Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 01, 2018

On The Path To Failure - U.S. Attempts Violent "Regime Change" In Iran

In early 2014 we remarked on Color Revolution by Force in Syria and Ukraine:

Accompanying the demonstrations and illegal occupations of government buildings are in both cases brutal, criminal attacks on the police and other government forces. In Syria the violence "muscle" part was done by foreign financed Jihadists while neo-nazi gangs are used in the Ukraine. The demonstrations and the attacks on the state are planned and go together. There is nothing "peaceful" in demonstrations that are only the public-relations cover for attacks on the state. But the foreign politicians and media immediately utter "concerns" and threats over completely normal government responses to them. It is a scam to justify "western" "support" for the demonstrators and to further the violence.

The aim is "regime change" of legitimate governments by small minorities. Should the "regime" resist to that the alternative of destroying the state and the whole society is also wholeheartedly accepted.

We have since seen similar CIA operations in Venezuela and most recently in Nicaragua. The same concept is used to attack Iran. In December peaceful economic protests were hijacked by violent elements. Last night a similar attempt occurred:

Sayed Mousavi @SayedMousavi7 - 22:17 UTC - 30 Jun 2018

Khoramshar water shortage protest turned violent tonight.
What we know:
- At least 2 protesters shot, possibly by getting close to military zones
- Mobs set 2 museums on fire (reports)
- 1 hour of calm
- No base takeovers (anti-regime journos have claimed)
- Armed bike is suspicious

The scene with the "armed bike" in the video attached to the above tweet can be seen better in another video. It shows two "peaceful protesters" on a motorcycle shooting at police with an automatic gun. The shooter is hit and falls off. Another "peaceful protester" picks up the gun and continues shooting.

via Sayed Mousavi - bigger

A year ago the CIA created a new mission center to attack Iran:

The Iran Mission Center will bring together analysts, operations personnel and specialists from across the CIA to bring to bear the range of the agency’s capabilities, including covert action.
To lead the new group, Mr. Pompeo picked a veteran intelligence officer, Michael D’Andrea, who recently oversaw the agency’s program of lethal drone strikes ...
Mr. D’Andrea, a former director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, is known among peers as a demanding but effective manager, and a convert to Islam who works long hours. Some U.S. officials have expressed concern over what they perceive as his aggressive stance toward Iran.

The tool the U.S. is using in Iran are operatives of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), a terror cult that has been fighting with Saddam's Iraq against Iran and is despised by the Iranian people. When the U.S. was kicked out of Iraq it transferred the MEK camps from Iraq to Albania where the cult is now training its terrorists.

Yesterday a conference of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), a political umbrella controlled by the MEK, was held in Paris. One of the well paid guest speakers was Donald Trump's lawyer Rudi Giuliani. He acknowledged U.S. involvement in the protests in Iran:

“Those protests [in Iran] are not happening spontaneously. They are happening because of many of our people in Albania and many of our people here and throughout the world.”

The MEK is just a front group, trained by Mossad and financed with U.S. and Saudi money. It is not backed by Iranian people. Only half of the attendees of the conference were Iranians at all:

The other half consisted of an assortment of bored-looking Poles, Czechs, Slovakians, Germans and Syrians who responded to a Facebook campaign promising travel, food and accommodation to Paris for a mere €25.

These "color revolution by force" regime change protests are only one of the tools the U.S. is using to destroy Iran.

Trump wants to end all oil exports from Iran to starve the country of foreign currencies. Iran's biggest customers are Europe, India and China. The big Europe oil companies have already folded under Trump's pressure, India followed and China has still to decide if it wants to take a (costly) stand. Trump is pressing Saudi Arabia to increase its oil supplies to replace the Iranian oil that can no longer reach the world market.

Making Iranians poorer is thought to lead to an uprising and regime change. But it is doubtful that such will work. The identity of the Islamic Republic is quite strong. It is more likely that the Iranian people will pull together and accept the hardship while asymmetric Iranian operations slowly destroy the U.S.'s policies. Saudi oil ports are quite vulnerable targets ...

Within the Trump administration Secretary of State Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton are the biggest proponents of regime change in Tehran:

Bolton views the demonstrations that have broken out in Iran in recent months over the state of the country’s economy as an indication of the regime’s weakness. He has told Trump that increased U.S. pressure could lead to the regime’s collapse.

One person who recently spoke with senior White House officials on the subject summarized Bolton view in the words: “One little kick and they’re done.”

Secretary of Defense Mattis is said to be opposed to regime change in Iran. He fears that such an effort might lead to a larger Middle East war. Trump will likely fire him soon. Sheldon Adelson, the Zionist billionaire who financed Trump's campaign, paid Bolton and supports Netanyahoo, will have Trump ears. He demands regime change in Iran no matter what.

Regime change in Iran is not just a Trump administration project. The support for the MEK nutters is bipartisan. Several Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, also spoke at the MEK conference in Paris. The neo-conservative lunatics are established in both parties. Here is Obama's ambassador to Russia who tried and failed to implement regime change there:

Michael McFaul @McFaul - 18:21 UTC - 30 Jun 2018
A democratic Iran not only would free Iranians from repressive theocracy but produce closer ties between our two countries; real security, economic, and moral benefits for both Iranians and Americans.

To which the father of the neocons responded:

Bill Kristol @BillKristol - 18:29 UTC - 30 Jun 2018
Bill Kristol Retweeted Michael McFaul
Very true. And great to see a bipartisan consensus for regime change in Iran! (It would be happily ironic if, totally inadvertently, tough sanctions followed by the JCPOA followed by withdrawal from the deal caused so much whiplash that the regime crumbled.)

Surely, the U.S. will be welcome in Tehran with candy and flowers (not). Such neo-conservative "moral benefit" nonsense has already led to the disaster of the war on Iraq. Iran is several times larger. It has a quite modern economy, effective proxy forces and very significant allies. Any attempt to defeat it militarily will be a hopeless endeavor.

The U.S. has only weak allies in the Middle East. Should a conflict with Iran become hot it would have its hands full with trying to save them from falling apart.

For now we can expect more protests in Iran that will be hijacked in an attempt to create a "revolution". There will be U.S. directed proxy attacks by Kurdish and Baluchi forces on iran's borders. The economic pressure within Iran will increase further.

But all these efforts are likely to fail. Since its Islamic revolution in 1979 every U.S. attempt to damage Iran or its allies has led to the opposite effect. Every time Iran emerged stronger than before. It is likely that the current attempt will have a similar result.

Posted by b on July 1, 2018 at 16:21 UTC | Permalink


They can use proxies all they want. For such a large country, ground troops will be needed. The US will never learn. They think one or two guys with automatic weapons will change it overnight. It will amount to nothing and will be such a disaster. As a post note: how’s those corruption charges going for Bibi? Any day now, or what?

Posted by: Jose Garcia | Jul 1 2018 16:40 utc | 1

So the EU countries gave up already.

