The ‘Inevitable’ War Against Iran & The Decline Of US Hegemony

Only three weeks have passed since Trump’s inauguration, and the U.S. is already closer than ever to a full-scale military conflict with Iran.
By | Follow on Facebook | |
Be Sociable, Share!
    • Google+

    WASHINGTON — In the United States, war is business and business is war. As the U.S. dominates global weapons exports, accounting for 33% of the entire market, the profits of war for both the private and public sector have guided U.S. foreign policy and military action for much of the past century. Though modern history is rife with examples of the United States using its military to further business interests and vice versa, nowhere has this been more clear than in Iran.

    Iran was among the first nations to be subjected to covert CIA coups when its democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown for his attempts to nationalize Iranian oil in the 1950s.

    In a story that’s repeated itself in numerous other countries, Iran’s democracy was replaced with a brutal dictatorial regime that was pro-United States and pro-United Kingdom. Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s brutality, largely made possible by the CIA and Israeli Mossad-trained SAVAK military police, targeted the nation’s Muslim population, leading to the rise of religiopolitical movements. Not surprisingly, it was the growth of this movement that led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which established an Islamic Republic, and the modern age of antagonistic U.S.-Iran relations.

    Since 1979, the United States has followed a policy of “containment” regarding Iran. From arming Iraq to enabling the devastating Iran-Iraq war to attempting to sabotage Iran’s nuclear power program, the United States has sought to covertly subvert, weaken, and isolate the nation – frequently through the use of economic sanctions- as opposed to directly engaging it militarily. Yet, as the latest election cycle got started in earnest, it became clear that the winner would be taking a much more direct approach regarding Iran.

    While Hillary Clinton was widely considered to be the most hawkish of the two contenders, Donald Trump shared a similarly aggressive, albeit more muted, stance. As far back as 2013, Trump made plain his discontent with the Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran and the controversial nuclear accord, the fate of which remains uncertain with Trump as president.

    Expressing his disdain for the Obama administration’s handling of the situation, Trump forecast, “We will end up going to war with Iran because we have people who don’t know what the hell they are doing.”

    Since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, his tone has changed rapidly. He’s become as hawkish as his rival in last year’s election, and the groundwork for a full-scale military conflict with Iran is being set. A mere three weeks under the leadership of President Trump, and the United States is closer than ever to a full-scale war with Iran. The timing, of course, is no coincidence.


    ‘On Notice’: The Trump administration’s hawkish stance on Iran

    Trump’s stance on Iran quickly became apparent following his “surprise” victory. Among the first signs that Trump was to take a decidedly aggressive position regarding Iran was his nomination of Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis as secretary of Defense. Though Mattis has been praised as a gifted combat commander and clever military strategist, his animosity for Iran is well-documented. In fact, Mattis’ antagonism with the Middle Eastern power alienated him from former President Barack Obama, who ultimately replaced him as Centcom commander as a result.

    Another indicator of Trump’s aggressive stance on Iran came in the nomination of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn as national security advisor. Flynn, like Trump and Mattis, was fiercely critical of the Iran nuclear accord. Despite reports from the CIA and Mossad that Iran has no nuclear weapons program nor has it ever been interested in one, Flynn insisted that “Iran has every intention to build a nuclear weapon.”

    Yet it was not until Trump’s inauguration that the possibility of a full-scale military conflict with Iran moved closer to becoming reality. Just hours after the inauguration, the White House website announced a “state of the art” missile defense system aimed at “protecting” the United States against an attack from Iran — a country that has not threatened to attack the United States.

    The situation escalated further on Jan. 30, when Iran conducted a ballistic missile test, a military program entirely separate from its controversial nuclear program. Though the missile test did not violate the 2015 nuclear accord, Flynn vowed a forceful response to Iran’s “destabilizing behavior across the Middle East” and said the test proved that Iran “continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies and in the region.”

    Trump echoed Flynn, announcing via Twitter that, “Iran has been formally PUT ON NOTICE for firing a ballistic missile.” Neither Flynn nor Trump clarified the practical implications of putting Iran “on notice.” Following these remarks, Iran struck a defiant tone, refusing to yield to the Trump administration’s “useless” threats and vowing to conduct more ballistic missile tests.

    From there, the situation has continued to devolve. During Thursday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer argued that Iran had previously attacked a U.S. naval vessel — a contention he used to justify the administration’s bellicose “on notice” remarks. However, this attack was carried out by Iranian-supported Yemeni Houthi rebels against a Saudi vessel, a fact Spicer later admitted.

