It looks like the neocons will finally get their war with Iran
The destruction of ISIS has given Iran the one thing they have always dreamed of - the Shia Crescent becoming a political fact. Maybe more.
The Arab world is confronted not just by a Shia Crescent, “but by a Shia full moon”, says one confidant of the prince.
Of course this political reality that the neocons created with their incompetence, is totally unacceptable to Israel and Saudi Arabia.
A direct road from Tehran to Damascus is exactly what the neocons had promised to prevent.
Recent events in Syria indicate that the Assad "regime and its allies [are] racing to establish an east-west 'Shiite axis' from Iran to Lebanon and the United States [is] seemingly looking to cement a north-south 'Sunni axis' from the Gulf states and Jordan to Turkey," Fabrice Balanche, a French expert on Syria and a visiting fellow at The Washington institute for Near East Policy, wrote recently.
"What's left of Islamic State territory is the key part of Iran's plan to connect Iran to Lebanon," Firas Abi-Ali, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Country Risk in London, told Bloomberg.
Kataib Imam Ali Forces (Iraqi militia in Syria) announced that they are preparing for Al #Tanf battle. See https://t.co/iyhjOPHsAY pic.twitter.com/ZLo5elflN5
— Balanche (@FabriceBalanche) May 30, 2017
Hundreds of Iranian-backed Iraqi militiamen have massed near a U.S.-training base located near the country’s border with Iraq. Clashes have already occurred.
Supposedly our forces feel threatened, but our jihadist allies tell a different story.
Syrian rebels say the United States and its allies are sending them more arms to try to fend off a new push into the southeast by Iran-backed militias aiming to open an overland supply route between Iraq and Syria.
The stakes are high as Iran seeks to secure its influence from Tehran to Beirut in a "Shi'ite crescent" of Iranian influence through Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, where Sunni Arab states have lost out in power struggles with Iran.
This is nothing more than bare-knuckles, military politics.
Last week President Trump who told America’s regional Sunni allies that he’ll help roll back Iranian power, which is a very bold promise.
And just in case you weren't seeing a pattern, the Democratic Party mouthpiece, Washington Post, says it's time for a proxy war against Iran.
However, if Trump think he can just bomb those Iranian-backed forces in Syria without risk, he has forgotten who they are and where they come from.
“Iran-backed” is popular parlance for the rebels, and for the US at times, as a way to say they are Shi’ite militias. The Shi’ite militias are backing the Alawite-dominated Assad government in Syria, and the Shi’ite-dominated Abadi government in neighboring Iraq.
But by and large, they’re the same militias, or at least affiliated ones. The US view of them changes dramatically at the border, however, as inside Iraq they’re treasured allies helping to fight against ISIS and other Sunni Islamists to save the government, and in Syria they’re bitter enemies, trying to fight ISIS and other Sunni Islamists, also to save the government.
"Treasured allies" or "bitter enemies" depends on which side of the border, to Americans.
But not to Iraqis.
“The Americans will not be allowed to control the border,” Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of a pro-Assad Iraqi militia that recently moved into the area, said in an interview with Lebanese news station al-Mayadeen TV on May 30.
It's ridiculously naive to think that this fight won't spill over the border into Iraq.
Comments
Ever play the old board game Diplomacy with a pack of 10yr olds?
On to Biden since 1973
Or a Game Theory Proponent? Or, Is That the Same Thing?
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
Diplomacy was a
stylized recreation of WW1, a 7 player game with very simple rules, so simple no player could win it as a military strategy game. You had to make alliances - and at the right time backstab your partner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)
In the 70s there were a number of t-shirts advertising various games, D+D, with a picture of a Conan style barbarian warrior on the front, and for Diplomacy a picture of a bloody knife buried to the hilt in the back.
On to Biden since 1973
@doh1304 In college we played
I refereed one game. Within three moves, both my room and my mailbox were broken into to steal / substitute moves. I told everyone to fuck off, game over.
Diplomacy the game is BRUTAL.
@doh1304 You mean like Risk?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Not really
Risk is a simple strategy game. Diplomacy… well, there are moves, but the game is in convincing other players to support you, then betraying them.
On to Biden since 1973
I Played in High School for AP US History. Was the Decider for
my country.
A good friend of mine game theoried me out (Fuck You, Buddy). I was the second of his national victims.
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The only diplomacy the US understands is
Gunboat Diplomacy.
Here's latest from Moon of Alabama:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/05/trump-dumps-pretension-of-altruism-...
Competition to the death
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
the nature of Capitalism
...... of everybody and everything .......
In very deed, unfortunately.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
@lizzyh7 Capitalism is really
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yep
That's why the news fascinates me so much these days.
