervention, and no western cultural-identity imposition, has, in the space of one year, become, as President, a hawk in respect to Korea and Iran.  What changed in his thinking?  The course being pursued by both states was well-known, and has offered no sudden surprise (though North Korea’s progress may have proved quantitatively more rapid than, perhaps, US Intelligence was expecting: i.e. instead of 2020 - 2021, North Korea may have achieved its weapons objective in 2018 – some two years or so earlier that estimated)?  But essentially Korea’s desire to be accepted as a nuclear weapon state is nothing new.

It is ‘the Federal debt’, and a pending ‘debt ceiling’ that is crucial.  There is little doubt that the US military is not what it used to be, and the Republican Party possesses a wing that is quite fundamentalist about limiting debt (Freedom Caucus). A serious military crisis is possibly the only way Trump is likely to get a huge ramp-up of military expenditure past Congress’ fiscal hawks. President Trump – the Tax Bill saga tells us — is going to be a big spender as part of MAGA (Make America Great Again). The increase in proposed US defence spending alone, more or less equates to the whole annual Russian defence spending.  US Federal debt is already above $20 Trillion, and accelerating fast: the borrowing requirement is ballooning and interest payments to service this additional borrowing, normally would be expected to rise.  

But Trump is also explicitly a low interest rate, expanding balance-sheet, sort of guy. So, how does one finance a truly ballooning budget deficit, whilst keeping interest rates low, or at zero?  Well a fear-driven rush by foreigners into ‘risk free’ US Treasuries (i.e. military crisis again), historically serves to keep rates low – and dollars plentiful — as ‘overseas dollars’ return ‘home’ to Wall Street.  This could be a solution, of course, but it would be entirely contingent on maintaining the present dollar status, and the large pool of dollars held externally for the principal purpose of having to transact trade in dollars.

And why is it that in place of détente with Russia, we have Herman Gref, the CEO of Russia’s largest commercial bank, telling the Financial Times that any further tightening of anti-Russia sanctions, including the potential exclusion of Russian banks and corporations from the SWIFT payment system (the global network of secure financial messaging services) would have such a devastating effect that it would “make the Cold War look like child’s play”?  (The US Treasury is expected to present its report on further sanctions to Congress as early as February 2018, the Financial Times reports). What is the point?  Why should the US and Europe proceed down this particular rabbit hole — it would be particularly damaging for Europe?  Well, the answer, probably, is similar: the imperative to maintain the dollar’s global status for a programme to reclaim America’s pre-eminence, which – given the overhang of additional debt in the wake of 2008 – has to be contingent on the dollar’s global status. 

And from the US perspective, President Putin has declared himself to be an opponent to dollar special privilege when, at the BRICS summit in September 2017, he insisted on “the BRIC countries’ concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies”. Putin further stressed the need to “overcome the excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies”. Russia consequently has duly earned American wrath for this stance. Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi both questioned the dollar hegemony, and look what happened to them.

Financial war, of course, is nothing new.  The US began staging annual financial war ‘War Games’ as long ago as 2005. General Hayden, the former director of first the NSA and subsequently of the CIA, has characterised financial war as the primary means of warfare in the twenty-first century, and sanctions as its Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs). But what, it seems, might be bringing matters to a head is not just President Trump’s need for a higher debt ceiling, and low-cost debt availability to fund his revival of the American economy; but rather that the new bulbs that were planted over the years, for monetary revolution, might suddenly break through the covering soil as new shoots, emerging ready to flower, in due course.  

Traditionally, transformation of the global monetary system conventionally has been thought of not as something sudden, but rather as a slow, incremental displacement of one system by another, (or by several).  But these bulbs really began to be planted in 2012 after Washington blocked international clearing for every Iranian bank, froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas, and curtailed Tehran’s potential to export oil.  The consequence was a severe bout of inflation in Iran that debilitated the currency.

Then, in 2014, Saudi Arabia engineered the oil price drop against US shale oil production, but also to punish Russia for its support for President Assad. And to rub salt into the wound, the US Treasury facilitated a ‘bear raid’ on the Rouble, which only was brought to a halt by China quietly intervening in the foreign exchange market, to prevent a collapse of the currency.  It was clear at this point, that China, Russia and Iran shared a common strategic interest to establish a currency zone, with the depth of markets and infrastructure, to operate independently of the dollar sphere.  These states have made it very clear that they are committed to a long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar, as their primary currency, in global trade.  

