Tag Archives: Iran

Bits and Pieces – 20161212, Monday

What We’re Reading Today

Commentary: The Democrat strategy may be emerging. A coordination disinformation campaign to blame Russia for influencing and actively intervening (hacking) in the electoral process to discredit Hillary, for the purpose of swaying electoral college votes from Trump to Hillary. Here’s a good summary:

and this would explain: Clinton Campaign, Top Democrats Call For Intel Briefing, Commission Ahead Of Electoral College Vote. This is a true Charlie Brown moment where Lucy (the MSM and Democratic establishment) is holding the football (believe the CIA report) for Charlie (the public).

On the topic: FBI Disputes CIA’s “Fuzzy And Ambiguous” Claims That Russia Sought To Influence Presidential Election.

Climate: Trump, if inaugerated, may issue in a more balanced approach to the politics and economics of climate science: Shifting sands of the climate debate.

Bits and Pieces: One more apple cart for Trump to upset: Iran Warns Of “World War, The Destruction Of Israel”, If Trump Tears Up Nuclear Pact. When Trump won, I was greatly relieved, putting my nuclear preparedness on the back burner. Unfortunately Trump seems to have turned the back burner on low with China, but Iran would advance it to medium. If he decides to continue the recent re-engagement that Obama has created in Syria and adopt Hillary’s playbook of a no-fly zone, them it moves to high.

On another note: Trump’s Wisconsin Victory Confirmed – Gained Net 162 Votes In Statewide Recount. Way to go Jill!

Are we setting up for an executive pardon: Hillary Begs For Benghazi Lawsuit Dismissal While Plaintiffs Blast “Special Favors” For “Political Elite”? But this one’s not going so well: xPA Judge Denies Recount And Blasts Stein’s “Suspicions Of Hacking” That “Border On Irrational”.

I guess that any car left on the street overnight in Detroit will now be legally drivable: Michigan Legalizes Car Sales With No Steering Wheel or Brake Pedal.

The Middle East: A Simmer Or a Rolling Boil?

This morning we decided that it is time to put together a current view of the Middle East centered on ISIS. To this end, we link several very comprehensive articles but with little commentary of our own other than a bit of glue between the pieces.

Circling the Wagons

We have have made a conscious decision to circle the wagons. We see a high probability of

  1. a stock market correction of 30-50% if not an outright crash;
  2. a recession that will rival or surpass the 2007 recession which some argue has never ended;
  3. a world war with the US and western nations on one side and Russia and China on the other side either individually but more likely together, and Canada will do whatever the US wants in this situation;
  4. social revolution in many of the states currently in crisis including France, Spain, Italy, Eastern European countries, Latin American countries and Southeast Asia countries; North Korea will attack South Korea even if a larger Pacific conflict doesn’t erupt;
  5. there will be widespread social discord in countries that don’t experience revolution and the US in particular will use unprecedented suppression of its population, possibly ending the republic;
  6. the Sunni/Shiite divide will come to the brink of nuclear war as Iran builds the bomb and Saudi Arabia repatriates the nuclear weapons that it has paid Pakistan to develop for it;
  7. a global financial crisis of a size never seen before including multiple currency collapses and sovereign defaults;
  8. central banks and governments will be largely powerless to stop an economic collapse because they’ve spent all their ammunition already;
  9. and watch the drought in California produce massive food price inflation if the rains don’t come this year.

Some of these conditions are already underway in countries like Argentina, France, Greece, Spain, Ukraine, Venezuela, and most of the Mideast. We expect a major global event from this list to occur this year and certainly by next year. Since we are globally connected as never before, one event will trigger a cascade through others.

Israelis, Saudis and the Iranian Agreement

Stratfor

By George Friedman

A deal between Iran and the P-5+1 (the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) was reached Saturday night. The Iranians agreed to certain limitations on their nuclear program while the P-5+1 agreed to remove certain economic sanctions. The next negotiation, scheduled for six months from now depending on both sides’ adherence to the current agreement, will seek a more permanent resolution. The key players in this were the United States and Iran. The mere fact that the U.S. secretary of state would meet openly with the Iranian foreign minister would have been difficult to imagine a few months ago, and unthinkable at the beginning of the Islamic republic.

Obama Has Secured His Legacy …

… as the most inept and disastrous president in American history.

In terms of domestic policy, Obamacare continues to unfold as a colossal socialist blunder. Never mind that the implementation has been a total screw-up and that initial projections of enrollment are out by an order of magnitude or more. Never mind that it has created structural damage to the employment  situation where tens of thousands of jobs have been deleted or changed from full-time to part-time (read Mike Shedlock: Jobs vs. Employment Analysis Suggests Huge Obamacare Impact (And Way Less Job Growth than Anyone Thinks)

It is the ongoing personal cost hidden in millions of little stories of people who have lost all coverage (such as: Latest Obamacare Glitch: One-Third of Enrollees May Not Get Insurance) or are paying multiples of what they previously paid for less coverage. Watch for massive fraud arising from phony insurers and lost personal identification information (read: No security ever built into Obamacare site: Hacker). A major negative transformation is taking place in the American healthcare system, one which will take years to fully emerge – if it survives at all.

