Okay, so we all heard the conservative media and the MAGA sheep tell you to your face why their Lord and Savior Donald Trump decided to pull the trigger and blow top Iranian General Qassem Soleimani to pieces – it was because he was a terrorist who was an imminent threat to US interests in the Middle East and was going to plan attacks on Americans stationed over there.
Per the usual, that was a lie – there was zero evidence that Soleimani was going to attack Americans overseas, but it didn’t stop the Trump administration from telling us that Iran was behind the attack that killed an Iraqi-American contractor just days prior. Then came the attack on the US embassy by Iraqi protesters.
So, using these two events, Trump convinced his MAGA sheep that Iran, a nation that hasn’t attacked another in 200 years and has hardly a base outside its own borders compared to America’s presence in over fifty countries, mind you, was an imminent threat to attacking the American people.
Then came the memes from the MAGA crowd depicting Trump as this heroic deity while anyone with half a brain these days saw straight through the propaganda – Soleimani was actually fighting and defeating ISIS in Iraq. Soleimani was killed on his way to meet with Iraqi PM Mahdi and representatives from Saudi Arabia. In this meeting Iraq was acting as the mediator in peace negotiations between the Saudis and the Iranians – and God freaking forbid peace breaks out in the Middle East – especially between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran!
The American military-industrial complex alone just lost a lot of money, but so did someone else. Which brings me to the topic of today’s article.
Black Gold – Black Gold
There’s a lot of reason to hate those two colors, especially if gold resembles yellow – Liberty Rising is decked out in orange and brown for a reason – but that’s beside the point of today’s article.
When it comes to US foreign policy, you need to focus on two things – propping up the US dollar and of course, controlling the world’s oil reserves – black gold.
Take this passage from Michael Hudson regarding the assassination of Soleimani:
The assassination was intended to escalate America’s presence in Iraq to keep control of the region’s oil reserves, and to back Saudi Arabia’s Wahabi troops (Isis, Al Quaeda in Iraq, Al Nusra and other divisions of what are actually America’s foreign legion) to support U.S. control of Near Eastern oil as a buttress of the U.S. dollar. That remains the key to understanding this policy, and why it is in the process of escalating, not dying down.
The actual context for the neocon’s action was the balance of payments, and the role of oil and energy as a long-term lever of American diplomacy.
You can read Hudson’s article in full here.
Balance of Payments?
Yeah, so this might sound complicated the untrained reader, but the US has created a huge need for deficit spending. The US government does this in two ways – selling government debt or monetizing debt.
However, what if the situation arose where global demand for the US dollar lacked?
This would account for the US to pay more interest on its already massive debts or better yet, they can monetize it through the Fed. However, doing so will cause mass amounts of inflation which in turn will devalue the dollar, increase the cost of living, and potentially crash the economy Trump is usually bragging about.
So, how does the government try to prevent this from happening?
“The solution [to the problem of maintaining the demand for dollars] turned out to be to replace gold with U.S. Treasury securities (IOUs) as the basis of foreign central bank reserves. After 1971, foreign central banks had little option for what to do with their continuing dollar inflows except to recycle them to the U.S. economy by buying U.S. Treasury securities. The effect of U.S. foreign military spending thus did not undercut the dollar’s exchange rate, and did not even force the Treasury and Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to attract foreign exchange to offset the dollar outflows on military account. In fact, U.S. foreign military spending helped finance the domestic U.S. federal budget deficit.”
Enter Saudi Arabia
The US is best friends with arguably the most oppressive regime in the world, which basically negates the myth that our troops are overseas fighting to defend whatever civil liberties remain in the US while at the same time fighting to liberate other nations from oppressive regimes.
But, the sheep are going to sheep when their man (or woman) is in the Oval Office and (probably) starts an illegal war or at least illegally strikes another nation without prior discussion from Congress by citing the War Powers Act.
So, we’re going to play a little game called ‘Todd Ruins Everything’ when I tell you that the US hasn’t liberated a single nation since Hitler blitzed his way through Europe – and if you’ve ever studied the Treaty of Versailles that ended World War I, Hitler is exactly what the US and its cronies wanted by branding Germany responsible for instigating a war started by Bosnia.
So, what makes Saudi Arabia so important here?
Well, from the mid-1970s until 2018, Saudi Arabia just happened to lead the world in crude oil production. Yet at the same time, Saudi Arabia remains in tight quarters with the US and Israel.
Take it from here, Mr. Hudson:
“What Saudi Arabia does not save in dollarized assets with its oil-export earnings is spent on buying hundreds of billion of dollars of U.S. arms exports. This locks them into dependence on U.S. supply [of] replacement parts and repairs, and enables the United States to turn off Saudi military hardware at any point of time, in the event that the Saudis may try to act independently of U.S. foreign policy.
So maintaining the dollar as the world’s reserve currency became a mainstay of U.S. military spending. Foreign countries do not have to pay the Pentagon directly for this spending. They simply finance the U.S. Treasury and U.S. banking system.”
Let me ask you Trumpers a question – why is it when your guy does it this is okay, but when Obama did it, it wasn’t?
I’d like to ask the same question to those who fell in love with and worshiped the ground Obama walked on.
As Hudson states:
“Fear of this development was a major reason why the United States moved against Libya, whose foreign reserves were held in gold, not dollars, and which was urging other African countries to follow suit in order to free themselves from “Dollar Diplomacy.” Hillary and Obama invaded, grabbed their gold supplies (we still have no idea who ended up with these billions of dollars’ worth of gold) and destroyed Libya’s government, its public education system, its public infrastructure …”
However, what else does Saudi Arabia sponsor for the US that Libya didn’t?