Trump’s Security Strategy – if prosecuted seriously – precisely risks an upset to the precarious balance to this ongoing, (and until now) slowly unfolding, financial war.  Pursuing aggressive financial sanctions against any of these three states risks now precipitating a premature triggering of substantive monetary change in retaliation (and, a concomitant risk of financial chaos).  It is possibly this latter outcome to which Herman Gref was hinting when he told the Financial Times that blocking international clearing for Russian banks would have such a devastating effect, that it would “make the Cold War look like child’s play”.

The key here is China: China’s economy is about nine times that of Russia. Mr Trump already had accused China of various trade and intellectual property infractions during his Presidential Campaign, threatening tariffs in retaliation. That was before Treasury Secretary Mnuchin, in September, warned China that the US could impose additional sanctions on China - potentially cutting off access to the U.S. financial system (the Treasury’s ‘neutron bomb’ of blocking the SWIFT clearance system) - if China failed to impose sanctions against North Korea, sufficient to satisfy the US demand.  Now, in the US National Strategy statement, China repeatedly is cast as an economic miscreant, a “revisionist power” and “rival” to America’s economic and political primacy.  The writing of aggravated relations, clearly is on the wall.

How might China react?  The western view is sanguine: China has more to lose in any financial war (because of its US Treasury holdings), and there is anyway, nothing that can substitute for the dollar, with its unique market depth. But is this complacency misplaced? What is clear is that China and Russia and the BRICS have been thinking and preparing – as best they can – for an escalation of financial war arising from whatever pretext is used to launch it.

China, too, it would appear, shares Mr Hayden’s view that today’s conflicts primordially are geo-financial.  In brief, the opinion of China’s strategic advisors is likely to be that America’s renewed desire to escalate military tensions - this time directed at North Korea, Syria and possibly Iran - is a front for America’s continual financial war, and that China needs to prepare its riposte. I have written on this before, but for clues, we should, as Alasdair Macleod suggests, “look at this from China’s point of view. The People’s Liberation Army’s most influential strategist, Major-General Qiao Liang, laid out his overall strategic philosophy at a book-study forum of the Communist Party’s Central Committee in Autumn 2015. His view can be taken to be that of the Chinese leadership.”  As Qiao puts it:

The U.S. avoided high inflation by letting the dollar circulate globally. It also needs to restrain the printing of dollars to avoid a dollar devaluation. Then what should it do when it runs out of dollars?

The Americans came up with a solution: issuing debt to bring the dollar back to the U.S. The Americans started to play a game of printing money with one hand and borrowing money with the other hand. Printing money can make money. Borrowing money can also make money. This financial economy (using money to make money) is much easier than the real (industry-based) economy. Why will it bother with manufacturing industries that have only low value-adding capabilities?

Since August 15, 1971, the U.S. has gradually stopped its real economy and moved into a virtual economy. It has become an “empty” economy state. Today’s U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has reached US$18 trillion, but only $5 trillion is from the real economy.

By issuing debt, the U.S. brings a large amount of dollars from overseas, back to the U.S.’s three big markets: the commodity market, the Treasury Bills market, and the stock market. The U.S. repeats this cycle to make money: printing money, exporting money overseas, and bringing money back. The U.S. has thus become a financial empire.

Macleod comments: “In other words, America’s wealth is sustained by a pump-and-dump operation facilitated by the dollar’s reserve status, replacing genuine industrial production. It is worth clarifying one point: foreign owned dollars never leave the US, only their function. It is more correct to state that the US Government causes dollars to be diverted from foreign trade and investment in manufacturing, to be invested in Treasuries”.

“The first cycle identified by Qiao was the expansion of dollars aimed at creating a boom in Latin America in the mid-seventies. The second cycle was aimed at South-East Asia, which expanded on the back of a dollar that weakened from 1986 onwards. From 1995, the dollar began to strengthen, culminating in a bear-raid on the Thai baht, which spread to Malaysia, Indonesia and other countries in the region. The Asian Tiger phenomenon was created and destroyed, not by the countries themselves, but by the flood and ebb of dollar ownership and investment. Qiao notes that China escaped being caught up in this US-inspired operation".