Posted by: Bengt | Jul 1 2018 16:56 utc | 2

For what it's worth, Turkey will continue to buy Iranian crudes. So I guess China will not be the only one. Also, I'll see where Trump takes his trade war with China. Buying Iranian crudes will probably be a qualitative retaliation.

Posted by: Cycloben | Jul 1 2018 16:59 utc | 3

Clearly the reason for the Trump-Putin summit should be obvious to all by now.

Trump to Putin: We will give you Syria & NordStream II. And in return all we ask is that you stand aside from Iran.

What will Putin do?

And what about the Ukrainian Elections coming up???

Surely Putin has to demand more to stand aside from Iran. Crimea for starters.

Posted by: Julian | Jul 1 2018 17:02 utc | 4

- Ne'er may that evil-omened day befall
When Iran shall become a stranger's thrall!
Ne'er may I see that virgen fair and pure
Fall victim to some Russian gallant's lure!
Ans ne'er may Fate this angel-bride award
As serving maiden to some English lord!

Mira Aqá Khán

thus quoted at the start of chapter: THE 1905 IRANIAN REVOLUTION

Revolutionary Mexico, The Coming and Process of The Mexican Revolution

John Mason Hart

Posted by: Guerrero | Jul 1 2018 17:25 utc | 5

We already have Syria and the Crimea.
You dont need to give use Northstream 2. We will build it ourselves.

Posted by: PutinToTrump | Jul 1 2018 17:32 utc | 6

@4, Syria is not Trump's to give. They already lost it.
Nordstream II only blocking party is Denmark, and they can and will bypass it at some price, if need be.
So - Trump has nothing and you think he will be given head of a Russian neigboor, SCO ally, fellow Empire target?
No way.

Posted by: Šabaniri | Jul 1 2018 18:02 utc | 7

I have always wondered, how do these guys get armed with the latest and greatest? I have arms at home , but no automatics. How do these arms suddenly appear? I am pointing a finger at the Evil Empire, subversion!
Please fund a utra right group in the US, in order to dismantle it. There are many neo naxi groups to choose from.
I personally support some nazi group with 1000 $ ayear. I promote hate and evil in the US, as it has done in the rest of the world.

Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Jul 1 2018 18:46 utc | 8

U.S. policy is pure unabridged International crime, the so called lawyer of Trump's openly admits to prosecutable crimes. These crimes are spelled out in detail in the UN Charter. The US congress has ratified the UN Charter making these laws also domestic Law. Beyond advocating and abetting Murder which is a crime all by itself, which all these people are openly advocating, supporting and all bread crumbs lead directly back to them ( the people mentioned here in this piece ), the International crime of advocating the violent overthrow of a national government is a crime that if not punishable by the UN toothless dog, then the US Congress is obligated to enforce it as the Charter has become for all practical purposes US law. Additionally of course unilateral Sanctions are a very similar serious violation of the UN Charter. How in the Hell these people escape prosecution is quite a clever trick, the World and everybody in it needs to stand up and vocally condemn U.S. policies, and that is happening, as the condemnation grows louder and more frequent, the Uncle Sam snake will hopefully slither back into it's hole.

Posted by: che | Jul 1 2018 18:52 utc | 9

The US military vessel MV Cape Ray has arrived in the Persian Gulf, with an armed escort ship. Cape Ray was used to supposedly destroy all of Syria's chemical weapons in 2014. It isn't there by chance. Will there be a CW false flag? Khoramshar is right on the Iraq-Iran border close to the Iraqi port of Basra.

Posted by: Yonatan | Jul 1 2018 20:28 utc | 10

Julian @4

Almost all of the countries that Nord Stream 2 passes through have signed on to its construction. The only holdout is Denmark. In response Gazprom has said it will reroute the pipeline through international waters. There is nothing the US can do about that and Denmark can say goodbye to its share of transit fees.

Also Crimea is non-negotiable for Russia. It is Russian territory irrespective of what happens.

Posted by: Yonatan | Jul 1 2018 20:33 utc | 11

Oil will continue to flow from Iran, there simply isn't a significant supply stemming from the Saudi-Russia alliance or US shale to fill the gap. The Iranians will lose marketspace, sure, but the inevitable increase of the price of oil will somewhat soften the blow. And anything over $100 per barrel, along with a stronger dollar, is proven to be detrimental to energy importing countries. It will be painful to keep the economy rolling.
And when there's less appetite for oil; the price of oil crashes resulting in another big financial crash (due to bad dept) followed by another round of austerity measures which spells political turmoil in a number of countries. And the landscape gradually changes.

Because we've been there before.

Posted by: never mind | Jul 1 2018 20:46 utc | 12

@ Che #9

It has been clear for many years that the US and it’s gang of thugs does not accept the authority of any court or trade organization.

Posted by: Stumpy | Jul 1 2018 20:56 utc | 13

Does anybody see a pattern? Pattern similar to Libya, Syria, Ukraine or even Yugoslavia. And I am not talking about US brutal and deadly regime change policy as it is obvious but that those country leaders and ruling class seem to never learn how insidious those suppose deals agreements are not only that they never meant to be really implemented as often they were meritless baseless promises like Iran deal of abandoning nukes Iran never had or Ukraine promise of joining EU that was phony. and deals hardly benefit population at large but included clandestine guarantees of western support for factions of local oligarchy.

And that was real aim of the agreement sowing corruption and political division , after cutting off economy and create crisis they offered deals aimed at fracturing ruling elite by politics of division and financial reward or penalty and when internal divisions seems settled and internal economic/ political deals are made after filthy compromises for privste gain, US breaks the deal causing internal regime blaming game that exposes behind the backs of the people rotten dealings and betrayals weaken previously strong popular support of leadership and after that hiring militant western paid proxies using rage of population and diminishing political control of fractured establishment unleash of violence of chaos and economic depression.

After the deal trust of Iranian peole to leadership and that includes political and religious leadership was shuttered and due to greed of ruling elites it is going into submission to US via palace coup regime change or collapse into isolation and pure dictatorship and terror and Russia and China meek response to Western belligerence contributed to Iran situation.

While western imperial aggression is in driver of the events one cannot ignore significant contributions of local oligarchy abetting the situation because of they greed and hunger for power while people have no say, nobody really supports they interests exactly as it is in the west.

Posted by: Kalen | Jul 1 2018 21:22 utc | 14

Russia is setting Iran up for Trump and Netanyahu. He'll get quid pro quo - Nord Stream from Trump and oil deals from Israel. Iran is going to experience shock and awe, with a ribbon on top provided by Putin.

Posted by: paul | Jul 1 2018 22:03 utc | 15

So Trump asked the Saudis to pump 2 million more barrels per day to offset Iranian exports?

Daffy!. Saudis do not have a spare barrel, let alone 2 million. Ask Simmons. Oh wait, he has been offed:

LONDON(Reuters) - The leader of Saudi Arabia has assured U.S. President Donald Trump that the Kingdom can raise oil production if needed and the country has 2 million barrels per day of spare capacity that could be deployed to help cool down oil prices to compensate for falling output in Venezuela and Iran.

