Britain has been keeping track of US actions with respect to Iran, so
when a British oil tanker was seized by Iran last week, one of the first
moves Britain made was to ask the US to avoid saber rattling or making inflammatory public statements.
That’s such a default response for the Trump Administration that it’s
not clear they’d even recognize the difference. US officials are now pushing for everyone to rush warships to the Strait of Hormuz to protect tankers going forward.
While US officials are presenting this as a new program called Sentinel,
the reality is that this is the exact same idea the US has been pushing
for weeks, where the US gets other countries to commit warships, but
the US gets to command them entirely.
It’s clear why the US likes this idea, but everyone else has
consistently rejected the idea. The “threat” the US is playing up of
Iran in the Gulf and Strait is seen as virtually non-existent, and even
the capture of the British ship is going to be seen by most as
tit-for-tat for Britain seizing an Iranian ship.
Meanwhile, Sheldon Adelson and Satanyahu smile and nod their heads…
On that, Thomas Carlton, I totally agree. Those 2 are pure evil. It’s not DJT who’s calling the shots, it’s those 2 Satanic pos’s Adelson and Nutty&Yahoo who are, and they crave a war with Iran, which would also drag in China and Russia and start a 3rd World War. That’s totally insane and suicidal.
They — from their perspective — have no choice. When everything is over-leveraged, and more money is needed to keep the stock market edifice up, and corporate earnings are used to buy back stock — there is no reality to the value of anything. There is no way out. Real economy is not reviving, and many regions in Europe and US are getting chronically depressed. In UK people blame it on EU, in France — cluelessly protesting and blaming everyone, in US getting on each other’s throat, divided by race, gender, sex, trying to figure out Trump phenomena.
But there is not a single country in Europe that has a clue where is it heading, and just like UK, are more or less reluctantly and with the sense of tired resignation, following erratic US lead. But none of them have sustainable economy, and what is left of economy is dependent on trade with each other and Asia. As mutual trade is dwindling, Asian must make up for it, but it means letting go of belligerency stoking global instability. And back to the begging — global instability is a hope for conflict resolving financial conundrum. This is a hope — hope of new redistribution of global pie — and refinancing losses at the expense of the loser(s). This hope can be contrasted with another hope — hope of peace and stability to spurn economic growth. But this hope can only be achieved by West accepting painful financial restructuring, and reducing its global footprint. And a new global balance. How likely is that? Looks more like war is a solution even if on a losing end. At least a loss will not be accepted
How can you mention Sheldon Adelson without mentioning his more powerful, silent partner — Haim Saban. The two have a foundation aimed at protecting interests of Israel, and are not even pretending that they are supporting American interests. But if things go the way our politicians want — soon it will be illegal to talk bad of the country called Israel, and consequently their politicians. May as well be resigned to that.
I mention Sheldon Adelson because he was the single biggest contributor to Trump’s campaign. Trump always follows the money. Trumpsters should have known that when they voted for him in 2016.
I admire Bianca’s greater familiarity with economics, and I often learn a fair bit about the dynamics that led to WWI and WWII, etc., with the analogies, but the simple fact is that we are living in a much less democratic time. I would’ve thought it was bad enough with the state of public education in the U.S., and with the astonishing level of control and censorship in the mass media, but no, we now have computer voting machines stateside and the propaganda has coincidentally (or not!) become less sophisticated, much lazier, the emperor has no clothes. It’s no real ‘coincidence’ (in the sense that we use that term) that Bush’s wars of choice and regime change (anything significantly worse than briefly evicting Saddam from Kuwait or the weapons-testing operations in Panama or Grenada) came with the computer voting machines. The Republicans were indignant when a paper trail was suggested, ‘how dare you entertain the possibility that we or anyone might cheat’. Well Harpers did a piece after Bush’s election, ‘None dare call it stolen’ re how the electoral process played out in Ohio in 2004, and it was well-annotated as I expect the author knew he’d be attacked. The go-to quote has since been removed from the on-line version (see the PDF), that in a brief review up-front of the election nation-wide, that 26 states had exit-polls all wrong in one direction, and in 5 Kerry was predicted to win, [New Mexico’s disparity between the results and the polls was ridiculous btw], the odds of which according to the National election data archive project was 16.5 million to 1. (This sentence or 2 has been removed as some misinterpreted it to say that the odds of Bush’s election were such, but I think it was clear enough, and we can all guess as to why that information might have really been removed from the article). Lo. and. behold. 