"Qiao then turns his attention to the contemporary cycle (in 2015) of dollar management, claiming it was now aimed at China. In his words:

“It was as precise as the tide; the U.S. dollar was strong for six years. Then, in 2002, it started getting weak. Following the same pattern, it stayed weak for ten years. In 2012, the Americans started to prepare to make it strong. They used the same approach: create a regional crisis for other people.

Unfortunately, the U.S. played with too much fire [in its own mortgage market] earlier and got itself into a financial crisis in 2008. This delayed the timing of the U.S. dollar’s hike a bit.

If we acknowledge that there is a U.S. dollar index cycle and the Americans use this cycle to harvest from other countries, then we can conclude that it was time for the Americans to harvest China. Why? Because China had obtained the largest amount of investment from the world. The size of China’s economy was no longer the size of a single county; it was even bigger than the whole of Latin America and about the same size as East Asia’s economy.”

“Qiao goes so far to state that the most important event in the twentieth century was not the two world wars, but America’s abandonment of the gold standard in 1971. This is some statement”, exclaims Macleod.

It is indeed … And here lies the crux of China’s strategy.  It will be some years before the Yuan assumes the status of a major reserve currency (it had been planning a ‘harmonious’ ascent - in China’s non-assertive parlance), but China dominates world trade, and is in a position at any time henceforth to tie oil (and commodities) to gold – as they originally were. The Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) has already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures.  The latter will be convertible into physical gold on either the Shanghai or Hong Kong gold markets.  And Russia’s central bank has opened an office in Beijing, specifically tasked with resolving the technical aspects of gold deliveries from Russia into China. Just to be clear: these contracts are only available to non-domestic traders, and any gold bullion acquired through the yuan-gold futures contracts will be sourced from international markets, not China nor her citizens. In the longer term, with oil becoming directly linked to gold, rather than the dollar, we may see a revaluation of gold in respect to the dollar.

And, in October 2015, China inaugurated its International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private, Belgium-based SWIFT international bank, clearing system, through which virtually every global transaction must transit, but in the event of China being excluded from SWIFT, as Mnuchin so hinted in September, China and Russia will be able to clear through CIPS.

So far, China’s policy has been to avoid instigating a disruption to the dollar sphere, preferring not to risk having global trade dislocated, which could easily occur if there was a substantive loss of confidence  in the dollar.  But might American belligerency toward China - tied in some respect to North Korea - be the trigger?  In fact, Venezuela has already set the ball rolling by refusing to accept oil payments in dollars, thus demonstrating to the world that an alternative system to the petrodollar is indeed possible. Furthermore, Caracas has begun publishing an oil-price index denominated in Yuan.  

The operational launch of the Chinese Yuan denominated oil futures option in time — depending how quickly contracts can be adjusted – holds the prospect for displacing the petro-dollar system, especially if Saudi Arabia agrees to sell crude to China in Yuan (perhaps as part of China buying a stake in the Aramco offering). 

China has other options were the US to become more aggressive and attempt adversely to change the terms of trade against China. It might simply switch to trading goods exclusively in Yuan, thus displacing the dollar completely as the medium for transactions. China and Russia would almost certainly be joined by their major trading partner countries in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), as well as by their Eurasian partner countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — comprising a population of well over 3 billion people, some 42% of the entire world population.

But because China still owns large quantities of US Treasuries and dollar reserves, for the moment she might prefer more time before executing such a coup de grace. But if pressed hard enough by the Trump team, execute it, she will: Hence Gref’s warning.

So the bigger question, if Trump does pursue an economic ‘containment of China’ strategy – and China and allies respond – is what will be the effect on ‘risk free’ US Treasury values in the wake of a major segment of the global economy going its own way?  And what too, will be the ability of the US government then to finance its debt at its current, and growing, levels?  Matters to ponder, perhaps.


ConfederateH monk27 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 04:08 Permalink

What the US wishes, what is good for the US, is irrelevant here.  And as usual, the author ignores the 800 Nuke gorilla getting ready to build the third temple.

Israel wants Iran taken down, the ME fragmented, Ashkenazi oligarchs back in control of Russia, and Russia and Iran plunder.

It is this plunder that will be used to finance the new, greater Israel and the international court in Jerusalem.