In a tweet on Saturday, Trump said Saudi Arabia had agreed to increase output by up to this amount, although a subsequent statement from the White House rowed back on this assertion.

Either way, the kingdom, OPEC’s biggest member, can barely raise output by 1 million bpd to 11 million bpd and even that would be difficult, according to industry analysts who forecast a further oil price rally due to a lack of new supply.

Below are comments from some leading OPEC analysts:

[ED: one of several cited below]

“The Saudis do not have 2 million bpd of spare capacity as it would imply production of 12 million bpd. They can likely produce a maximum of 11 million and even that will be running their system at stress levels,” said Ross.

He added that with a potential output fall of up to 1.5 million bpd in Iran and further outages in Venezuela and Libya, the world could be short of 2 million bpd of oil output without an increase in Saudi output by the end of the year."



Get ready to shell out at the pump.

Posted by: Likklemore | Jul 1 2018 22:05 utc | 16

Iran is not negotiable.
The success of the BRI depends on it being free of the empire's influence.
You either control both Afghanistan and Pakistan together, or Iran alone to throttle
eurasia.With Pakistan now in the SCO camp a US move is logical,psychopathic and doomed
to failure.Neither Russia or China will stand idly by.
You can bet the farm on it.

Posted by: Winston | Jul 1 2018 22:11 utc | 17

All the items I've read about India's importation of Iranian oil say it will continue and be paid for using Rupees. No decision's been made about curtailing them after November 1, which is when the illegal Outlaw US Empire's Sanctions are to be levied. I highly suggest reading Pepe Escobar on the subject if you haven't already. Also the discussion of his article that included the global depletion rate and the impossibility of any other oil exporter to cover the deficit. The entire oil angle reeks of Trump's Blufferoonyness.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 1 2018 23:05 utc | 18

Russia has already paid a heavy price for allowing the US to have Iran.
In 1941 the Soviet Union, England and english commonwealth brown cannon fodder invaded Iran to keep its oil out of Nazi hands. Later on in 1943 when the Allies' heads of government (Roosevelt, Stalin and the Churchill drunkard) met for the first time in Tehran, the USSR was pressured by the two leaders of the corrupt capitalist factions to cease providing support to the socialist guerrilla groups which had been winning the struggle in the North of Iran.
Stalin foolishly or perhaps inevitably trusted the capitalists to do 'the right thing'. The USSR had always maintained a presence in Iran's northern region which abutted the USSR, particularly Azerbaijan and it was Azerbaijanis and Kurd separatists which had long been the USSR's levers into Iran but Stalin was in a tough spot. He needed USuk to get off their asses, stop talking and start fighting the Nazis plus some of the lend lease equipment was also useful so he acquiesced.

Little did the USSR's leadership know that allowing the US to take Iran would result with US cruelty & racism compounded by gross incompetence cause the rise of Islamic nationalism and major headaches for the Soviets. Meanwhile the US took over resourcing Kurds and other Iranian separatists.
Initially that was down as a way to keep a check on Iran's leaders especially the second Shah after the US assassinated Mossadegh, but later these groups morphed into puppets of the US making trouble for Iran, Syria, Iraq and worse for the USSR, further north into the Caucasus killing Soviet and later, Russian citizens.

There is simply no way that Russia will sit quietly by and allow the US another bite at that cherry.

Posted by: Herman J Kweeblefezer | Jul 1 2018 23:23 utc | 19

Pepe declares US shale to be a myth, but then says KSA and Russia have teamed up to fight. Us production figures also left out. Disappointing piece from Pepe, especially this glaring contradiction where KSA and Russia has to team up to fight what he calls a myth.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 2 2018 0:50 utc | 20

The Iranian and Mexican Revolutions were simultaneous in the first decade of the 20th Century In both Iran and Mexico, the leaders of the provinces gained mass public support for initially moderate reforms. In both cases "constitutionalism" meant the guarantees of political power and representation enjoyed in the old order. In Iran, the Ulema maintained authority over the revolutionary forces by virtue of their hegemonic cultural economic, and political power over the rural and urban masses. They benefitted from the fragmented nature of peasant society.

In Mexico, the tradition of the autonomous and free village with its collective landholding gave the peasantry an organizational basis that the Iranian peasantry lacked. In both cases direct foreign intervention prevented the revolutions' further development. In Mexico, the elite's social control over the lower classes was temporarily lost. A full-scale civil war took place, offering the public a wide range of choices before foreign intervention was deemed necessary, and again tipped the scales against the most extreme revolutionists.


Revolutionary Mexico, The Coming and Process of The Mexican Revolution

John Mason Hart

Posted by: Guerrero | Jul 2 2018 1:03 utc | 21

Pepe's referring to the assumed longevity of shale which is proven to be a gross lie. I can provide documentation about that but it will have to wait until I have more time to work.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 2 2018 1:13 utc | 22

Not only is America's mainstream media generally awful, the quality of information provided by their think tanks is often poor.
Here's the Deputy Director of Foreign Policy and Senior Fellow from the Center for Middle East Policy of the Brookings Institution on the mind set of the Iranian people:

"But Iranians are wildly nationalistic and have been steeped in an especially conspiratorial interpretation of the role of the United States and other great powers in their own history. The 1953 coup, in which America and Britain expedited the downfall of a populist prime minister, has been assimilated as an article of faith about U.S. meddling and its counterproductive consequences."

"expedited the downfall..." ?? that's some serious self-delusional scholarship.

Posted by: jayc | Jul 2 2018 1:20 utc | 23

Ok so according to Pepe Russia and KSA are joining forces to fight this gross lie.
either shale is a real and major threat, or Russia and KSA are not joining forces. That is the glaring contradiction in Pepes piece. the other option is that both Russia and KSA both of which have some knowledge of oil are mistaken about US shale.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 2 2018 1:22 utc | 24

"Both former PM Harper and FM Baird attending the MEK meeting in Paris on Iran. The group is seen as a cult by most Iranians but has galvanized support from neoconservatives in US and apparently Canada too."

Posted by: John Gilberts | Jul 2 2018 1:34 utc | 25

Re: Posted by: PutinToTrump | Jul 1, 2018 1:32:09 PM | 6
Re: Posted by: Šabaniri | Jul 1, 2018 2:02:23 PM | 7

Already have Syria? Not really. Heard of the SDF occupying the North-Eastern third of Syria. If Trump & Putin can't come to an agreement on Iran what's the bet Trump decides to pump money, weapons and US troops into North-Eastern Syria to fully support the Kurds?

NordStream II? Sure, it will be built, but Trump can sanction Germany and German industry - ie automakers - heavily if he so wishes. He might do. He can blame NordStream II. He's certainly been talking about it.

There are certainly ways and means Trump can create huge trouble for Germany/Russia in regards to NordStream II even if it is built.