20 years of nonsense since and just getting worse, Modi is elected in India with such machines and behaves as you’d expect. Bolsonnaro in is elected in Brazil with those machines and could never have been otherwise. It’s getting obvious world-wide, it certainly is in Brazil where a population which is more than half black voted in a openly anti-black fascist. A supreme court case was held in Brazil recently at which computer engineers and professors testified as to the vulnerability of the voting system there to hacking, and the court (in a 7-2 decision) simply mocked these witnesses as ‘conspiracy theorists’. The election and the fate of the planet now goes to the highest bidder at the national computer-voting auction or whatever we can call it. Antiwar’s one of my favourite sites, I’m a fan of J. Ditz, but this issue is so rarely touched on it’s like a 3rd rail. I think it’s the elephant in the room. I can only hope that those who would profit from this next war (now we have a Raytheon lobbyist as Sec. of Def.?) would pause out of some concern for any real blowback after it gets under way, or at least the cheerleaders would like Tom Cotton and Bolton. But they’re there to take the fall, and the attention and the money, and their further future, and ours, be damned. This computer voting machine manipulation theory IS a conspiracy theory and a great one with abundant evidence. You’d have to be naive not to know that elections are increasingly rigged internationally because of them. Which is why I think you’re incorrect when you write “Trumpsters should have known that [Trump follows the $] when they voted for him in 2016”. That’s because it didn’t matter and doesn’t matter anymore what ‘Trumpsters’ or any other member of the voting public think (apart from the Bilderberger attendees and their associates and employers). Everything computerized is hackable, we have to get back to paper ballots. That said, again I can only hope that the blow-back will give pause, but I’m afraid it looks bad and looks to be getting scarier by the day.
De-escalate tensions now by having Sen. Rand Paul be a special envoy to Iran. Exchange the seized tanker with Iranian crude for the Brit tankers. End all sanctions and incursions into Iranian territory as a beginning to return to the negotiating table to revivify the JCPOA.
That makes entirely way too much sense. And so g-damned simple.
The stuff about Rand as envoy was fake news.
I am not putting any hopes in personalities. They decide nothing.
The war is needed to wipe the slate clean on the financial pyramid we call our economy. Without major war, there will be no excuse for failure. What will keep the financial vampires out of the war — is fear. Fear of losing. Limited war is no longer an option. Wider war, may end up being s huge loss. Anything beyond that — an extinction of life. Or at least a huge setback for everyone, with the financial vampires not being able to profit from war, and roll the uncollected debts over to the loser. Thus, they are aiming to win a wider war, decisively, to impose their will. In this context it means forcing Gulf states into submission, by making them the front line of war. Using Iraq for battleground, close Hormuz and Bab El Mandeb to force Iraq and Egypt to be against Iran. This means forcing Europe to fight against Iran. On the other side, Iran will be supported by Turkey, Russia and China. And most of Central Asia. Pakistan and India will not be drawn in.
Can this end on Iran-Iraq soil? Russia is clearly the target, and it is obvious to everyone. What is not obvious is the knowledge of Russia’s defense principles, and the primary directive is – no wars should be ever fought on Russia’s territory. After two world wars fought on its land and millions of dead civilians, Russia is yet to recover from demographics disasters.
Attack on Iran will place war on Russia’s border. This will not be accepted. This will expand war immediately against US and British assets in the wider region, from Mediterranean through Persian Gulf, Red Sea and Indian Ocean.
This is the reason a limited war is not possible — and wider very risky.
I think your theory of a wide coalition to invade Iran is not possible. US militancy has one observable goal….destroy ME societies, while the mic profits from the destruction. Why would the 1% want to upend the financial system while they are winning bigly? It would be an immense air campaign, no invasion. They are waiting til they can mass produce ground warbots.
I do agree with you that the likelihood of an effective coalition is small. The keyword — effective. But todays coalitions are anything but effective — they are more like petition signatories, with the pledges made more out of the need to appease — and not much of an asset. Good example is Syria coalition of the less then willing. Of those, four or five have already restored diplomatic relations with Syria.
But things are changing — and the levels of tension are rising. Chiefly because of major losses across the region. On the surface, nothing changed. Below surface, major fury. Syria, a stalemate with major disadvantage to US. Al-Qaeda is in a reservation of sorts, Kurds cannot stay overstretched in non-Kurd area in Euphrates valley and Deir Azzor, while US is at Al-Tanf, not really in a position to control Syria-Iraq border.
Iraq has managed its Kurdish region better then expected, managed ISIS better then expected, managed political transition better then expected, and formed intelligence sharing center with Iran and Russia in Baghdad. Regional cooperation — Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria, all carefully managed without US control. Gulf states all over the place. Saudi-US Yemen problem unsolved. UAE pulling out from Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar and Oman not interested in war with Iran.