    However, Spicer never addressed his false claim that Iran was responsible for the attack even though the alliance between Iran and the Houthis is tenuous at best. The Intercept and other media outlets quickly noted the similarities between Spicer’s statement and incidents that precipitated past military conflicts such as the Gulf of Tonkin and Iraq’s alleged possession of “weapons of mass destruction.”

    The eventful week in U.S.-Iran relations would not be complete, of course, without the announcement of fresh sanctions against Iran. On Friday, new sanctions were officially imposed on 13 individuals and 12 entities for reasons ranging from contributing to the ballistic missile program to having alleged ties to terrorism-related activities. Bloomberg reported that Trump said the sanctions were directly related to the recent missile test and that the Islamic Republic is “playing with fire.” While Reuters claimed that these latest sanctions would avoid violating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, it will likely serve to further “provoke” Iran as the deal’s partial lifting of long-standing sanctions was a major factor in Iran’s approval of the accord. The re-establishment of sanctions could be viewed as provocation, as Iran’s defense minister warned in December, with the potential to trigger an armed conflict.


    Israel’s influence & the overall probability of a US war with Iran

    The Trump administration’s antagonistic approach to Iran is undoubtedly influenced by Trump’s pivot toward Israel. Trump, along with his staunchly pro-Israel vice president, Mike Pence, and  “passionate Zionist” chief strategist, Steve Bannon, have made clear their commitment to combining Israel’s geopolitical goals with their own. This commitment, however, was tempered by Trump’s recent about-face on new Israeli settlements in occupied territory.

    During a phone call between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump late last month, Iran was said to have been the major topic as Netanyahu had previously announced that “stopping the Iranian threat” was the state of Israel’s “supreme goal.” The Gulf monarchies also expressed optimism that Trump would take a hard stance against Iran, with some even praising him as the “second coming” of Ronald Reagan in terms of ties between Washington and Tehran.

    However, Israel has made it clear that they plan to do more than just contain Iran. Leaked emails revealed that while Israel has more than 200 nuclear warheads pointed at Tehran, Iran has none. This has drawn little international criticism despite the fact Israel has never signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty and refuses to admit the existence of its nuclear program.

    Further, the pro-Israel lobby has been busy exerting its influence in Congress. In early January, Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, introduced the Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution. The bill that would authorize the president to launch a “preemptive” war with Iran without congressional approval and without the precondition that Iran would have committed any action that would otherwise warrant a full-scale invasion.

    Specifically, the text of the bill states, “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” Hastings, it should be noted, has received $332,000 from the pro-Israel lobby over the course of his career, including more than $72,000 in the 2016 election cycle. If passed, the bill would offer the Trump administration a carte blanche for starting a war with Iran.

    Read the full text of the Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution:

    Despite the aggressive posturing of the Trump administration and U.S. allies in the Middle East, experts and analysts are divided as to whether Trump and his advisors will actually follow through.

    Sharmine Narwani, commentator and analyst focused on Middle East geopolitics, told MintPress News that Trump and his advisors’ aggressive stance toward Iran is likely to conflict with his stated goal of eradicating Daesh (an Arabic acronym for the terrorist group commonly known as ISIS or ISIL in the West).

    She explained:

    “Trump has no national security expertise whatsoever. He currently entrusts that vision with his advisors who probably share his views on a few critical subjects. I don’t see Iran as being one of his personal areas of interest. Let him take the advice of his ‘generals.’ He will hit a brick wall and realize that his vision of a defeated ISIS, al-Qaida, and terrorism can never be a reality by crippling the key ground player that can rout them all.

    In the end, Trump is a businessman and he will go where there is more ‘bang for his buck.’ He will not find any particular efficiency in a protracted confrontation with Iran. On the contrary, Iran can be the key to delivering him a domestically-popular ‘ISIS defeat.’ He has to choose one and can’t have both.”

    However, anti-war activist and author David Swanson told MintPress that Trump’s support base and decades of anti-Iran propaganda have primed much of the America public to readily accept war with Iran. Even the “average anti-Trump U.S. liberal believes all sorts of false horrors about Iran,” Swanson said, noting that this is in addition to the “40 percent of the country that supports him.” These “longstanding bipartisan lies about nukes and aggression, and heightened anti-Islam bigotry, […] all make the U.S. public more ready to accept any case for a war on Iran.”

    Swanson further noted that Trump is likely to call for a “limited war” if a military approach is ultimately decided upon. However, in practice, a “limited war” is unlikely to remain within its ideal limits for long.