Crimea? Yeah, Russia has it but it is also used as the bludgeon to impose sanctions on Russia. Perhaps recognising Crimea as part of Russia and dropping all sanctions on Russia will be offered to Putin in return for Russia staying out of any conflict regarding Iran in 2019.

I'd hardly say Trump has nothing to bargain.

Besides, why would Putin select Medvedev as Prime Minister again despite Medvedev being obviously a Euro-Atlanticist?

I'd also add - who do you think Russia fears in the future decades.

Is it a decaying Europe/EU who nevertheless can buy lots of Russian goods including oil & gas obviously?

Or do Russia fear a rising China that always has one eye on the Russian Far East as a possible place for expansion to take care of their oil & gas & mineral needs?

I suspect - and you can look to the history of Russia/China relations for this - that Russia retains a more existential fear of China than anyone else.

Russia always clearly seeks to balance Europe/EU/US/Atlantic against China and others.

Where does Iran fit in all this? If Iran is taken out who benefits? Doesn't Iran being taken out strengthen Russia's hand vis-a-vis China in terms of oil & gas? I'd say it does. Certainly. Without Iranian oil & gas China becomes more dependent on who? RUSSIA!

So I bet Russian thought would tend to say to China. Look, we are not going to put ourselves on the line to defend Iran. But hey, if you want to do that we'll support you doing so, afterall, Iran is of a more of a vital strategic interest to you than us.

We defended Syria, we can't defend anyone and you can't expect us to defend everyone. If you want a country to retain its independence you have to step up to the plate every now and then rather than just relying on the Russian military.

And look - we defended Syria - what did you do in Syria's defence?

Just to finish this comment.

In case you haven't noticed the US has put a date of November 4 on stopping the export/import of Iranian oil. Which is? It is 2 days before the November 6 Mid-Terms...

It's a clear set-up for 2019.

My prediction.

There will be military action against Iran in the first half of 2019.

I suspect March-April-May being the most likely.

At that time you also have Brexit, European Elections (dominated by populists), Ukrainian Presidential Elections, South African Elections, Indian Elections... It's a big few months.

My advice? Buy oil & gas in the second half of this year - it's value is likely to skyrocket in 2019.

What will Iran's response be? I'd say if you are in any of Saudi Gulf Coast, UAE (Dubai & Abu Dhabi), Kuwait or Bahrain - get out before New Year's!!!

Posted by: Julian | Jul 2 2018 2:59 utc | 26

Julian 26
A lot of that sort of crap was being pumped out by trolls and regulars alike a few weeks back on Putin,Nutty and SW Syria. Putin had done a deal and was giving SW Syria to nutty cetra cetra. Like Putin and Xi, Iran and others are too stupid to realize they have to work together against US attacks.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 2 2018 3:14 utc | 27

Russia has to defend Iran. There is no chance that Putin will sell it to Trump.
Once again we see the dreaded "US can do anything" disease arising. In fact US options are limited and evaporating.
Incidentally it is very easy and probably wise to promise the US, in June, not to buy oil in November. It costs nothing and fits into bazaar bargaining strategies.
The most likely outcome of the 'summit'is a renewal or strengthening of old agreements on arms control and much high sounding chatter: in geopolitics the die is cast.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 2 2018 3:22 utc | 28

Julian @26:

Military action in 2019? AFAIK, there is no buildup of US troops and equipment. However, I expect to see skirmishes along the Iranian border and more hit-and-run attacks inside Iran.

Posted by: Ian | Jul 2 2018 3:31 utc | 29

@24 Peter AU 1

I encourage you to give the Escobar article a second reading. I just did to make sure I knew what it was saying. I think karlof1 is making the right points from it.

The collaboration between Saudia Arabia and Russia is a very small part of the article, and no one disputes that this collaboration is occurring. Russia may even be part of OPEC soon, if it chooses. The relationship works against the US but it's not specifically made for this reason. Read Adam Garrie's take on this to see that the moves into OPEC by Russia in recent years are clearly from its own interest as a hugely major supplier, and that Saudi Arabia needs Russia: The New Russia-Saudi Partnership Has Riyadh’s US Ally Over a Barrel

I just skimmed it a third time and I don't see Escobar saying anywhere that the Saudi-Russia relationship is to kill US shale. He does say that both Russia and Iran are interested in countering it. I think the point here is that all serious oil producers with profitable reserves take alarm at the US shale oil because it's hard to say that it's a real commodity with an inbuilt profitability. It's a short-term entry into the market that can serve to disrupt the market temporarily, but it has no staying power. I suspect most nations would prefer it simply not intrude.

No one actually has to act against US shale - it's something of a pretender in the real oil world anyway, and this has long been commented upon. Escobar's point that the US shale is largely a myth is not a new concept. At best the reserve will deplete within 15 years, and that's at best - along the way it will destroy the US potable water table. And its intrinsic value is far from clear, since the entire industry is dubiously financed using relatively free Federal Reserve money. As Escobar points out, many call $100 per barrel the profit threshold for shale - that's a ludicrously high bar for profitability in the oil world.

Much of Escobar's article was about the relationship between Russia and Iran, and it served also as a very good primer in world oil and petro-currency numbers. I found it pretty sound.

In fact, I recommend it to those who may be interested: How the Iran sanctions drama intersects with OPEC-plus

Posted by: Grieved | Jul 2 2018 3:31 utc | 30

Re: Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 1, 2018 11:14:41 PM | 27

I'm not judging one way or another on what Putin will necessarily do, but clearly Trump's gambit is to wean Iran off Russian support.

Will it work? Who knows. But Iran clearly has less strategic importance to Russia than Syria.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia prefers Iranian-Qatari oil & gas pipelines through Iraq-Syria-Turkey to Europe or would Russia prefer Saudi-UAE-Qatari oil & gas pipelines to Europe??

Answer: Neither of course.

Posted by: Julian | Jul 2 2018 3:34 utc | 31

Any effort to understand US foreign policy from actual US interests is a futile exercise in frustration. US foreign policy is driven by two things:

1. The interests of international financiers (heavily Jewish)
2. The Israeli government.

At consideration for actual US interests is secondary if such things considered at all. That should be obvious enough to everyone by now.

The one thing that Russia and/or China could do that would do more to avoid another major power war, is to loudly, clearly and publicly inform the Israelis (the people as well as the government) that any attack upon Russia, China, or their forces by the US or NATO will be treated as a direct attack upon Russia/China by the state of Israel and the Jewish people and these will be utterly destroyed in the first salvo of the Russian/Chinese response.

The second thing that could/should be done, is for Russia to implement a covert campaign of targeted assassinations of Jewish figures who are actively engaged in efforts to undermine Russian interests. This would include people like Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, key players in international finance, etc. No Jew anywhere in the world should feel that they are beyond the reach of Russian retaliation. This is precisely how the Israelis conduct their foreign policy and Russians should not shirk from engaging fire with fire.