That millions of US boomers starve in hyperinflation, and that thousands of millenial mercenaries die in the wars, is of no consequence to Israel.

In reply to by monk27

Parrotile Tue, 01/02/2018 - 02:21 Permalink

Neither the Chinese nor the Russians are stupid. They've been able to "read the tea leaves" for quite some time now, and have used this time to establish mutually beneficial economic co-operation with others (e.g. OBOR), rather than following the US model of "favour OUR interests or face Regime Change". Whilst they would probably prefer more time to finalise "arrangements", they do have the systems in place to mostly neutralise any US-imposed financial isolation.

Targeting China is a VERY high-risk activity. Should action serve to alienate others towards the US, those dollars are "coming home" - along with pretty high levels of inflation, to a Country very dependent on the FIRE economy for the (already false) GDP numbers.

webmatex Parrotile Tue, 01/02/2018 - 05:47 Permalink

For over 70 years the East/West cold war/conflict has expanded and escalated across the globe.
In Washington the approach to this challenge (with the exception of a few rare  treaties) has never changed, perpetual escalation, redevelopment, redeployment, threats, wailing and war.
Bombs are met by larger bombs, missile gaps appear and must be reduced, budgets and responses must be expanded and talk or the consideration of peace and prosperity must be ignored at any cost.
70 years of dodging the bullets for the chance of a final shot - at everyone - who opposes an old wrinkled and smelly piece of paper.
"The increase in proposed US defence spending alone, more or less equates to the whole annual Russian defence spending". 
And yet again changes nothing, protects nothing and reduces global  security.
The buzz words are still there Star Wars, LazerBeems, THAAD, ELINT, and good old FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE a kaleidoscope of never ending and increasingly expensive "must haves",  none of which provided protection to anyone from the consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but rather served to escalate the problem and despair.
The 70 years concensus is that no protection from nuclear attack exists or has existed - except unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Without the US presence in SE Asia for instance, its likely that a united Korea with China/Russia Brics/EAEU and neighbours Japan, Vietnam could agree to a Nuclear Free Zone.
Money talks, people think, shit happens.

In reply to by Parrotile

veritas semper… Parrotile Tue, 01/02/2018 - 17:08 Permalink

I think this was a very good article.It pointed to what the dollar is. Maybe should have said more about the petro- dollar.

It showed that the real US GDP is only a fraction of the declared one.Like the real debt,the real inflation,unemployment,trade deficit,etc. Only lies and razzle dazzle.

With the launching of petro yuan ,backed by GOLD,the world is going to have an alternative money system based on sound money.And we all know what happens with paper money competing with sound money.

The collapse of the dollar is not going to be sudden,overnight.But ,like an avalanche gaining momentum,more and more countries will trade in sound money(who wouldn't?).Then,this will reach a critical mass,and the final collapse will be sudden.(bankrupt slowly,then all at once).

There is no stopping this. The countries having the real goods(gold,natural resources,manufacturing base)are on the side opposing the AAZ Empire. And they also have big,beautiful guns protecting them.

US has guns,I give you that.But that is all.You can not support the dollar only with guns ,unless you trigger a world nuclear conflagration,but this means the AAZ empire's death too.

In reply to by Parrotile

Internet-is-Beast Tue, 01/02/2018 - 02:36 Permalink

It's a financial war until it becomes a hot war. Couldn't help getting the impression that the next war will be against China. Will Russia stand aside?

The solution to all this is for America to turn away from aggression and try cooperating with rival powers so that everyone benefits. Somehow, I doubt that the Neocons will permit this. They would rather turn the planet into a smoking crater.

OverTheHedge Internet-is-Beast Tue, 01/02/2018 - 03:15 Permalink

This is one of those "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy" situations. There will be any number of very clever people, and even more clever computer models, gaming this in all directions. Given that it has to include the entire planet, it will be a bit like the weather predictions - good for 24 hours, not bad for 3 days, but after that they are just making it up. Very, very messy, is what I think will happen. A lot of broken eggs, and not much omelet. Ever made a smoothie but forgotten to put the lid on the machine? That kind of messy.

Some smug idiot will believe that he knows exactly what will happen, and he will convince the relevant politicians that he is right, and complete chaos will ensue. Said idiot will retire to his comfortable rural retreat, and millions will die all around the world. SNAFU is an acronym for a reason.