The economic system broke in 2008. It's a walking zombie now.
The political system began breaking down in 2015, and is still in the process of it.
TPTB know this is true, but don't know what to do.
@gjohnsit They don't know
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@lizzyh7 It's odd to feel so
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
@CB Realistically, Obama &
It's taking far too long for the US Empire
…to die, already.
The Iran-Russia trade agreement had been initially proposed in 2014.
That happened just after the US overthrew the Ukraine's democratic government, which was followed by US sanctions against Russia. Suddenly, along came China with the world's largest-ever oil deal for Russia. And to topping it off, Iran handing Russia a way to smack down US Dollar hegemony: An oil-for-goods deal worth more than $20 billion, which would enable Tehran to boost vital energy exports in defiance of Western sanctions, at the same time delivering a lethal blow to the Petrodollar.
These "unintended consequences" of the US war crime in Ukraine spurred the US into immediate negotiations with Iran, taking the world by surprise.
I remember a day back then when John Kerry, reeling from all this, blurted to the WSJ that the US was forced to make a missile deal with Iran or the US Dollar would crash. His statement was completely out of context and went right over everybody's heads (and it sure surprised me) before dropping down the memory hole. But Kerry was absolutely right about that.
Reuters had reported on the Iran-Russia deal-in-progress in 2014, announcing that Moscow and Tehran were discussing a barter deal that would see Moscow buy up to 500,000 barrels a day of Iranian oil in exchange for Russian equipment and goods. Alarmed, the White House said such a deal would raise "serious concerns" and would be inconsistent with the nuclear talks between world powers and Iran.
Yes, the Petrodollar-busting, Russia-Iran deal was revived and kick-started just this week due to US bad-faith dealing within the new US-Iran agreement. The US Deep State has sabotaged it by back-channel blocking other nations from completing financial transactions with Iran.
The International Monetary Fund recently admitted that while Iran has been reconnected to SWIFT to accept bank transfers that paid for its goods sold globally, significant bureaucratic red tape prevents Iranian banks from reliably reconnecting to global banks due to obscure and lingering US sanctions that are spuriously triggered. Or, something, something.
So, as always, the US continues to heap the nation's treasure into the pockets of any US corporation participating in war profiteering, with a current focus on helping Israel and the Saudis exterminate every living Shiite in the Middle East. Next: Africa.
Meanwhile, China's One Belt One Road Global Summit this weekend marks the real beginning of a New World Order with multipolar sovereignty to protect the voices and interests of the People, regionally, while boosting development for all.
IMAGINE if you woke up the day after a US Presidential Election and headlines around the the world blared, "The Majority of Americans Refused to Vote in US Presidential Election! What Does this Mean?"
Non-Monetary Transactions? That's Like Theft. nt
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
My question is...Why is Russia buying oil from Iran?
Yeah, it's about market share
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Oil is a fungible commodity
Iran's main customers are China, Japan and a number of other countries such as Turkey. Russia sells to these same countries. Whether it goes directly to China or to Russia then to China is irrelevant. This way, Iran gets stuff Russia makes for their oil and Russia gets yuan for the oil. Then Russia gets stuff from China with these yuan. It's win-win-win. Notice there was no intermediate use of the US$ in these transactions.
The important thing is that these sales are off the US dollar. Normally each country must have US$'s to buy and sell oil. To get the US$'s in the first place, a country has to sell something to America - wheat, gold jewelry, toys, leather, whatever they have to sell. Now they have a fistful of US$'s which they can use to buy the oil they need to power their machinery and trucks etc.
Because buying and selling oil never stops, these dollars go round and round and never return to the US. The more the world uses oil, the more of these "Petrodollars" there are going round and round and never come back to the US to be exchanged for material goods. When people have too many of these US$'s they deposit them in the US treasuries. The US then uses these as collateral to borrow money to pay for things like a global police force to ensure that everyone continues to use the US$.
The best way to look at this process is like kiting a check. Eventually, everyone in the world has trillions of these paper IOU's. It's called reserve currency. It's part of how bankers and the US got so rich. Every time these kited checks go round and round without being exchanged for actual goods a small cut is taken for services.
What would happen if the world no longer needs this paper money and wants to exchange it for some real goods instead? This is why the powers that be do not want to stop using oil. What's in it for them if you make your own energy from the wind and sun?