Posted by: Bob | Jul 2 2018 3:53 utc | 32

I think you underestimate the long term benefit of a stable and prosperous Iran in the greater Eurasian gambit (Infrastructure Node, stability for the region) vs the short term gains Russia may achieve from a destroyed and fractured Iran that is in disarray. Russia doesn't just export energy after all. Exploding oil prices will end up hurting consumer nations, which in turn affects the global economy and by extension oil producers, there is always a delayed feedback loop.

Just because someone competes with you in the energy realm doesn't automatically mean you want that actor weak or destroyed. If that was the case, then why does Russia maintain good relationships with Azerbaijan, a direct competitor to Russian Gas? Similarly Central Asian countries are competitors in the gas market for China, yet Russia would never allow these to be subverted by radical Islamists without acting.

Posted by: Alexander P | Jul 2 2018 6:09 utc | 33

I think your view is simplistic. Russia needs a strong Iran just as much as Iran needs the Russia's support. The Russian government has proved many times that its policy is long-sighted than any other. Crimea is a done deal, nothing is needed on that front again.

Posted by: Steve | Jul 2 2018 7:25 utc | 34

Re: Posted by: Ian | Jul 1, 2018 11:31:23 PM | 29

When I say military action I'm suggesting strikes. No invasion - simply not feasible. A rain of tomahawks onto various Iranian military strikes.

This is also why Russia might be tempted not to intervene.

The question immediately becomes, how does Iran respond? Particularly if all these strikes are launched from far-off US assets? Ships in the Arabian Sea and planes from Diego Garcia, Europe or even further afield.

Strikes designed to degrade Iranian military capabilities without perhaps rising to a level of prompting a full-throated Iranian military response.

I might add - these strikes would not be launched from any US military assets in UAE or Saudi Arabia, or Israel for that matter - meaning striking back against these targets would carry certain risks. Ie, Russia might say to Iran, only strike back against whoever carried out these strikes, not regional enemies who didn't take part in them.

See how the game is played?

Plausible deniability. "Rules" of Engagement. Etc. Etc.

Iran would be in a very difficult position with any response against UAE/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait being painted as aggression by the wider media.

Do you have any doubt this is how it would be sold?

Posted by: Julian | Jul 2 2018 8:23 utc | 35

There was a distinct change earlier this year, after the second US fusillade of cruise missiles, and the Israeli bombing of "Iranian" bases in Syria. We were all expecting further military action, but nothing happened, in particular no more Israeli action, although Iranian forces in Syria were hardly damaged. Instead they started muttering about subversion of the Iranian state from the inside, which is what b is writing about here. That was a big sign that the all-out assault on Iran has been called off. Why? Evidently because the military say no. The scenario was the same as the one back in 2012, the last time we thought to see Israeli aircraft getting permission from Saudi to do their bombing runs on Iran, but it didn't happen then, because the Israeli military were saying no. Evidently the position hasn't changed, I was relieved to discover, although the propagandists claimed the plan is all worked out now, and Iran has little defence.

Well, internal subversion of the regime, then. Hasn't the US been attempting to do precisely that for 40 years now, ever since the revolution overthrew the Shah in 1979? What are the conditions which mean that they are going to succeed now, when they've failed for 40 years?

The reason they endlessly get it wrong, of course, is that they listen to the exiles in the US and elsewhere. Those exiles still mainly come from the old upper classes, with their eternal sense of entitlement to power, and their air-tickets ready in their pockets to fly back to Tehran and take back their positions under the Shah. Because of course, the Iranian revolution was one of the first populist movements, where the religious regime appealed directly to "the people", and the upper classes were cut out. The system has worked well - "the people" have continued to vote for the regime, naturally being a majority.

I don't want to get into a historical disquisition (which in any case I've said before), but the reason this works is that there's history behind it - I'm pretty sure that the original Islamisation of Iran (I don't mean the Arab conquest, but the conversion of the country) was a popular revolt against the pre-Islamic nationalist aristocracy, who didn't pay any taxes. The present-day Iranian exiles attach themselves strongly to that old nationalist aristocracy, including most academics of Iranian origin in western universities. They don't seem to notice that the class they admire grindingly oppressed the poor, such that it led to a revolution.

sorry for that rant, as Debs would say.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 2 2018 8:37 utc | 36

Don't any of these countries that support American global bullying understand that they themselves could be victims too if they stand for something important to their countries?

Posted by: JordanE | Jul 2 2018 10:08 utc | 37

Laguerre @ 37:

The religion that was dominant in Iran before Islam arrived with the Arabs was Zoroastrianism. It had been the state religion for about 400 years under the Sassanid empire.

In those days Zoroastrianism was a different religion from what it is now. In Sassanian times, the religion was associated with a full-blown caste system similar to what exists in India. The priestly class kept apart from the rest of society which it considered inferior. As a state religion, Zoroastrianism must have been linked closely to Sassanid imperial politics and so the fortunes of the religion could have mirrored the fortunes of the Sassanids.

The Sassanids are known to have fought long wars against the Romans and the Byzantines after them over their mutual border regions (which - surprise!- were in the modern-day territory of Iraq and eastern Syria) and these wars exhausted both the Romans and the Sassanids, bankrupted their economies and alienated their peoples from their rulers. Perhaps it's no wonder that when Arabs appeared, bearing a new faith, that Zoroastrian belief collapsed as fast as it did.

Some time in their later history, the Zoroastrians in Iran and India (where they are known as Parsis) did away with the caste system and the only socio-religious distinction they recognise is the one between the priestly class and everyone else.

The present domination of Twelver Shi'ism in Iran is due to the Safavids (originally a Sufi sect) making that denomination their state religion to differentiate their imperial rule of Iran from the Sunni Ottomans' imperial rule in Anatolia and the Near East in the 1500s. Both the Safavids and Ottomans were fighting over their border regions which - surprise! - correspond to the border between present-day Iraq and Iran.

Posted by: Jen | Jul 2 2018 11:17 utc | 38

JordanE @ 38:

Don't any of these countries that support American global bullying understand that they themselves could be victims too if they stand for something important to their countries?

In Australia we have had prime ministers who supported US global bullying and yet still got turfed out by Washington for various reasons. You couldn't find a more loyal lackey than Australia - and yet the Americans still spy on us through various channels (including informants in all the major political parties).

Posted by: Jen | Jul 2 2018 11:28 utc | 39

Indeed, the US is acting in its typically stupid arrogant and violent manner. But: they might yet succeed in 'overthrowing' the Iranian regime, but only by accident.

You need to check on Iran's demographics. In 1960 the population of Iran was 20 million. Thanks largely to the pro-natalist policies of the Ayatollahs, the population is now about 80 million and still growing rapidly. The government has been a bit schizophrenic about this, after the rapid population growth created great poverty and frustration amongst the young, they switched to promoting limited family sizes... and now they are switching back. But regardless, the phenomenon of demographic momentum means that massive population increases are baked in for at least a generation or two to come.