    The Petrodollar: The weakest link for the US & Saudi Arabia?

    Though the Trump administration, and even the U.S. in general, stands to lose much more than it might gain by entering into a military conflict with Iran, another recent development has left little room for choice in the matter.

    During a television interview on Jan. 29, the governor of Iran’s central bank, Valiollah Seif, announced that Iran would no longer use the U.S. dollar as its currency of choice in its financial and foreign exchange reports. Seif explained the logic behind the decision, saying that “Iran’s difficulties [in dealing] with the dollar were in place from the time of primary sanctions and this trend is continuing.”

    He then noted that “we face no limitations” when it comes to the use of other currencies. The change, set to go into effect on March 21, is set to impact all official financial and foreign exchange reports.

    Forbes noted that the move is likely to “add a degree of currency risk and volatility and is likely to complicate matters for the authorities.” Though it is true that Iran’s currency may suffer in the short term as a result of the measure, the consequences for the U.S. dollar — and thus, U.S. economic hegemony — are far greater.

    In the 1970s, after the United States was no longer able to guarantee the value of the dollar with gold, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a deal that would change both the dollar and U.S. foreign policy forever. In order to keep the U.S. dollar valuable, Kissinger convinced the Saudi monarchy to use U.S. dollars exclusively in the country’s oil transactions, thereby generating artificial demand for dollars and, thus, artificial value for a weakening currency. This deal marked the official birth of what is known as the petrodollar system. The other countries that comprise OPEC, which includes Iran, soon followed suit, ensuring the dollar’s dominance for years to come – a crucial piece of U.S. economic hegemony.

    However, some countries have since attempted to distance themselves from the dollar and have suffered the consequences. The most notable example is Saddam Hussein’s decision to dump the dollar for the euro in 2000. Following the decision, Hussein managed to generate a handsome profit for Iraq, sending a clear signal to other oil-producing nations that the petrodollar system was not necessarily in their best interest. However, the subsequent invasion of Iraq sent a clear signal that the United States would not passively allow oil-producing countries to exit the petrodollar system.

    The next country that attempted to leave the petrodollar system was Libya. Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, also dissatisfied with the petrodollar system, had established the dinar, a gold-backed currency that was set to become Libya’s currency of choice for oil transactions. Gadhafi had also announced plans to make the dinar a pan-African currency to economically empower other African nations. In 2011, the U.S. destroyed the Libyan state and killed Gadhafi, preventing this deal from coming to fruition.

    Iran’s decision to dump the dollar could very well force the United States’ hand in the matter. Iran, which holds 13 percent of OPEC’s oil reserves, could drastically affect global demand for dollars once it switches currencies for its oil transactions. The dollar, already on tenuous footing thanks to years of reckless “quantitative easing,” could become significantly devalued rather quickly. Combined with the overall weak health of the U.S. economy, the consequences could be potentially catastrophic.


    Trump’s strongmen want war with China, Iran & Russia

    But will the Trump administration risk a major war to protect U.S. economic dominance? Considering Iran’s strategic alliances with global powers like Russia and China as well as its mutual defense agreement with Syria, any U.S. military conflict with Iran will quickly develop into a global conflict.

    It seems that Trump’s 2013 comment on the “inevitability” of war with Iran may have been prudent, even though it would harm his stated goals of countering Daesh and terrorism in the Middle East.

    There are also indications that the Trump administration anticipates a conflict with China as inevitable as well. Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist and National Security Council member, remarked several months ago that the United States would be “going to war in the South China Sea … no doubt.”

    Indeed, Trump’s tough stance on China — similar in some ways to his stance on Iran — has become increasingly aggressive in recent weeks. As David Swanson noted, Trump “has surrounded himself with a circle of madmen, some of whom are more excited about China and others Iran.” However, Trump’s characteristic unpredictability makes it near impossible to predict the ultimate outcome.

    Regardless of the Trump administration’s course of action, there’s no doubt that the climax in the United States’ fight to maintain its position as a global “superpower” is quickly approaching.

    Be Sociable, Share!