Oil is imperfectly fungible, but that doesn't
in any way contradict your argument
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Iran's light sweet crude is almost perfectly fungible
China can pick up their 'Russian' oil at an Iranian port and bring it home just as they picked up their 'Iranian' oil every year before. The Iranian oil does not have to physically go to Russia. In fact, the Iranian oil sold to Russia can go to Turkey. Turkey pays Russia and Russia sends S-400 missiles to Iran. Turkey then mixes Iranian oil with ISIS black market oil from Syria and sells it to Israel.
Actually, Turkey used to buy tankers of really cheap US sanctioned Iranian oil using gold bullion. The Turks sent the bullion to Dubai where the Iranians picked it up. There were all sorts of schemes using Italian lira and other countries as intermediates to hide the transactions. The US clamped down in 2013 and put a stop to it. Russia put a stop to the ISIS smuggling.
Can't get much more fungible than that. Heavy, sour crude is much less fungible because much of it is refined by US refineries in the Gulf.
This is the checkmate statement right here:
The PTB are sworn to support and promote the oil-based economy until the last drop is extracted, or the empire falls, whichever happens first.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
@Song of the lark Consolidating power
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
McMaster is delusional
If we're lucky, the fall from power will be gradual, like the fall of the Spanish Empire, which oddly has a lot of parallels.
"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."
Yep. Spain ended up spending all that gold and silver
they stole from the New World on armaments and war to ensure they could continue to steal more gold and silver which they needed to spend on more armaments and war to ensure they could continue to steal even more gold and silver which they needed to spend on........
Eventually they had overextended themselves and went broke. The natives revolted, other empires including the nascent American Empire intervened and... pfft... the Spanish Empire was dead. I wonder what the total cost in innocent blood for this episode in the sordid history of the world was?
I don't think the US Empire is going to go as "quietly", from causes within or from without.
I played it some in my late teens.
Much later, in my mid to late 20s, I took 3rd in the diplomacy section of some 3-day west coast game con.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Funny how most news reports
continually refer to Syria's government as a "regime".
native
regime
That's because it is one, literally. (The "reg" in "regime" comes from the Latin "regis", "of the king".) Like the governments of North Korea and (until 2013) Cuba, it's essentially a kingdom which doesn't admit it is one. Any time the same family holds undisputable executive power for multiple generations, the nation that family rules is a kingdom and the leaders ought to make honest men of themselves and call themselves King.
Cuba, in fact, has made a counter-example out of this when Raúl Castro announced in 2013 that he would not run for another term as President in 2018. I note that the term "regime" was applied a lot less to Cuba after that.
Of course, please, do not infer from this that I approve of the blackening of the record of the Assad/Ba'ath Socialist government by Western news operations. I know I'm being offered a bunch of worthless, tasteless garbage to try to convince me that socialism is unworkable and we have no alternative to predatory crony capitalist barbarism. For the record: NO SALE.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Kinda like the Bush regime
or the failed Clinton regime.
Veritably!
Veritably!
(And terms I've used for both, by the way!)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
It's ridiculously naive to think that this fight.....
..... has any benefit side what-so-fucking-ever for ordinary Americans in the working classes.
This statement remains true regardless of the gender, orientation, race, creed, color, ethnic origin, age, etc. of the same said Americans.
NO nation has ever benefited from prolonged warfare. -- Sun Tzu
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
But individual corporations most certainly have profited...
Corporations LOVE warfare, because they're a protected class in wars (Can't have essential infrastructure targeted! That's a War CRIME!) and yet gain huge profits by gouging from both the perpetrators (Weapons Sales) and the victims (Sales of everything else that the war destroyed.)
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
WTF is wrong with the US government?
Those fuckers in Washington are more interested in destruction than in bettering peoples lives. The godamn country is slowly circling the bowl and all they can think of is pushing the handle.
Meanwhile, America's "greatest threat" is building bridges and trying to improve lives.
This is like if Russia was supporting the Mormons...
in their war against the rest of the "Christians"...
After all, the TRUE story came down through Joseph Smith and his decedents, and therefore it's perfectly logical to demand that everybody else in your area follow your laws or else be murdered, robbed and forgotten, all in the name of GOOD!
Religious wars are the absolute worst, and we're pretending that we can control them.
That's just... stupid. I mean, really, really stupid.
The kind of stupid you look at and just marvel at the perfect lack of foresight, thought or reflection.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
stupid
The kind of stupid that burns..... and keeps on burning!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
This is beginning to remind me of the disaster
that was the Thirty Years War.
Odd combinations of 'allies' that over time laid waste to Central Europe.
(See Catholic France (Richelieu) subsidizing Lutheran Sweden (Gustavus II Adolphus) to fight the Catholic Holy Roman Emperor, Ferdinand II)
Good times.
(See Callot)
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
Strange fruit
The US had similar orchards.....