In reply to by Internet-is-Beast

HRClinton Internet-is-Beast Tue, 01/02/2018 - 04:35 Permalink

No, the next war will be against Iran, because:

1. Iran is critical to China for Silk Road South

2. Iran has so much oil & gas

3. Iran refuses to partake in Petrodollars

4. Iran does not have a Rothschild CB

5. Iran taunts, defies and threatens Israel

6. Iran supports Assad and Hezbollah

7. Iran is a strong competitor and enemy of KSA

8. Iran borders Russia, Kazakhstan, Caspian Sea

9. Zionist and Likudnik Global-lusts want Iran taken down

10. Iran war will make for nice excuse & cover for Financial Reset

In reply to by Internet-is-Beast

Max Hunter HRClinton Tue, 01/02/2018 - 04:59 Permalink

Zackly.. The US is losing the petrodollar war through calculated moves by Russia, Iran, China, and Venezuela (and more). They can't start a war and show their hand, so they invented ISIS with Israel and Saudi Arabia. Now that ISIS has been defeated, they must find another way to continue covert war against Russia, China, Iran, NK.  NK is a boogie man they need in order to keep Military occupation of Southeast Asia.  This shit is so transparent.  Open your eyes people, there has been a slow moving train crashing into the house of cards built by the petrodollar. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how. 

In reply to by HRClinton

ebear HRClinton Tue, 01/02/2018 - 05:58 Permalink

Iran has no border with Russia or Kazakhstan.

They do, however, control the Straits of Hormuz and, if attacked, can close off access to the Persian Gulf.  Beyond that, they can also destroy Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure.

Contemplate what that does to the price of oil, then consider who benefits most from that price, i.e. Russia, and I'd say the chances of an attack on Iran are just about zero.

In reply to by HRClinton

Ghost who Walks Tue, 01/02/2018 - 03:16 Permalink

The level of complexity covered here requires an economic model to confirm the conclusions. The model needs to be calibrated against real-world responses, and will need include non-linear outcomes to various settings. I believe that someone will have a model and will be aware of the sensitivities of the variables.

In clear English: Before you go initiating a financial conflict, it is necessary to understand the range of outcomes and the probabilities of each outcome.

Since this piece is authored by a former Diplomat, I'm sure he has seen the outcomes in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Turkey and compared this with the originally stated strategic objectives of the USA. Hence his concern with the latest trends on the use of Financial warfare in the pursuit of strategic objectives.

It would be wise to remember this quote.  "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

francis scott … Tue, 01/02/2018 - 03:17 Permalink

Saudi Arabia engineered the oil price drop against US shale oil production, but also to punish Russia for its support for President Assad. And to rub salt into the wound, the US Treasury facilitated a ‘bear raid’ on the Rouble, which only was brought to a halt by China quietly intervening in the foreign exchange market, to prevent a collapse of the currency. 

Crooke, you are no historian.  You're a revisionist dupe.  


The US got Saudi Arabia to engineer the oil price drop, but not against 

its own shale oil production and not to punish Putin for his support of

Assad, but to punish Russia a lower price of oil, BECAUSE RUSSIA






















OBAMA (taking Yanukovych):  CHECK

PUTIN  (taking Crimea):           CHECKMATE






And the US and UK media never told us what a humiliation

the Crimean Annexation was for Obama.





supermaxedout francis scott … Tue, 01/02/2018 - 07:21 Permalink

The oil price drop, ha, ha, ha. To whom does it make the most damage? 


Russia triggered the drop in energy prices by establishing long term delivery contracts for NG with China. This was the turning point. Prices had then to go down because otherwise China would then be the only country benefitting from the low base energy prices. 

And the low energy prices plus the low interest rates made Euroland a booming place. That was also in the interest of the US? No way!! 

In reply to by francis scott …

skepsis francis scott … Tue, 01/02/2018 - 08:11 Permalink

Yours is more than a bit of a muddled explanation.  Crooke is not wrong and you are partially correct.  Hyper-ventilating a false conclusion in order to claim personal kudos however is both wasted energy and well may lead to dangerous misinterpretation.

This was not the first time the US utilized KSA to bring down the price of oil in an attempt to collapse the Ruble and weaken (warn off) the Russians.  And while you are correct that it had nothing directly to do with Syria/Assad, but had everything to do with finessing the Russian-speaking south of the Ukraine's successful secession, it was hardly a Putin checkmate.  