    Print This Story Print This Story
    You Might Also Like  
    This entry was posted in Foreign Affairs, Front Page: Foreign Affairs, Inside Stories, National, Top Stories, Top Story and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
    • SeekerOfTruth

      “Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s brutality, largely made possible by the CIA and Israeli Mossad-trained SAVAK military police, targeted the nation’s Muslim population…”
      Ms. Webb, you are so unknowledgeable. in the late 70s, the Pahlavi king wanted to trade oil in other currencies. So then what happened? All of the sudden and “out of the blue” and in a matter of less than a year Pahlavi was labeled as the most brutal dictator in the world. And based on what? Based on the West’s propaganda machine who spread false lies about his “brutality” and SAVAK in order to get rid of him. And did you know they succeeded? And how Iran was destroyed?
      Of course not. You are just repeating the same BS that was fed to the world 40 years ago. You are unintentionally serving your masters. Isn’t it neat how these masters use “useful idiots” like you to further their agendas? Please post an answer. People would like to know.

    • Pingback: The ‘Inevitable’ War Against Iran & The Decline Of US Hegemony | samgo65()

    • Mozhgan Savabieasfahani

      US killers go after those who can not fight back (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen etc), Iran can fight back. No attack on Iran!

    • Pingback: The ‘Inevitable’ War Against Iran & The Decline Of US Hegemony()

    • I do not want to see war, no one wants to see war. However, if the US has a knock at Iran it will be the final nail in the US coffin. It has never really won a war, created some conflicts, won some battles, created instability, but won a war, no.

      The pristine veneer of American Democracy has been shown to be a cheap toy.

      A once fearful Military Might of the “Muricans” a mere charade, hidden by proxy forces and the sophistication of its weaponry.

      With no will to fight and self-defeating, a set of rules of engagement that leave American forces as ducks, not lined up in a shooting gallery, but in the deadly gallery of the greed of man.

      Inept, and indecisive leadership has paralysed the once feared fighting force. The American framework of inalienable rights only provided to the corporate elements, a hollowed out American labour force. One person, one vote, one voice, is Fugazi to placate the masses only to give them a semblance meaning in their government.

      Just a plastic soldier in a miniature dirt war. And then it woke up. Everything changed. The once ideal way of life, that it had sworn to protect, was a pipe dream, afforded to those that have enough capital to mitigate themselves from the reality on the ground:

      A fascist state, driven by an elitist oligarchy, spoonfeeding the masses, their daily dose of Freedoms.

      • James Wherry

        The Revolutionary War
        The Spanish-American War
        Yes, I think I’d call them “wins.” Korea we would have won, but for all the peaceniks who condemned North Koreans to lifetimes of slavery under the Kim regimes. Vietnam was unwinnable at any reasonable price.

        • The secret is in the language. World War 1 World War II ( where you played a 11th hour support role, cut to bits in Europe and Russia did 75% of the work) The Spanish-American War ended in treaty and Cuba had a role too. Not what you would define as a win, more of a draw with territories. The rest is mere bluster.

          • James Wherry

            Why should we have? Both were Europe’s wars.

            We began to send fighters, materials and supplies to the allies, well before we entered the war. Our Lend-Lease program saw to that.

            • Was not really the context though was it.

              Much of the world is really sick of your hegemonic state. Part of me would like you to take on Iran as it comes with China and Russia the other part hates large scale war and would rather build Trump’s wall around the US and let that fantastic culture of your’s do what it does best. Implode. At the end of the day, the Hegemonic Stability Theory that runs your broken assed system is on the way out. Good riddance, so long, and thanks for all the fish.

              • James Wherry

                Maybe I’m wrong about President Trump, but he’s the only guy in Washington DC who seems to have realized we can’t make an enemy out of Russia and we have to cooperate against the real terrorists.

                I have not yet seen public mention of stopping all funding of rebel groups and I don’t know that we want to stop funding the groups destroying ISIL, but that’s coming. Candidate Trump was the only one to call it and tell the truth, that “Yes, Assad’s bad, but there are much worse.”

                I don’t like Assad one bit, but I have no further interest in military involvement in the middle east, absent one country invading another. Let the Arabs come up with an Arab solution to the Syrian Civil War.

                • It never was a Syrian Civil War – It was only ever a war against Syria, funded & armed by Saudi, Qatar, Turkey, and of course the US, even Israel has played a part, well, of course they would. Trump is no different to any other President, as it is, but one person, when the military industrial complex, is an entire force behind Washington. I am not sure what the US is going to do as demographically it is falling apart inside while the only thing they seem to be doing, is preparing for civil unrest. I feel bad for the everyday American, a prisoner in a corrupt decaying machine.

                  • James Wherry

                    The peaceful, non-violent demonstrators gunned down by Sryia’s security forces were not funded by Qatar or Sa’udi Arabia – unless you think that those nations love free speech, so much. Likewise, the foreign fighters hanging out in Syria in 2011 were not there at the invitation of the USA: they were invited in by Assad to murder U.S. service members in Iraq. This is the ultimate blowback.

