Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

[sandwind]

This can ba an answer how to solve world problems clean up the system. Win "ulitimate word game"" and make sure USA domination for the XXI. This is a way to escape with stolen money as well Any investment propositions ? Gold, Oil , land, guns and spam cans ;) ?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

Meh.......

Exchange attacking Iran for letting a Pakistan/India confrontation flashover instead of stopping it as the US has at least 5 times over the past decade.

hile I usually don't waste much time on the low probability stuff, I have to admit spending a couple minutes thinking about one particularly dark scenario as a possible, but unlikely, "solution" to this growing mess.

How will the US maintain global geopolitical dominance when it simply cannot afford to do so if it continues to use it's current debt riddled model?

How will politicians view an unparalleled "god-like" ability to globally project military power in an environment where that capability lead will be increasingly hard to maintain or even continue?

With economic power quite possibly past it's peak, and military power at a zenith compared to likely adversaries unlike at any time in history, are we quickly moving towards a period where the temptation to leverage that military capability in order to maintain or grow a declining unipolar world will be at it's highest?

Basically use(leverage) it before you lose it(comparative advantage).

I freely admit to not knowing as much as I'd like about the history and current threat posed by the decades long "warm" conflict between India and Pakistan, but I think it clearly possesses the raw material to potentially provide the US with a financial "get out of jail free" card and allow it to maintain geopolitical dominance via comparative economic and military advantage for another couple generations.

It would appear the US has played a critical role in de-escalating conflict between Pakistan and India over the past decade in a rather complex environment where the US needs Pakistan's help in eradicating the non-state actor threat in Afghanistan and ungovernable parts of Pakistan while at the same time the US is trying to woo a future permanent member of the UN Security Council in India and grow a potentially huge export market.

But what if the US continues to see a "steeper and deeper" Great Recession?

What if US elected politicians have little choice but to make very hard financial decisions NOW, instead of continuing to delay the inevitable?

What's the easier political decisions:

Throw 50 million politically militant senior citizens under the bus and tax 100 million middle class until they drop another obvious rung down the economic ladder.

Or

Wait for the next Indian Parliament attack, Mumbai train bombing, Mumbai 11/26, etc and instead of intervening...let it burn.

Surely at some stage India will be obliged to make an overt effort to eradicate the terrorist threat from Pakistan and risk a very quick and very sharp direct escalation.

With India's Cold Start Doctrine I wonder if it's likely that sufficient political pressure from China and the US would even arrive in time to prevent Pakistan from a first use of nuclear weapons.

While I'm confident China would be happy to sacrifice Pakistan if it guarantees a seriously reduced Indian economic and military adversary if Pakistan possesses a special relationship with China with potential security guarantees it could result in China being easily sucked into the conflict.

As all three possess nuclear delivery systems focused almost exclusively on their regional adversaries the direct global nuclear threat may be mitigated by the current limited US ABM capability.

It's not beyond the imagination that yet another Pakistan backed terrorist spark leads to a very quick, very sharp escalation between India/Pakistan that sees dramatically reduced US diplomatic effort to stop the conflict.......and sees China sucked into it while the US remains largely on the sidelines under a limited ABM umbrella and a cordon sanitaire of the Pakistan/India/China conflict region with a threat of destruction if combatants attempt to expand it.

If a limited to heavy regional nuclear exchange resulted it would potentially be a win-win-win for the US:

It could reboot the global financial system with the US still in complete control......$2 trillion in paper what?

It could see the supply/demand equation of Peak Oil pushed out another 1-2 decades by reducing Chindia's fast growing 15 million barrels a day of use cut in half.

It could provide the US with the ability to be ambiguously neutral.

It could provide the excuse to reindustrialize the US and reduce very high unemployment if Chindia is economically neutered.

It could provide the excuse to allow the US to reboot anything/everything domestically.

It could knock China and India back several generations economically and militarily and force them to continue to focus inwards.

It could(based on a reasonably short but VERY sharp conflict) see a reduction in both population and quality of life in the developing world and reduced energy and commodity competition.

It could maintain comparative US global economic and military dominance for the foreseeable future.

It could also produce an opportunity to see the threat from Iran and North Korea diminished without much of a conventional fight if both of their economies are heavily disrupted by potentially reduced energy consumption and loss/distraction of their key sponsor(China).

While it would be simply insane to think such a conflict could be perfectly "managed" to capitalize on from the US perspective, I can't help but think about the following hypothetical choice:

What's an easier decision for an elected US politician to make:

A.) Visit just one retirement home and tell everyone why it's necessary for American to throw old folks under the bus.