"The more the merrier?" Tell that to the Bangladeshis, or the Pakistanis, etc.etc. Or tell that to the Syrians: government policies aimed at making the population double every 18 years did not make Syria stronger, they made it poorer and more likely to fragment.

Forget the lies of economist-whores like Milton Friedman: government policies encouraging people to have more children than they can afford to support does not create either wealth or military power. Iran has a lot of pressure building, and even an incompetent empire like the American one might be able to cause enough extra chaos to push Iran over the tipping point...

Posted by: TG | Jul 2 2018 13:14 utc | 40

re TG 42

The Ayatollahs have put a lot of effort into keeping their electorate sweet. It's not as simple as you think (which might be true of a country like Egypt, with standard policies of keeping goodies for the elite).

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 2 2018 13:31 utc | 41

Peter AU @24

How Wall Street Enabled the Fracking 'Revolution' That's Losing Billions

The U.S. shale oil industry hailed as a “revolution” has burned through a quarter trillion dollars more than it has brought in over the last decade. It has been a money-losing endeavor of epic proportions.

THE SHALE OIL PONZI SCHEME EXPLAINED: How Lousy Shale Economics Will Pull Down The U.S. Economy

Few Americans realize that the U.S. economy is being propped up by the Shale Oil Industry. However, the shale oil industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme, so when it collapses, it will take down the U.S. economy with it. Unfortunately, the reason few Americans understand how lousy the economics are in producing shale oil and gas is due to the misinformation and propaganda being put out by the industry and energy analysts.

The Shale Gas Revolution Is A Media Myth

Shale gas is not a revolution. It’s just another play with a somewhat higher cost structure but larger resource base than conventional gas.

Shale Bubble

This conclusion is based on ongoing analysis of well production data for all major shale gas and tight oil plays in the U.S., using data from Drillinginfo, a commercial database of well-level production data which is utilized by the EIA and most major oil and gas companies. This analysis of current and historical production (including well counts by county, well- and field-decline rates, distribution of wells in terms of quality, density of wells in sweet spots, and average productivity of wells since 2012) is then compared to the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook forecasts.

In my opinion, you can't understand the world without understanding oil:

* The history of oil
* The role of oil as the life blood of modern civilization
* Solar and wind don't have a chance in hell of replacing it
* We are running out of it and this is the dominant geopolitical factor

Posted by: Tobin Paz | Jul 2 2018 14:25 utc | 42

Grieved, I had a break and then re-read Pepe's article. Also brushed up a bit on my research.
A few quotes from the article.

"In theory, Russia and Iran, both under US sanctions, coordinate their energy policy. Both are interested in countering the US shale industry. Top energy analysts consider that only with oil at $100 a barrel will fracking become highly profitable. And oil and gas generated via fracked in the US is a short-term thing; it will largely be exhausted in 15 years."

Two things to consider in this paragraph - 1)only with oil at $100 a barrel will fracking become highly profitable. Note the highly profitable. The fly by night small companies that jumped in early in the fracking boom required a large profit margin to meet loan repayments. In the usual US game of monopoly, these small players were bought out cheap as chips when they could not meet loan payments. When oil prices crashed, cost of production from shale was around $70 per barrel. I believe that with advances in oil tech the costs were brought down considerably over a couple of years and drilling recommenced under the bigger players when oil was around the 40-$50 mark.
Escobar also takes it as a given that shale will be exhausted in 15 years. His link for that assertion I did not find convincing. Fracking is a relatively new industry. Tech will improve, new recoverable researches will be proven. At this point it is premature to put a limit how much oil will eventually be obtained and how long it will last.

Then at the end of the article, this- "US fracking is largely a myth" and- "In fact, it was Putin who convinced Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) they should fight the US shale offensive together."

Another thing Escobar has left out is US production figures which I think is important, as the article is about Russia/OPEC and the oil/sanctions war the US is waging. US production is now over 10 million barrels per day which puts them right up there with KSA and Russia.

Pepe has put up some good articles over the years, accurately predicting things others were not writing about. With Rousseff, he was badly mistaking, believing up until the day she was taken down that she would survive. He had badly underestimated her opposition.

At this point I believe it is a mistake to only go by the naysayers and possibly underestimate US shale.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 2 2018 15:10 utc | 43

@Guerrero, gracias por la recomendación del libro.

Posted by: George Lane | Jul 2 2018 15:40 utc | 44

"Private sector refiners Reliance Industries and Nayara, owned by Russia’s Rosneft, have already been winding down Iranian imports."
Times of India.

Boy the Ruskies fold easy lately don't they. I read that an agreement was made between Putin and Netanyahu. Basically,,, Israel can bomb Syria at will while doing what they can to improve relations between the US and Russia. That post has disappeared. But,,, Events of late sure seem to agree. Maybe 'b' can comment on this.

Bolton is now in Moscow asking that Moscow to kick Iran out of Syria. Seems like some good old horse trading is going on at Syria's expense. We'll see how much the Kremlin adheres to the Syrian government to say who is allowed and who isn't.

Posted by: ken | Jul 2 2018 15:54 utc | 45

thanks b... i can't believe how stupid the neo cons and americans are... i guess listening to sheldon adelson's money waving in their face is all they are good for... meanwhile the buffoon rudy giuliani - "our people in Albania...." and on and on the craziness goes... the usa is going to get taken down.. that is obvious.. it is only a matter of time, and hopefully they don't destroy the planet in their attempts at subservience to israel and money...
too busy to read the comments.. sorry..

Posted by: james | Jul 2 2018 16:09 utc | 46

b, thanks for clearing up that ‘protest’, I wondered what exactly went on there. Still, it is interesting that the origins were apparently water - just as in Syria. Iran water crisis will turn up enless papers articles etc. The water aspect should be taken seriously…but that is another story.

To me, all this feels like knee-jerk back-to-the past doomed to fail, sort of repetitive brief convulsions diminishing over time. I did not expect Bolton to re-appear, thought we’d seen the back of him (not that Nikki H. is any better), and as for the MEK, this minuscule group of nutters capable of extracting tiny sums to keep going, they are of NO use to anyone at all. Resuscitating them is beyond pathetic. What are these ppl, incl. Democrats, thinking? Heh, they are going through the motions to keep certain sources of funding, as well as contributions, profit sharing deals, etc. going.

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 2 2018 16:12 utc | 47

The revolution of 1905 began when the governor of Tehran ordered merchants whipped for cornering sugar supplies. That action precipitated a confrontation between the government and an alliance of alienated elites. Businessmen and Ulema protested the governor's action against Iranian merchants and staged a sit-down strike at the shrine of Shah Abdul Azim. Urban unrest reached a new high in 1906, when soldiers fired upon crowds in Tehran. The outraged Mujtahid, Shiite clergy, and merchants protested the soldiers' action, mobilizing even more public support. The government's response was another attempt to repress the unrest. Commercial activities were curtailed in much of the country. A group of bankers and larger merchants ironically sought sanctuary from arrest at the British Legation. They demanded government dismissals, a legal code restricting the power of the national governmente, and the return of the Mujtahid from Zum, where they had gone for sanctuary. The radicals in the protest were now demanding an elective parliament.