                    America “decaying?” You can’t have it both ways. President Trump has vowed to work with President Putin and to get us out of “regime changing wars.” That’s what you support, right? Which is it?

                    • Did you honestly just cite WikiPedia – Oh come on Lad, that is beyond the pail.

                      The Revolutionary Distemper in Syria That Wasn’t

                      Washington had conspired to purge Arab nationalist influence from Syria as early as the mid-1950s, when Kermit Roosevelt, who engineered the overthrow of Iran’s prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh for nationalizing his country’s oil industry, plotted with British intelligence to stir up the Muslim Brothers to overthrow a triumvirate of Arab nationalist and communist leaders in Damascus who Washington and London perceived as threatening Western economic interests in the Middle East.

                      Washington funnelled arms to Brotherhood mujahedeen in the 1980s to wage urban guerrilla warfare against Hafez al-Assad, who hardliners in Washington called an “Arab communist.” His son, Bashar, continued the Arab nationalists’ commitment to unity (of the Arab nation), independence, and (Arab) socialism. These goals guided the Syrian state—as they had done the Arab nationalist states of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi and Iraq under Saddam. All three states were targeted by Washington for the same reason: their Arab nationalist commitments clashed fundamentally with the US imperialist agenda of US global leadership.

                      Why the Arabs Don’t Want Us in Syria
                      They don’t hate ‘our freedoms.’ They hate that we’ve betrayed our ideals in their own countries—for oil.
                      By Robert F. Kenndy, JR. February 22, 2016

                      America’s unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria—little-known to the American people yet well-known to Syrians—sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a “provisional” ceasefire in Syria. But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal—and the ceasefire doesn’t include key combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra–it’s bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly President Obama’s stepped-up military intervention in Libya—U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State training camp last week—is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic world against America.

                      Military to Military
                      Seymour M. Hersh on US intelligence sharing in the Syrian war

                      Barack Obama’s repeated insistence that Bashar al-Assad must leave office – and that there are ‘moderate’ rebel groups in Syria capable of defeating him – has in recent years provoked quiet dissent, and even overt opposition, among some of the most senior officers on the Pentagon’s Joint Staff. Their criticism has focused on what they see as the administration’s fixation on Assad’s primary ally, Vladimir Putin. In their view, Obama is captive to Cold War thinking about Russia and China, and hasn’t adjusted his stance on Syria to the fact both countries share Washington’s anxiety about the spread of terrorism in and beyond Syria; like Washington, they believe that Islamic State must be stopped.

                      • James Wherry


                        Wikipedia has footnotes. Look ’em up, buttercup.

                        Nothing you’ve posted undermines or refutes the brutality of Syria against its own people.

                      • Try reading slower


          Well said!

    • James Wherry

      “Decline” of western hegemony? LOL! President Trump is DECLINING it by refusing to beard the lion in his den and going after President Putin. I LIKED the Bill O’Reilly interview – and so should the Far Left. When O’Reilly asked President Trump if Putin was a “killer,” President Trump asked him, “Do you think our hands are clean?”

      Likewise, President Trump wants us to avoid regime changing wars like our assault on Libya. Fine with me.

      Victory is at hand for those of us who are military isolationists!!!!

      • monkey1400


    • tapatio
    • ProfessorAlbee

      The moment that Trump wages a war of aggression against iran will be the moment in which i WILL burn ‘Old Glory’ and then p-ss on the ashes.

      • Dindu

        Well I sure hope that makes you feel better. I know how emotional you snowflakes are. Post your address and I’ll send you you some teddy bears and coloring books.

    • Euclides de oliveira pinto net

      O povo norte-americano não merece isto… um bando de loucos tomou o poder, apoiado pelos “banksters” e pelo complexo industrial-militar… será que imaginam subjugar todos os povos, com ameaças ? Estão assistindo muitos filmes financiados pela CIA e, pior, acreditam que podem tudo… é bom lembrar do Vietnam… vai ter muitos sacos retornando…

      • tapatio

        Correct……..but, Portuguese is very difficult for most people.