B.) Standby and do nothing as 2.5 billion little brown and yellow people get chucked under the bus.

Is the American way of life not negotiable?

I know I'm hoping we don't see another high profile Pakistani ISI backed LeT or JuD attack as the appeal of outside the square "solutions" becomes more appealing the "deeper and steeper" the economic crisis goes.

Back on the thread topic........If you want to reduce the threat posed by Iran......do so obliquely...while also killing about 6 birds with one stone.

Just my 0.02c

[Sharky]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

@lake

I saw your similar post in another thread.

I suspect that an economic war might be more effective. I think a similar outcome might be possible if the price of oil were to quadruple or so. Let's say it goes to $300. How it gets there is immaterial for the moment.

What would the result be?

-- Global shipping costs increase dramatically
-- The wage arbitrage advantage in China and India disappears, along with most of the drivers behind their growth
-- The same forces that drove the de-industrialization of the US would begin to work in reverse, as it becomes less expensive to manufacture things domestically than overseas
-- US unemployment declines, as jobs are created for re-industrialization
-- Oil consumption would decline, thereby extending the life of the remaining oil
-- The economies of China and India would be in a shambles, since they rely heavily on inexpensive energy
-- The USD would strengthen, which would allow the US to once again dominate the commodities sector

One possibly negative side-effect might be a strengthening of Russia. In fact, some level of cooperation with Russia in a move like this might even be possible.

Another way to look at this is that much of the growth in China has been triggered because the US has been willing to ship jobs and capital over there (the fact that it's primarily the US is supported by the size of China's USD-denominated trade surplus--it's not Euros or Yen). What would happen if the economic desirability of making those investments went into reverse?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

@lake

I saw your similar post in another thread.

I suspect that an economic war might be more effective. I think a similar outcome might be possible if the price of oil were to quadruple or so. Let's say it goes to $300. How it gets there is immaterial for the moment.

What would the result be?

-- Global shipping costs increase dramatically
-- The wage arbitrage advantage in China and India disappears, along with most of the drivers behind their growth
-- The same forces that drove the de-industrialization of the US would begin to work in reverse, as it becomes less expensive to manufacture things domestically than overseas
-- US unemployment declines, as jobs are created for re-industrialization
-- Oil consumption would decline, thereby extending the life of the remaining oil
-- The economies of China and India would be in a shambles, since they rely heavily on inexpensive energy
-- The USD would strengthen, which would allow the US to once again dominate the commodities sector

One possibly negative side-effect might be a strengthening of Russia. In fact, some level of cooperation with Russia in a move like this might even be possible.

Another way to look at this is that much of the growth in China has been triggered because the US has been willing to ship jobs and capital over there (the fact that it's primarily the US is supported by the size of China's USD-denominated trade surplus--it's not Euros or Yen). What would happen if the economic desirability of making those investments went into reverse?

Having spent some time thinking about this in recent years I'm still left scratching my head.

I agree completely that the US and Russia probably have more in common than Russia and China's aligned interest in seeing the demise of the US Dollar and a return to a multi-polar world.

I suspect that Russia's ugly demographics and multi-front asymmetric conflict with both state and non-state actors in it's periphery leaves it limited time to be genuinely frightened of long-term Chinese encroachment towards Siberia and it's massive(but difficult to recover) undeveloped natural resources.

I suspect Russia would love to see China knocked back 1-2 generations.....but only as you suggest with sky high energy prices.

I doubt Russia would want to see a world with so many dead Chinese and Indians that it seriously attrits it's growing energy weapon that it freely wields already with Europe.

What I find very hard to fathom is how the US will survive a short and sharp increase of energy prices in much better shape than Chindia.

And I guess that's why I am starting to think that anything other than a slow, continuous upward grind in energy prices and a slow, continuous downward spiral of living standards will see the prospect of a short, sharp, costly, but relatively contained conflict in Asia potentially beneficial from the US perspective.

While I can't figure out is how will a sudden sharp increase of energy prices to say $300 be beneficial to US elected politicians?

I just can't figure out how $300 energy could also result in a stronger dollar.

I can't see how it would benefit the powers that be.....the loss to Chindia and the US would benefit Russia, Venezuela, and Iran.

I'm still thinking that if Chindia's economy can be "assisted" to implode without (much) direct US military intervention spun as proactive self defense with an endstate of dramatically reduced energy consumption in China would:

benefit Russia by economically crippling China(albeit also HURTING Russia with cheaper energy)

benefit the US via the previously mentioned reasons such as temporarily cheaper energy when the dust settles and probably topple the entire "axis of evil" without any/many US shots fired...due to their over reliance on energy revenue or China.