Revolutionary Mexico, The Coming and Process of The Mexican Revolution p. 197

John Mason Hart

Posted by: Guerrero | Jul 2 2018 17:19 utc | 48

One of the well paid guest speakers was Donald Trump's lawyer Rudi Giuliani. He acknowledged U.S. involvement in the protests in Iran:

“Those protests [in Iran] are not happening spontaneously. They are happening because of many of our people in Albania and many of our people here and throughout the world.”

It's amusing that Bibi Satanyahu decided that The Devil Incarnate (Rudi Giuliani) was the best warlock to leak the "not spontaneous" Hasbara. One doesn't need a crystal ball to predict that spontaneity will kick in as soon as refugees start flowing out of Iran only to be treated like lepers everywhere they seek refuge in the "civilised" world.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 2 2018 17:38 utc | 49

Since this thread is about Iran, I figured I'd link to Ramin Mazaheri's latest article, Part 4 of his 11-part series on Iran. In this part he begins to explain the Basij, which is something quite unique I gather. I haven't had a chance to read the article yet but here it is:
Structural similarities between Iran’s Basij and the Chinese CP

I found Mazaheri's series on China very illuminating to understand the structural architecture of China's socialist democracy. I anticipate the same for Iran.

Posted by: Grieved | Jul 2 2018 17:52 utc | 50

reply to:Clearly the reason for the Trump-Putin summit should be obvious to all by now...What will Putin do?
Posted by: Julian | Jul 1, 2018 1:02:37 PM | 4
Putin recently spoke at a forum and said to the effect, the US President is elected every four year, four years! And each new President can end the agreements made by the one before! What do you have? You have chaos.
I anticipate he will listen, smile, and say you sanction us and then you ask us to abandon historical allies for a piece of paper?
Trump will get nothing from Putin.

Posted by: frances | Jul 2 2018 20:22 utc | 51

re grieved 50

That's all too intellectual. The Bassij are much more similar to the Hashd al-Sha'bi in Iraq. A religious militia who fight for their interests, not necessarily those of the country.

Posted by: Laguerre | Jul 2 2018 20:59 utc | 52

I don't think Putin would be dumb enough to sacrifice anything too valuable in a deal with the US. He should know that the US wouldn't hesitate to stab him in the back at their earliest convenience, regardless of any deal. If he were to look the other way while Iran is turned into another failed state, that damage would be very costly and very slow to undo. Whereas sanctions or pipelines are things that can be turned off or on at will.

Posted by: gogaijin | Jul 2 2018 21:15 utc | 53

Posted by: frances | Jul 2, 2018 4:22:33 PM | 51
(Trump-Putin meeting)

They've got lots of things to talk about. One of Putin's most admirable qualities is reflected in Trump's NK decision ... to TALK with adversaries to try to resolve differences/ misunderstandings.

Google: Oliver Stone Putin Interviews 1 - 4 and watch them as soon as convenient.
Best doco ever, imo, and I've got hundreds...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 2 2018 21:29 utc | 54

According to a source inside Iran the current troubles are being formented by
hardliners to oust the too moderate govt.
The USA encouragement may end up with a far worse situation, but just what the neocons
actually wanted as a pretext for war.

Posted by: Winston | Jul 2 2018 23:35 utc | 55

@ Winston | 55

Are you implying hardliners are sending MEK to kill some people? :))) No, what they do is applying political pressure on liberals not to sell their country.

I also dislike derogatory terms, like calling nationalists as hardliners, while whitewashing liberal oligarchs as "moderates". If oligarchs would get their way, they would sell Iran ten times over, just as they do in every other country. Luckily for Iran they have Supreme Leader to veto if liberals try to cross the line.

Posted by: Harry | Jul 3 2018 8:44 utc | 56

Yesterday a false flag operation was prevented in Paris. It seems some MEK sympathizing patsies in Belgium were bound for the anti-Iran meeting in Paris with a 500 gram of explosives. They claim threats on their family members in Iran forced them to do it but they've already been living in Belgium for a decade and Iran has no history of assassinations abroad unlike Israel, US, UK, ... so this version doesn't make sense. The male suspect also admitted he was a MEK sympathizer but that will soon likely vanish from media reporting. The most likely explanation is that Mossad/CIA recruited some MEK patsies that were supposed to make a bomb go off on an anti-Iran rally to grow anti-Iranian sentiment, increase sanctions against the country, pressurize the remaining countries out of the nuclear deal and put Iranian linked organization/units (like republican guard which has advisers in Syria amongst other) on a terror list. The Al Qaeda attack in Bulgaria was successfully shoved in Hezbolah's shoes by Israeli coercion, I wonder how this one will pass through.

Posted by: xor | Jul 3 2018 11:14 utc | 57

@57 "I wonder how this one will pass through"

">Iran diplomat arrested over 'plot to attack' opposition meeting in France ...

Posted by: bg | Jul 3 2018 13:39 utc | 58

@53 gogaijin.. i agree... it makes no sense the stupid talk that suggests russia is going to make a deal with the usa, or israel or any country that is not in it's own long term interests... russia has openly stated it is opposed to regime change and failed states... and yet there is regular stupid talk of russia making a deal with israel and usa along the same lines all the time... it gets fucking tiring hearing from these bozos and say the same tired thing all the time..

@57 xor... sounds about right... MEK - another made in the usa-israel project to destabilize iran...

Posted by: james | Jul 3 2018 16:03 utc | 59

To give credit where it is, or was, due is important to hold off on the Total Vilification response here. The MEK started in the late 70s as a Muslim left group (to be distinguished from the Fedayeen, who were secular) active against the Shah. After the Shah's overthrow and the ensuing political realignment they were viciously attacked, along with every other left group, by the mullahs and suffered many casualties. In this phase of their existence they had some support. But over time they did in fact take on a cultic quality and, given their having come to rely upon the Iraqis and US neocons for support, most Iranians dirt-bagged them. In short, they degenerated because they were forced into exile and were cut off from their mass base.

Posted by: dadooronron | Jul 3 2018 17:39 utc | 60

b, thank you for all your efforts on the site.

I was curious about the Pelosi item. The google translation is exactly as you describe, saying she was "speaking to the gathering". The original Persian, however, says that it was actually a prepared statement that she supplied. The content of her statement is fairly accurately described in the google translation. I thought it might be worth pointing out in case her presence was contested.