      • Douglas Jack

        Translation from Portuguese for James ‘Weary’ (ie ‘wheery’ of old arguments which died 250 years ago with the self-righteous genocide of 1st Nations, yet continues with your murderous colonial consciousness with 100s of millions dead worldwide). “The American people do not deserve this … a bunch of madmen have seized power, supported by the banksters and the industrial-military complex … do they imagine to subjugate all peoples with threats? They’re (wheeryites) watching a lot of CIA-funded movies, and worse, they think they can do it all … it’s good to remember Vietnam … there’s going to be a lot of bags coming back …”

        • Douglas Jack

          Translation of translation. US-Federal-Reserve, Bank-of-England & Bank-of-International-Settlements stocks are owned by the same 3 trillionaire Windsor, Rothschild & Vatican-aristocrat oligarchs. Western world currency, USA & Israel governments & economies are owned by AIPAC representing the above oligarchs. Trickledown is not sovereignty but subservience. The falsely called ‘Israel’ is an oligarch attempt to implant a world Finance-Media-Education-Military-Industrial-Legislative-Complex ‘head-office’, only possible as aggressive colonial states through the destabilization of all Middle-east & African Semite/Islamic nations. Essentially we have a war of Anti-Semitism by Ashkenazi non-Semites against Semite Arab & Aramaic nations. The empire always contradicts itself with ‘Newspeak’.

          Hence quote from article “During a television interview on Jan. 29, the governor of Iran’s central bank, Valiollah Seif, announced that Iran would no longer use the U.S. dollar as its currency of choice in its financial and foreign exchange reports. Seif explained the logic behind the decision, saying that “Iran’s difficulties [in dealing] with the dollar were in place from the time of primary sanctions and this trend is continuing.”
          He then noted that “we face no limitations” when it comes to the use of other currencies. The change, set to go into effect on March 21, is set to impact all official financial and foreign exchange reports.
          Forbes noted that the move is likely to “add a degree of currency risk and volatility and is likely to complicate matters for the authorities.” Though it is true that Iran’s currency may suffer in the short term as a result of the measure, the consequences for the U.S. dollar — and thus, U.S. economic hegemony — are far greater.

          The western system of colonial indoctrination is built upon so many lies. Solution is understanding the last 7000 years of colonial ‘exogenous’ (Latin ‘other-generated’) empire as distinct from humanity’s worldwide ‘indigenous’ (L ‘self-generating’) heritage of peace & prosperity over 100s of 1000s of years. Humanity’s worldwide universal indigenous ancestors integrated currency ‘money’ (Greek ‘mnemosis’ = ‘memory’), ‘capital’ (L ‘cap’ = ‘head’ = ‘wisdom of experience’), condolence (social-security), ‘education’ (L ‘educare’ = ‘to lead forth from within’) for all stakeholder contributions & other human values into one ‘accounting’ cycle recognizing the interdependent relationship between all values.

          • SeekerOfTruth

            @Douglas Jack: it wasn’t only the US. The European colonists before the US and the Romans before them. Throw in the Persian Empire of the past, the Ottomans and even Incas and other empires left and right (and even non-empires, such as today’s Iran or China). They ALL do the same. They lie, cheat and subjugate the average man. It is not just the US. It is “Humans” who are cut/designed/engineered to be this way. We are a genetically flawed specie, and only evolution (i.e. a mutation in our genes in the right conditions, followed by natural selection) could change us for the better. What you are dreaming of would never materialize.