Unfortunately, I can't seem to get past the concept that in order for the US to retain it's global economic and military dominance that it still currently retains for the moment that it pretty much requires Chindia getting one hell of a haircut.

Just imagine if only a fraction of the resources already invested in attempting to topple Iran internally were used to stoke a conflict between Pakistan/India/China with an endstate of Chindia's economy hitting a wall at mach2.

I guess what keeps me up at night is the question:

"What would Machiavelli do if he was running the show in the US?"

Will the US accept it's demise like every other empire and become just another power in a multipolar world.....or will it take a potentially very high reward gamble to remain king of the hill?

Are the special interests running the show in the US special enough to float above the fray, pick through the bones of the US, and successfully land in Chindia to ensure the next stage of their success?

[FRED]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

Great cartoon Fred.

While I am no fan of Iran's government. Or their previous regime. I respect their geopolitical chess game. They have played at the grandmaster level.

I challenge the iTupip community to rise tithe challenge and provide some likely geopolitical scenarios that can match the likely economics scenarios already accurately envisioned here.

While it may fall outside the traditional scope of iTulip we all must evolve and take into account the increasing role of government(s) in our longterm investment decisions.

It gets more complicated. But we can't ignore the growing geopolitical sphere.

I can't help but think it's currently the 21st century version of circa 1935.

Just my 0.02c

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

Sorry if my grammar sucks or I come across terse. I'm traveling and only have my iPhone and limited Inet access.

It's just my opinion that itulip has a weakness in some aspects of geopolitical analysis.

I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong by our community as we enter a new chapter of the new reality.

Just my 0.02c

[Sharky]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

What I find very hard to fathom is how the US will survive a short and sharp increase of energy prices in much better shape than Chindia.

The US will survive a sharp increase in energy costs because it will drive the manufacturing base away from the cheap labor pools back into domestic territory. Wealth follows production.

While I can't figure out is how will a sudden sharp increase of energy prices to say $300 be beneficial to US elected politicians?

More jobs as the manufacturing base is rebuilt and restaffed.

I just can't figure out how $300 energy could also result in a stronger dollar.

I suppose it could go either way, but it seems to me that one possibility is that capital that gets scared out of Chindia would end up in the dollar as a safe refuge. Australia, NZ and other countries that are heavy exporters to Chindia would also likely experience capital flight.

I'm still thinking that if Chindia's economy can be "assisted" to implode without (much) direct US military intervention spun as proactive self defense with an endstate of dramatically reduced energy consumption in China would:

benefit Russia by economically crippling China(albeit also HURTING Russia with cheaper energy)

Sky-high energy costs would also cripple Chindia, without hurting Russia.

The fly in the ointment there would be Iran...

Unfortunately, I can't seem to get past the concept that in order for the US to retain it's global economic and military dominance that it still currently retains for the moment that it pretty much requires Chindia getting one hell of a haircut.

Agree.

Just imagine if only a fraction of the resources already invested in attempting to topple Iran internally were used to stoke a conflict between Pakistan/India/China with an endstate of Chindia's economy hitting a wall at mach2.

The problem with large-scale military conflict is that it has a tendency to be unpredictable, and could easily spill over into all sorts of other areas.

[BiscayneSunrise]

Re: Chossudovsky: US will start WW3 by attacking Iran

Poor Obama. I know many of us here disagree with his domestic policies but the reality is that when to comes to foreign policy he is doing almost everything exactly right.

As it pertains, specifically, to Iran, he is trying to get Russia and Europe on board with sanctions and some kind of negotiated settlement. There will be NO, repeat, NO attack on Iran. Iran is much too large and well fortified, and the US military is already spread to thin to conduct any meaningful action. This leaves the US with only one course of action: negotiated settlement.

Of course, the Republicans love to make hay attacking Obama for being a Pacifist, Islam sympathizer, etc. but that is what politicians do; attack each other over areas the public could perceive as weaknesses. (Disclaimer, I am an R)

Even George Bush, as unstable as Democrats worried he might have been, never seriously entertained the idea of military action against Iran. It is not really practical and as sharky points out, not predictable with lots of unintended consequences. Iran does not represent an existential threat to the US so attacking Iran is not worth the cost or consequences.

As it stands now, the US has Iran bracketed with troops in Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan, along with a fifth of the US Navy in the area. Future pressure on Iran will have to come over the negotiating table. That may make Obama look weak and open to attack by Republicans that he is pandering but that is the best US policy at this point.

PS: I'll be out of the country for a few days with only an iPhone so will not be able to respond for a while.