U.S. and Iranian Realities

By George Friedman

U.S. President Barack Obama called Iranian President Hassan Rouhani last week in the first such conversation in the 34 years since the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The phone call followed tweets and public statements on both sides indicating a willingness to talk. Though far from an accommodation between the two countries, there are reasons to take this opening seriously — not only because it is occurring at such a high level, but also because there is now a geopolitical logic to these moves. Many things could go wrong, and given that this is the Middle East, the odds of failure are high. But Iran is weak and the United States is avoiding conflict, and there are worse bases for a deal.

Iran’s Surge

Though the Iranians are now in a weak strategic position, they had been on the offensive since 2003, when the United States invaded Iraq. They welcomed the invasion; Saddam Hussein had been a mortal enemy of Iran ever since the 1980-1989 Iran-Iraq War. The destruction of his regime was satisfying in itself, but it also opened the door to a dramatic shift in Iran’s national security situation.

Iraq was Iran’s primary threat after the collapse of the Soviet Union because it was the only direction from which an attack might come. A pro-Iranian or even neutral Iraq would guarantee Iranian national security. The American invasion created a power vacuum in Iraq that the U.S. Army could not fill. The Iranians anticipated this, supporting pro-Iranian elements among the Shia prior to 2003 and shaping them into significant militias after 2003. With the United States engaged in a war against Sunni insurgents, the Shia, already a majority, moved to fill the void.

Iran: Managing U.S. Military Action in Syria

September 4, 2013

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in Tehran on Sept. 3. (BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images)

Summary

Conventional wisdom says that a weakened Syria would undermine Iran’s regional influence, but a U.S. military intervention in the country could actually benefit Tehran. The government there has devised a sophisticated strategy for responding to a U.S. attack. Of course, Tehran would activate its militant proxies in the region, including Hezbollah, in the event that the United States launches an attack, but it would also exploit Washington’s visceral opposition to Sunni jihadist and Islamist groups to gain concessions elsewhere.

Syria and Byzantine Strategy

Syria and Byzantine Strategy

September 4, 2013 | 0900 GMT

Stratfor

In March 1984, I was reporting from the Hawizeh Marshes in southern Iraq near the Iranian border. The Iran-Iraq War was in its fourth year, and the Iranians had just launched a massive infantry attack, which the Iraqis repelled with poison gas. I beheld hundreds of young, dead Iranian soldiers, piled up and floating in the marshes, like dolls without a scar on any of them. An Iraqi officer poked one of the bodies with his walking stick and told me, “This is what happens to the enemies of Saddam [Hussein].” Of course, the Iranians were hostile troops invading Iraqi territory; not civilians. But Saddam got around to killing women and children, too, with chemical weapons. In March 1988, he gassed roughly 5,000 Kurds to death. As a British reporter with me in the Hawizeh Marshes had quipped, “You could fit the human rights of Iraq on the head of a pin, and still have room for the human rights of Iran.”

Flash Point: An Opinion on a War With Iran Worthy of consideration

We think that this video is worth the 20 minute view. Patrick Henningsen has a wide ranging assessment of what war with Iran might entail. In fact we think too wide ranging to not have a number of positions that are are at least debatable if not entirely inaccurate. But he has a comprehensive view and many of his points we thought to be fresh and worthy of consideration. Consider this carefully in evaluating your own position.

Hat tip to JR.

War and Bluff: Iran, Israel and the United States

September 11, 2012

Stratfor

By George Friedman

For the past several months, the Israelis have been threatening to attack Iranian nuclear sites as the United States has pursued a complex policy of avoiding complete opposition to such strikes while making clear it doesn’t feel such strikes are necessary. At the same time, the United States has carried out maneuvers meant to demonstrate its ability to prevent the Iranian counter to an attack — namely blocking the Strait of Hormuz. While these maneuvers were under way, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said no “redline” exists that once crossed by Iran would compel an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Israeli government has long contended that Tehran eventually will reach the point where it will be too costly for outsiders to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

The Israeli and American positions are intimately connected, but the precise nature of the connection is less clear. Israel publicly casts itself as eager to strike Iran but restrained by the United States, though unable to guarantee it will respect American wishes if Israel sees an existential threat emanating from Iran. The United States publicly decries Iran as a threat to Israel and to other countries in the region, particularly Saudi Arabia, but expresses reservations about military action out of fears that Iran would respond to a strike by destabilizing the region and because it does not believe the Iranian nuclear program is as advanced as the Israelis say it is.

The Israelis and the Americans publicly hold the same view of Iran. But their public views on how to proceed diverge. The Israelis have less tolerance for risk than the Americans, who have less tolerance for the global consequences of an attack. Their disagreement on the issue pivots around the status of the Iranian nuclear program. All of this lies on the surface; let us now examine the deeper structure of the issue.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: photography charlottesville va | Thanks to ppc software, penny auction and larry goins