The enormous fumble at Mariupol and the subsequent tragic fiasco in Odessa (which should have all fallen to the Russians along with Crimea, Lugansk, and Donetsk), was a critical failure.  The American/Nato levered fascist Yukis were too prepared and fast to move.  Yanukovich was in way over his head.  

The notion that the Russians wanted the engineered coup to succeed in order to somehow snatch Crimea while no one was looking is patently absurd.  One can not overestimate what a massive blow to Russia's pride and self-esteem was the overt loss of the Ukraine to not just the West, but to the nazified Banderite western Ukrainians even more so.  And the last thing Russia needed was Patriot missiles placed less than 500 kilometers and 10 minutes from Moscow.

Putin did not "checkmate" the West (would that he had), but rather managed to end America's outrageous attack in a "draw".


p.s. moderating your use of "caps" and "bold" might improve your delivery, just suggesting.

In reply to by francis scott …

. . . _ _ _ . . . Tue, 01/02/2018 - 03:18 Permalink

If you don't think it's the end of the road for the American empire, watch Jackie Chan's new movie, "Kung-Fu Yoga." available on NetflixThe final scene is mind-blowing !!


MuffDiver69 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 03:23 Permalink

Weird thing about these relentless articles is they never bother to explain what choice we have. Sure it’s funny to wish the collapse and destruction of ones own country if your a sick puppy, but answer my question ball lickers...

Parrotile 07564111 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 04:37 Permalink

Joining ANY Global community on "equal terms" is going to be extremely difficult for a Nation programmed since birth to believe they, and ONLY they, are "The Exceptional Nation" - along with "The Shining Light on the Hill" mentality.

Then, there is the problem with the "skeletons in the acres of storage units" where past US misdeeds are concerned - hidden whilst the US has the (presumed) ability to "sanction" any "unauthorised revelations", but once the US's "authority" is no more, those "leaks" will become a torrent, a torrent that will be given front-page coverage in all those Countries subject to US "management".

Once the rest of the Global Community sees at the US dirty washing up close, it'll be a LONG while before the US gains  any "equal rights" status, rather than "Pariah State" status.

In reply to by 07564111

africoman Tue, 01/02/2018 - 03:55 Permalink

I believe financially crises are one method of reaching some change/goal

 but the real cause behind the lurking around to provoke wars ashore is NWO, aka agents Hail Hydra.

So thesis antithesis synthesis is visible on this one too.

only this one has too money fine details on money level.

Whatever humanity is a toast in the hands of madmen the workers of evil.

gespiri Tue, 01/02/2018 - 04:34 Permalink

The missing question from this article is: Who wins/loses the most when the dollar hegemony ends?

The banks/elites will lose the most while the country and its citizens will profit due to economic and financial stability in the long-term.

BritBob Tue, 01/02/2018 - 05:34 Permalink

Iran is a member of the UN C24 decolonisation committee and supports Argentina's mythical Malvinas' claim. So much for the human and democratic rights of the Falkland Islanders and so much for that so-called sovereignty claim. Seriously, have you heard of a territory being usurped in the 19th century? Neither have I.

How would a map of the world look today if all of the territory lost and gained over the past 180 years reverted to its 19th century status? Quite a ridiculous proposal.

Falklands – Acquisitive Prescription(1 pg):

Omega_Man Tue, 01/02/2018 - 05:53 Permalink

merica is the land of snakeoil salesmen... they smile a lot and try to sell you bullshit.... who needs them? cut the dollar up in pieces... no more money for CIA or bullshit aircraft carriers,,, cut them off at the knees and let them work for real value as the rest of the world does... these assholes take their worthless money and 'buy' real assets and goods from other nations who actually work! mericans as well as other deadbeat western nations are shit heads.... it's about time the rest of the of the world treated them as the third world nation they are of ... full of scammers... mostly led by the zio money changing scammer type... why else would most of them live there....

Omega_Man Tue, 01/02/2018 - 06:02 Permalink

merica will quickly try to drag iran into a war, possibly china as well to try to shore up their position as the bullshitting moneychanger in chief... this must be thwarted... china should tell EU what side they should be on... flip EU... ask if they want to die or not from russian nukes... then let merica wallow in it's not sell anything to merica... starve them out of their smugness...