All of the above and more — are all signs of weakening position. Iran has become sort of litmus test fir US muscle.
You are saying that the destruction of ME countries is a profitable business and then why not continue it? Why risk it all? My assessment is not quite the same. The war profiteering for sure is a good business for those that make money — but it is a MONEY SPENDER, not money maker. And money is not being made anywhere. Debt is rising now almost without questioning. This is a financial system out of control and without a precedent.
Historically, many European nations have drifted into wars when their insolvency started unravelling the predictable incomes of elites. And if they could gang up against someone — win, and place debt burden on loser, in form of debt reparations, clearing out debts of winners. WWI was a perfect example. Germany was as a loser the designated piggy bank, but it still was not enough to return prosperity to UK or France. US was the only beneficiary from European financial stupidity that led to WWI. But UK gambled on a potential big prize — getting weak Soviet state crushed and vast riches acquired. And initial assistance to Hitler’s rearming was a naive imperial blunder, an expectation of Germany-Soviet battle benefiting UK. Following WWII, all European countries were diminished, as US rose as industrial power. Now, US is in the same position UK once was, financially overstretched, with no expectations of a guaranteed income generating sector of economy. Historically, sustainability is incompatible with the financially-driven economies. Solutions to their problems have bern wars — and making somebody else pay for excess.
But wars — with a potential payout target worthy of trouble — are risky, with potential loss of global standing. After such a setback, even the petition-like signatories to various coalitions would shy away. As there are no economic incentives to be gained, it is easy to see how alliances can get wobbly. But US is trying to strengthen their spine various ways — will they cave in? They will — if they think that their backs are against the wall, and must accept US position.
This is where we are at — right now. But if alliances conclude that they are not facing calamity — they will not commit.
Fear vs, greed. Systems based on financial leverage have eliminated sustainable, price discovery mechanisms in economy. They will implode unless a roll over can be found. It is so far out of balance, that the tariff wars cannot fix it,
Perhaps it’s because the global economy is too complicated for this carpenter, but I do perceive the simpler explanation. In the example of Syria, the US expended at least, 100,ooo 155mm shells since 2017. Cost, $80,000 to $100,000 per shell. Real money. Enough money to hire skilled marketing scum to invent reasons why they are being expended. Too simple ? So is a card trick, if you know how to do it. My theory holds, trump has expended munitions at a horrific new pace across the board. Iran is tantalizingly close, yet, can it be rubbled cheaply (in terms of public opinion)? Cheney pushed hard in 04 and was warned off.
This is the old paradigm, one in which the decision makers might be held accountable and in which the ‘big picture’ is considered as to the greater good for the country or the economy. The computer-voting has killed democracy, the evidence is undeniable, and everything has been worse than predictable since they were forced upon Americans in 2004, and the people making the decisions are profiteers who have bought the election, pure and simple. The right people were paid, the result was purchased, and the government will now harm the U.S., doom it to severe decline, as long as the handful that bought the election profit, and if the U.S. is set on a course to the worst war since WWII, in spite of the extreme unpopularity of that course, it’s fair to assume that a few puppet-string pullers will benefit. Please stop looking at the big picture so much, at least when it comes to why we’re heading to war (although I pray that we’re not), the situation is really much too pathetic for that. (I should add that there tends to be a power-tripping sadistic dynamic for those pushing from behind the curtain too, which explains why the CIA took pains to torture at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere when the best studies were known to show that torture is ineffective.)
The goal is a gradual escalation to a US – with allied help – naval blockade of Iranian oil shipments. Trump has explicitly said he intends “zero” Iranian oil shipments. How is this even remotely possible without an actual naval blockade? This is how the war with Iran will probably be started.
A blockade is war.
Indeed. That’s the point.
Ya, guess I was just adding that when the US regime imposes sanctions, it is “at war”, not “starting a war”. I wonder sometimes, if the US pulled it’s militancy out of the Mideast, would war still be imminent there ?
Yup. There would still be Israel. Until the US drops Israel as an ally, the US will continue to stay in the Middle East. Not to mention US support for Saudi Arabia – although I wouldn’t be surprised if the US would invade Saudi Arabia if it thought it could get away with it. But why bother when Saudi Arabia is totally dependent on the US for its survival in terms of buying oil and also for US military sales and US mercenaries to protect the royals.
Wesley Clark said he heard of a document that said the US intended to “take out” seven Middle Eastern countries. Of the seven, only two have not been attacked – yet: Lebanon and Iran. And as I’ve said, from Israel’s viewpoint, Lebanon – or more precisely Hezbollah – has to go before Iran has to go. So those two countries will be attacked before long.