            • Douglas Jack

              Seeker, Yes exactly empires have never been humanity’s friend. RE: “Would never materialize”. What you are missing is knowledge about your own ancestral indigenous origins & human beings worldwide for 100s of 1000s of years all ascribed to an ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) system on every continent & island. You have colonial indoctrination induced amnesia. Indigene Community has 77 web-sections on humanity’s worldwide ‘indigenous’ (Latin ‘self-generating’) economy. All our indigenous ancestors made practice & ‘fractal’ empowered practice of:
              1) living intergenerationally in approximately 100 person Multihome-Dwelling-Complex (eg. Longhouse/apartment, Pueblo/townhouse & Kanata/village) structures,
              2) ‘string-shell’ accounting value tools integrating accounting for: capital progressive-ownership, currency, condolence (social-security), ‘collegial’ mentored-apprentice education credit, math-based communication & professional costume into one accounting cycle.
              3) Recognized contributions in collective Domestic, Commercial & Industrial ‘economy’ (Greek ‘oikos’ = ‘home’ + ‘namein’ = ‘care-or-nurture’).
              4) Grouped professionals into Production Society / Guilds locally, regionally, nationally, in confederations & continentally in Economic Democracy.
              5) ‘SYLVALIZATION’ (L ‘sylva’ = ‘tree’)Grew 3-D Polyculture Orchards which are 100 times (10,000%) more productive than ‘civilization’s’ (‘city-state’) 2-D ‘agriculture’ (L ‘ager’ = ‘field’) massive harvesters at 92 – 98% photosynthesis of solar energy converted into food, materials, energy & water-cycle. Food production as the foundation for all human economy, its absolutely important that; farmers, agri-business corporations, universities, government policies & all aligned food systems begin to align with & benefit from the abundance of the tree-based biosphere. Agriculture only photosynthesizes 2 – 8% of solar energy reflecting over 90% back into the troposphere where it pushes winds from the continent to the sea. At the Sahara/Sahel Latitudes of less than 30 degrees north, the sun is so hot it burns 2-D agriculture. Tree roots descend 10s of metres as deep as the canopy into the earth’s substrate where they mine minerals, pump water & develop nutrient extensive colonies. Continental cold spots created through complete photosynthesis cause warm moist ocean winds to be drawn inland (warm to cold) where 60% of moisture transfer is through condensation of warm moisture laden wind onto trillions of square kilometres of fractal leaf & bark surfaces. Only 40% of water is transferred as rain/snow. ‘Agriculture’ 2-8% photosynthesis reflects 95% of solar energy, which pushes winds from the continent towards the sea causing permanent desert. Sahara, Gobi, Atacama etc. deserts are all created by human agriculture including exploitation of animals such as domesticated goats, sheep, cattle, pigs etc. Indigenous peoples worldwide did not exploit domesticate animals but lived in collaboration with these other tree & biosphere tending specialists.
              6) Much more in an interdisciplinary ‘Circle-of-Life’. This is a world-wide integrated systematic heritage of integrated holistic whole system design complexity with no mean substance.

    • James Wherry

      Do you and Security Council resolution that Iran just violated has the force of law. Accordingly, they have violated international law: the resolution stated that they could not develop mi do you and Security Council resolution that Iran just violated how’s the force of law.

      Iran violated international law: the resolution stated that Iran could not develop missiles that could missiles that could mount nuclear warheads.

      • Basheer Omar Dada

        James Wherry You Have To Grow UP??????????????

        • James Wherry

          How’s the weather in Tehran, this evening, Basheer?

          • SeekerOfTruth

            @James: Don’t take born_2b_different too seriously. He is a Islamic Republic Cyber Army troll. Why do I know it? Because he wanted to legitimize Iran’s violations by saying “oh but what about Israel doing this or that?” Please remember in the future: if you ever see this line of reasoning, it is most likely coming from an Islamic Republic Cyber army troll.

            • James Wherry


              The “deny, divert and distract” strategy is pretty transparent. I won’t tolerate it out of my fellow conservative republicans, when they try and pull that stunt, either.

              All the best!

      • born_2b_different

        What about Israel’s nukes? We are going to attack them too, right?

        • James Wherry

          If they start using them against innocent, unarmed people – like Assad does?

          Sure. Why not?

          • born_2b_different

            Let me see if I understand you correctly. You’re saying that in the 1860’s when the US was at civil war and the government was killing it’s own people, another country like Germany, Spain, France, or England, should have joined up with the South to overthrow the US government?

            • James Wherry


              Not sure where you got that from. I condemn America’s involvement in Syria’s Civil War. We have no U.N. Security Council authorization and no authorization from Congress like a declaration of ANYTHING approaching “war.”

              It’s off the subject, but what I wish the other world powers would have done after Britain outlawed slavery in 1821 would have been to impose embargoes on the USA and told US to give up slavery. They did not and could not because (1) Russia had serfs, still; and (2) the rest of the Great Powers had slavery in some form or another. Even Britain did, after 1821, in its colonies. It was a universal and repulsive institution.

    • Pingback: #NoWar Articles – All About Being Human (award-free zone)()

    • tapatio
    • James Wherry

      Iran’s depth is shallow, if it tries another attack on the USA. Iran lacks any sort of significant manufacturing capability and its missile silos and rocket launcher trucks would go the way of Saddam’s weapons, if Iran tries anything else: 90% destroyed in the first 48 hours.

    • Pingback: The ‘Inevitable’ War Against Iran & The Decline Of US Hegemony | renematosruiz6663()

    • tapatio

      According to a report by the Pentagon, war between the US and Iran would cost the US 2X to 3X as many casualties as the Vietnam War and would complete the destruction of the US economy. Iran is not a country that can be bombed into submission. War with Iran would require hundreds of thousands of ground troops to fight the second most powerful military in the Middle East……..backed by EIGHTY MILLION LOYAL AND DETERMINED IRANIANS.