Proxy foot soldiers, as mentioned above. Proxies like ISIS, which was also a US creation, al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, Tahrir al-Sham, and others are sponsored directly from the Saudi Arabian Monarchy to be used as guerrillas against America’s manufactured enemies.
Why is the US Doing This?
Because after the disaster in Vietnam, every regime since Nixon’s realized that if they were to ever reinstate a military draft they would likely be voted out of office tomorrow – especially when it’s likely only the political party in power would support the draft.
As Hudson affirms:
“The Vietnam War showed that modern democracies cannot field armies for any major military conflict, because this would require a draft of its citizens. That would lead any government attempting such a draft to be voted out of power. And without troops, it is not possible to invade a country to take it over.
The corollary of this perception is that democracies have only two choices when it comes to military strategy: They can only wage airpower, bombing opponents; or they can create a foreign legion, that is, hire mercenaries or back foreign governments that provide this military service.”
Only one government in particular fits this role and it’s ironically the most oppressive regime in the Middle East – but it’s all about freedom, right?
Insert Tony Stark eye roll.
In fact, who’s the greatest supporter of Islamic extremism in the Middle East?
The United States, of course.
Hudson answered this question as well.
“Here once again Saudi Arabia plays a critical role, through its control of Wahabi Sunnis turned into terrorist jihadis willing to sabotage, bomb, assassinate, blow up and otherwise fight any target designated as an enemy of “Islam,” the euphemism for Saudi Arabia acting as U.S. client state. (Religion really is not the key; I know of no ISIS or similar Wahabi attack on Israeli targets.) The United States needs the Saudis to supply or finance Wahabi crazies. So in addition to playing a key role in the U.S. balance of payments by recycling its oil-export earnings into U.S. stocks, bonds and other investments, Saudi Arabia provides manpower by supporting the Wahabi members of America’s foreign legion, ISIS and Al-Nusra/Al-Qaeda. Terrorism has become the “democratic” mode of today’s U.S. military policy.”
If you’re thinking this so-called “War” on Terror is a Ponzi Scheme, you’re pretty freaking bright.
I mean, can you think of a better way to dupe a population into war by carrying out the following:
1. A cataclysmic event, like a Pearl Harbor (Rebuilding America’s Defenses, 1997).
2. Recruit a client state who literally supplied the terrorists (15 of the 19 hijackers) who will then sponsor and train Islamic extremists to fight manufactured enemies of the US rather than hold a draft.
3. Constantly shift blame of that cataclysmic event to nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and most recently, Iran?
4. Scapegoat Iran, arguably the nation willing to stand up to the US and perhaps the strongest of the manufactured enemies in the Middle East, as the world’s most dangerous sponsor of terrorism.
5. Forge an alliance with two of Iran’s biggest enemies in Israel and Saudi Arabia, in which each, along with Qatar and the UAE, purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of weapons from the military-industrial complex.
6. Simply state via your mainstream media that Iran is behind attack after attack on American bases and interests overseas until the public is so fed up with Iran that they’re ready to go to war with them?
I sure can’t.
And it’s all in the name of oil profits, weapons profits, and propping up a dollar whose cancer is spreading and spreading fast.
In fact, Hudson came to a similar conclusion regarding Iran’s moxie:
“America’s hatred of Iran starts with its attempt to control its own oil production, exports and earnings. It goes back to 1953, when Mossadegh was overthrown because he wanted domestic sovereignty over Anglo-Persian oil. The CIA-MI6 coup replaced him with the pliant Shah, who imposed a police state to prevent Iranian independence from U.S. policy. The only physical places free from the police were the mosques. That made the Islamic Republic the path of least resistance to overthrowing the Shah and re-asserting Iranian sovereignty.”
Which explains the nation’s situation today.
Which of course, led to the 1979 Revolution and forty-plus years of tension with the Islamic Republic. It’s all because Iran is Neville Longbottom willing to stand up to Draco Malfoy (don’t judge my comparisons!), refusing to go along with America’s dollar-maintanence game that other oil-producing nations in the Middle East have bowed down to, with Israel acting as America’s annoying sidekick.
Will America Let Up?
So long as Iran continues to stand up to the US, and quite frankly, I can’t blame them even if I have numerous spats with Iran’s current regime – I’m in no way defending their current government and believe it’s as corrupt as any other out there – because if this were my nation getting bullied by the superpower of the age, I probably wouldn’t have held back. I’d have gotten physical decades ago.
Sure, China, Russia, and North Korea are in the same boat but there’s one huge difference between these three nations and their ally, Iran. Iran remains the only one that is not a nuclear power.
This is why the US can’t do anything about China, North Korea, or Russia – but Iran, a nation that has been treated as fodder by the West, from the UK in the early 1900s to the US today, is an easy target to pick on.
Now, unlike myself, Hudson is a Leftist whose domestic views rival that of Tulsi Gabbard, but he makes perfect sense regarding the true reason as to why Trump illegally assassinated Soleimani, which in the midst of impeachment is as good a reason to impeach him – until you realize Barack Obama did the same thing regarding Libya.
Which is why the Left refuses to use this as justification.
For more information, research the work ‘All the Shah’s Men,’ which outlines America’s overthrowing of the democratically-elected Iranian regime in 1953 along with the British MI6.