Batman11 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 07:26 Permalink

The biggest problem the US has is the idiots of Wall Street.

Russia and China can only dream of damaging the West like 2008. 

The enemy is within.

Batman11 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 07:30 Permalink

The West needs to get a grip on reality.

When wealthy individuals are left to make their own investment decisions they will maximise returns by investing in Asia rather than at home.

After WW2, the American’s discovered more money was flowing from Europe to America than was being loaned from America to Europe through the Marshall Plan. Wealthy European’s were looking to maximise returns and had no interest in helping their nations recover after the war.

The wealthy are not guided by any national loyalty, but have lots of influence over the politicians and through their own self-interest will naturally run any nation into the ground.

The US is now experiencing this first hand.

In the US they use the left hand side of the brain to get the best return on their investments and the right hand side of the brain to worry about the new multi polar world.

The left side of my brain tells me to invest in China for higher profits.

The right hand side of my brain worries about a powerful China

Never the twain shall meet.

The US was the global hegemon when the Berlin Wall fell, but they allowed the wealthy to maximise their returns and in no time at all they had created a new multi-polar world.

Batman11 Batman11 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 07:30 Permalink

The wealthy are just looking to maximise their returns.

Disposable income = wages – (taxes + the cost of living)

The minimum wage is set when disposable income equals zero.

The minimum wage = taxes + the cost of living

As an international investor I want to minimise wages to maximise profit.

Where do I invest, the West or Asia?

The maths always leads to Asia, or Mexico after NAFTA for the US.

In reply to by Batman11

MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 01/02/2018 - 08:07 Permalink

LOL Another anti-American rant, the US has a nearly $400 billion annual trade deficit with China. IF THE CHINA TRADE IS SHUT DOWN, THEN CHINA'S ECONOMY CRASHES. IMPORTS TO THE US WILL BE REPLACED FROM MANY SOURCES.

In other words, they need the US more than the US needs China. Ask the simple question, in a geopolitical show down with China would the US continue to allow the most lop sided, slanted trade deal to continue? NO

Then ask, for all these fools who've placed so much on China taking America out, what happens to China is the China-US trade is over. What happens to China if the Chinese MERCANTILE economy losses it's LARGEST TRADING PARTNER(NOT REALLY A PARTNER BECAUSE THE CHINA TRADE WITH THE US IS A ONE WAY STREET) ?

We're in an entirely new administration using a strategy THAT is PRO-US, but the anti-American author uses obsolete examples to explain his thesis, ie, Hayden. Hayden, Bush II etc were all ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT, this is no longer viable after sinking the Pacific Partnership deal. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CHINA TRADE SHUTS DOWN BECAUSE OF GEOPOLITICAL CONFLICT? MILLIONS OF CHINESE BEGIN TO STARVE TO DEATH BECAUSE CHINA CAN NOT FORCE THE US TO HONOR THEIR MERCANTILE ECONOMIC SYSTEM.

We know now China is planning to destroy the US, repeated it over and over, many American BOYCOTT Chinese products, I DO. I don't buy Chinese.  But what's so stupid is even in the face of a national revival, strategic policy of cutting OPEC with an enormous amount of oil coming on line, and the US trying to force China to SHOW THEIR HAND, we still have the same ignorant analysis of how the US is WEAK AND GOING TO FOLD.

Davidduke2000 MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 01/02/2018 - 10:52 Permalink

clown, the trade with the us represent only 16% of China's total export, it is easy for China to replace that 16% by increasing their export to other countries only half of a percent each.

you to learn once and for all, the us is no longer the super power you think it is, it's a washed out country depleted of natural resources and resorting to fraud to feed its people.

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

MK ULTRA Alpha Davidduke2000 Tue, 01/02/2018 - 11:05 Permalink

LOL I read it was 18%, LOL, if 18% of the Chinese economy is shut down, and no one is buying that 18%, then what happens to all the Chinese debt? You're an anti-American and this clouds your judgement. A war in North East Asia involving China means an end to the China US trade. We can not continue with trade deficits of nearly $400 billion per year, that's over $2 trillion loss over a five year period. It can't be sustained. How old are you? And what country are from?

In reply to by Davidduke2000