      • James Wherry

        No, tap dog: armed confrontation would only come from an actual attack on the United States, our ships or our allies by Iran.

        President Trump has already agreed to abide by the nuclear arms deal – “rigorously.” A I recall, you condemned President Obama for that deal – and everything else he ever did.

        You shill for Iran because you think Iran will achieve your wet dream of murdering all the Jews in Israel – clearing the way for you and your fellow neo-NAZ!s to murder the rest or “drive the Heebs” from America, as you’ve posted.

        • Kevin O’Connor

          James you are simply a demented person who is just a shill for Israel

          • James Wherry

            No, I am a supporter of Military isolationism and I do not want the United States of America to get involved in Syria even though Syria hate Israel. I also do not want America to take any military action against Iran except action based on an actual threat which should be based on an actual attack.

            So no, calling everyone who disagrees with you a “shill for Israel” or “demented” simply makes you look like a narcissistic fool. “TAPATIO'” Jew Hatred is well known.

            • Steven Ginn

              And your abject idiocy is patently obvious!

              • James Wherry

                Are you so unintelligent that you are in capable of making an argument or stating facts or reasoning?

                If you were guarding a statement as “idiotic,” then cite the statement, provide the fact that contradict it, and make your case.

                Until then, you are just another shrill, empty voice of the far far left. No one has any reason to read what you post or believe what you say.

      • TeeJae

        Iran’s nuclear program has been nothing but a guise. As the article astutely points out, the REAL reason we’d initiate war with Iran (aside from being complete idiots), would be due to them dumping the dollar. As is always the case, economic interests are at the root of all US aggression around the globe.

        • James Wherry

          TeeJae, so long as OPEC values oil in dollars, there is no problem. Iran’s conduct has had zero effect on the United States of America.

          Saudi Arabia will never permit abandoning the US dollar as OPEC’s Currency first of all because it owns a lot of US dollars, and secondly because we have Saudi Arabia’s back against Iran: that was the deal that Richard Nixon reached with the Saudi’s when we abandoned the gold standard.

          It would make me very happy if Saudi Arabia did a band on the dollar: all that that will do is prevent the United States of America from borrowing and borrowing and borrowing. This will be devastating to liberals, but it will be music to the ears of Americans who are sick and tired of both parties borrowing our future.

          As we have discussed for the past few days, your “spin” has no basis in fact and is biased and on trustworthy. As we have discussed for the past few days, your “spin” has no basis in fact and is biased and on trustworthy. We now have a President who shuns “military adventurism” and “foreign entanglements.”

          • Steven Ginn

            You talk some garbage! OPEC is just a US puppet in its attempt to control the world. The US only has Saudi Arabias “back” to protect its own greedy agenda for domination in the M.E.

            • James Wherry

              You’ve just stated an opinion. You seem so enamored with your own opinion that you can’t even separated from facts.

              If America had wanted to “take over” the Middle East, it should have started with Iraq. Why didn’t we see is all the oil? Why didn’t we put in a puppet regime in Iraq? Today the government of Iraq is controlled by the Shiite majority and it answers to Iran.

              The only oil producers who are making money in Iraq are Dutch and Chinese oil producers. Those facts undermine your opinion. Your opinion only seems to be based on hating America.

              Since President Trump is not going to get involved in the Syrian Civil War, it appears that he has no agenda to take over the Middle East.

            • bootin buddin

              these countries that have been around for centuries and never developed into anything are not going to get away with threatening our dollar. funny how iran accepted the pallets of cash we gave them for their latest extortion plot. russia dipped their fingers into it and play nicey nicey with iran but really could care less about them.

        • tapatio


      • bootin buddin

        the u.s. could defeat iran over a 3 day weekend. only 6 metropolitan areas and 5 power plants. the issue would be what would we do with that wasteland after taking it over. uh by the way no ground troops needed. country has no people with any backbone. all they do is pray to some make believe god all day.

    • James Wherry

      “Decline” of western hegemony? LOL! President Trump is DECLINING it by refusing to beard the lion in his den and going after President Putin. I LIKED the Bill O’Reilly interview – and so should the Far Left. When O’Reilly asked President Trump if Putin was a “killer,” President Trump asked him, “Do you think our hands are clean?”

      Likewise, President Trump wants us to avoid regime changing wars like our assault on Libya. Fine with me.