Posted by: rataklif | Jul 3 2018 17:59 utc | 61

Thierry Messyan gives an extensive list of speaker at past MeK rallies
Also to the point DMcAdams response to tweet by Newt Gingrich
Given that Newt Gingrich has been a regular - well paid- speaker at MeK rallies with other luminaries like Rudy Guiliani , Stephen Harper and Bernard Kushner, his recent tweets shouldn't shock us, or should they?
The People's Mudjahedin of Iran are based in a suburb of Paris , there hold their annual shindigs, all expenses paid, with the last one being attended by about 4K, mostly from eastern EU.
Founded in 1965 MeK gone from islamo-marxist-anti imperialist groupuscule, later becoming Saddam storm troopers, then anti-Ayatollah terror listers to freedom fighters financed by you know who..
Now for the latest incarnation of newly minted regime change "freedom fighters" a bizarre series of articles from in LePoint, The Guardian, Reuters.. none of which dare to give their name..
Our global alliance of alienated elites are beyond STUPID!

Posted by: majobrs | Jul 3 2018 18:12 utc | 62

Posted by: Julian | Jul 1, 2018 11:34:55 PM | 31
"Let me ask you a question. Do you think Russia prefers Iranian-Qatari oil & gas pipelines through Iraq-Syria-Turkey to Europe or would Russia prefer Saudi-UAE-Qatari oil & gas pipelines to Europe??

"Answer: Neither of course."

That's a point I've been trying to make also. We're talking about the largest natural gas reserves in the world... some say 1/2 of all natural gas on the entire planet! I cannot see how Russia sees cheap access to all that gas for Europe as anything but a threat.

Pepe claims that KSA believes Syria has already won the war against them, and so is no longer interested in its preferred pipeline. I really wish that were true, and it's great to see SAA making such huge gains in the South.

But the US still occupies/controls 1/3 of Syria, including 1/2 of its oil, and Sec. of Defense Mattis says we have no plans to ever leave.

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 3 2018 18:59 utc | 63

Posted by: Noirette | Jul 2, 2018 12:12:36 PM | 47
"The water aspect should be taken seriously…but that is another story."

And I suggest that water will be THE story in the very near future.

“Water is the oil of the 21st century.” Andrew Liveris, CEO of DOW Chemical Company (quoted in The Economist magazine, August 21, 2008)

In 2008, Goldman Sachs called water “the petroleum for the next century” and those investors who know how to play the infrastructure boom will reap huge rewards, during its annual “Top Five Risks” conference.

In 2011, Willem Buiter (chief economist at Citigroup) wrote: “Water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals.”

Allianz SE’s Dresdner Bank AG told its investors that “Investments in water offer opportunities: Rising oil prices obscure our view of an even more serious scarcity: water. The global water economy is faced with a multi-billion dollar need for capital expenditure and modernization. Dresdner Bank sees this as offering attractive opportunities for returns for investors with a long-term investment horizon.”

Fresh water is becoming a hugely profitable resource because the psychopathic capitalist 0.01%ers figured out it could be.

Unlike oil, ALL humans NEED fresh water to survive. Privatize it, and you literally have to beat the customers back.

If we thought the "Oil Wars" of the 20th and early 21st Centuries were ugly.... just wait for the coming "Water Wars."


The New “Water Barons”: Wall Street Mega-Banks are Buying up the World’s Water

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 3 2018 19:25 utc | 64

The reports on tight oil & gas I said I'd post are now at The MoA Week In Review thread.

Posted by: karlof1 | Jul 3 2018 19:44 utc | 65

All of it was about water before oil/gas got added to the mix.
From the very first Israel knew it must control the Litani for long term viability.
The River Jordan is about done as a water source,photos now and 100 years ago are stunning in contrast.
Israel cannot stop, its literally a existential need at this point.
The thesis is not new,I was taught about the coming water wars 50 years ago in school,with
Israel as the example used.Arabs and Jews were in my geography class.

Posted by: Winston | Jul 3 2018 23:45 utc | 66

Daniel @64:

It's so strange to read the words "Water Wars" when there is abundant water on this planet. Yes, I know we're dealing with saline water.

I agree that the coming Water Wars will be far worse than the Oil Wars. We will see efforts of recovering water from human corpses to address the shortfall.

Posted by: Ian | Jul 4 2018 1:23 utc | 67

Ian. "Soylent green" in liquid form?

In Brazil,where there is more rain than humans could possibly use, Bechtel actually got a law passed making it illegal to collect rainwater on your own property!

It caused a huge backlash, and the government backed off, but that shows just how devious these psychopaths are.

In the community I live in now, one of California's frequent droughts was so bad that people were moving out. So, the town council got together and dammed a river to create a reservoir and dug a bunch of wells to tap ground water.

I felt really good about having community-owned water security until a couple years ago - in the latest long drought - when the State (Governor MoonBeam) ordered us to stop collecting runoff and let the reservoir levels plummet.

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 4 2018 3:19 utc | 68

Oops! Bolivia, not Brazil.

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 4 2018 3:21 utc | 69

On water. There is a huge amount of runoff from roofs and paved areas in cities and towns. How many actually collect this? From experience, roof runoff from a medium size house gives more than enough water for all household use even in a semi arid region.

Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jul 4 2018 3:35 utc | 70

grieved @50

From the latest Mazaheri article:

“The primary demand of the 1979 revolution was to immediately de-couple Iran from the West completely…”

This is just plain not true…. but is exactly what the Islamists (and AZ Empirists) want us to believe.

Grieved, did you get a chance to read the links I’d posted earlier? I did put it all together, but I can't seem to post it. At any rate, a key part is that the socialist revolution of 1978/1979 had an operating and elected government before the Ayatollah made his glorious entry into Iran.

That socialist, democratic republic did not want to “immediately de-couple Iran from the West completely.” countries.

The first President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Abolhassan Bani-Sadr wrote an insightful article on that real “meddling” in response to CIA’s propaganda tour de force, the movie, “Argo.”

Please note that Bani-Sadr won the 1980 election with 76% of the vote on a strongly anti-Embassy occupation/hostage platform. In fact, “…96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against [the embassy/hostages situation].”

Also, please note that Iran had already established a functioning revolutionary government, and even held elections before the Ayatollah’s boys muscled in. They had diplomatic relationships with many countries and had even signed contracts with foreign corporations.

The Iranian people clearly did not approve of what had become the “hostage crisis.” But, “By this time, the clergy who were struggling to control the state had begun to support the occupation.

This post seems to be working. If you're interested in more perspectives on the Islamic part of the Iranian Socialist Revolution, I'll try to reformat and post more of what I'd put together.

I also have a great deal to note about the Basij, but I'll finish that article first.

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 4 2018 3:49 utc | 71

Is collecting rainwater legal in your state?"

It's really more like state governments are selling out to "investment" cabals, but the info is still chilling.

Posted by: Daniel | Jul 4 2018 4:00 utc | 72

interesting video...

Sibel Edmonds tends to overelaborate and drags on and on.. so skip to 18'00" for the main juice of it

Posted by: EtTuBrute | Jul 9 2018 19:36 utc | 73

The comments to this entry are closed.