Michael Reid
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
25:00
This is a moment of great importance in history.
500 years, 5 centuries of European or Euro-Atlantic Euro-American domination of world affairs are over.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, at a press conference in Beijing following two days of meetings with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and President Xi Jinping, said that Russia and China “are interested in foiling the open attempts by the West, including the United States and Europe, to maintain or even renew their hegemony in the hope that the 500-year long experience of controlling the world … could be modernized and further used to continue living off others and bend them to their will.”
https://eir.news/2026/04/news/humanity-must-grow-up/Dear Dr. D and WES,
My analysis and intuition informs me western bankers are implementing a population load shedding operation on the world.
Regarding Iran, I believe Iran just wants to be free to live their lives in their civilization.
The four horsemen of the Apocalypse are visible on the horizon.
The White horse signaling Plague
The Red horse signaling War
The Black horse signaling Famine and
The Pale horse signalling DeathI wish I knew Russian as that is where I would be headed
TDK wrote:
“
holy crap, they’re using war for the final melt-up, the final hoovering of all the assets AND the final lawn-mowing of the nillionaires*.*that’s us**.
**it’s the war economy, stupids
“
And this is the same conclusion I was arriving at.Iran’s determination to break out from the panopticon of Western 360° containment
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.suThe temporary cessation of hostilities across West Asia very much hangs in the balance. Originally, there was to be a cessation of military actions across “all fronts” including Lebanon — that being one of the ten Iranian preconditions to negotiations towards a permanent ceasefire. Trump duly affirmed that Iran’s 10-point framework provided a “workable basis” to begin direct negotiations with Iran.
For Iran, the points were seen as pre-conditions, rather than starting points from which negotiations would flow.
CBS has reported that Trump had been told that Iran’s terms, that he accepted on Thursday, would apply to the Middle East region as a whole – and he agreed that would include Lebanon. Mediators reported that the ceasefire would include Lebanon, and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s announcement included it. Foreign Minister Araghchi also confirmed that Lebanon was included.
Trump’s position however reversed itself following a phone call from Netanyahu. According to Israeli correspondent, Ronan Bergman, writing in Yediot Ahoronot, Netanyahu suddenly and belatedly exploded the situation: In Israel, both echelons — military and political — were instructed to prove that there was no ceasefire for Hizbullah by mounting a huge attack on crowded residential neighbourhoods in Lebanon – killing and wounding over 1,000 persons, largely civilians.
And at the same time as the attacks on Lebanon were taking place, Israel announced that it sought to open a political initiative – direct talks with the Lebanese government centred on the disarmament of Hizbullah and on Lebanon’s normalisation with Israel – in order to buttress Netanyahu’s demand “for a short window of time for additional attacks against Hezbollah, before the Americans try to roll the same spirit of calm to Lebanon”, Anna Barsky writes in Ma’ariv.“Assessments in Israel speak of a partial American understanding of this need; but this is by no means assured”.
Alon Ben David, a prominent Israeli military correspondent, noted that the PM’s initiative might result in civil war in Lebanon, adding in parenthesis that ‘this had always been the objective’.
The Iranian equation however, runs counter to the ‘revised’ U.S. position that Lebanon was never integral to the ‘all fronts’ demand. For Tehran, it is ‘ceasefire for all, or ceasefire for no one’. It is that simple.
The negotiations were only going to take place if Trump was capable of imposing a veto on Netanyahu’s thirst for further rounds of blanket bombing in Lebanon. Has Trump effective agency to control Netanyahu — who (together with some Gulf states reportedly) still wants Trump “to go all the way, until the overthrow of the evil regime”, Ronen Bergman emphasises.
Yet the U.S. reality is stark:
“The U.S. has lost its naval presence and military bases in the Persian Gulf region; its entire inventory of stand-off munitions has been nearly exhausted, along with its air defences, which have been proven woefully ineffective”.
“This is what decisive strategic defeat looks like”.
As Ben Rhodes, former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor, put it: “It’s hard to lose a war this short: this comprehensively”.
What took Trump from a Tuesday night posting that “a whole civilization will die tonight”, to acquiesce a few hours later to negotiations on the basis of Iran’s 10-point plan is for conjecture. But perhaps the juxtaposed images of the crashed helicopter from President Carter’s ill-fated attempt to rescue U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, together with the wreckage of U.S. aircraft near Isfahan from the abandoned Saturday (4 April) attempt to seize enriched uranium from a tunnel at Isfahan, tells its story.
As one commentator notes, the only thing missing from the later 1980 scene is the presence of the assassinated Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. President Carter, of course, became the political casualty from that event.
Let us recall too, that this current war was launched by a snap strike to kill the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamanei – and was expected to be a short war of days’ duration only. The NY Times report of the 11 February 2026 meeting at which Netanyahu persuaded Trump to join with an assault on Iran confirms that “the President appeared to think it would be a very quick war … (and) at no point during the deliberations did the Chairman [General Caine] directly tell the President that war with Iran was a terrible idea … [General Caine] would constantly ask, “And then what? But Mr. Trump would often seem to hear only what he wanted to hear”.
And what Trump chose to hear at the 11 February briefing dovetailed closely with Netanyahu’s own deep longings: “Iran stood apart” for Trump, as for Netanyahu. “He [Trump] regarded Iran as a uniquely dangerous adversary and was willing to take great risks to [fulfil] his desire to dismantle the Iranian theocracy”, the NY Times reported.
Neither Trump nor Netanyahu — despite the three-hour official briefing on 11 February — at all anticipated the strong Iranian response of immediate attacks on U.S. bases in the Gulf that swiftly ensued upon the killing of the Supreme Leader, though this prospect had been clearly prefigured in earlier Iranian warnings.
The entire 11 February strike plan that was green-lighted in the White House Situation Room meeting hinged on decapitation strikes, stand-off air bombardment, and a visceral (rather than evidence-based) conviction that an internal uprising surely would follow — one that would topple the state.
It is no surprise then, that Trump should now be desperately seeking an exit from the Israeli débacle that was set for him. Like Carter, he is on the rocks politically, as well as militarily. But any meaningful off-ramp will require of him to make major concessions — concessions that will grate painfully with his rancorous feelings toward Iran and Iranians.
It seems likely that the negotiations will not produce an agreement. Iran is engaged in exploding a 70 year-old paradigm through forcing — by threat of economic and market pain — a U.S. acquiesce to Iran’s ‘release’ from the panopticon of U.S. and Israeli repression. Will this involve more pain and death (more war), or less. That is the question.
Central Bank of Iran
The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran (CBI; Persian: بانک مرکزی جمهوری اسلامی ايران, romanized: Bank Markazi-ye Jomhuri-ye Eslāmi-ye Irān; SWIFT Code: BMJIIRTH), also known as Bank Markazi, was established under the Iranian Banking and Monetary Act in 1960. It serves as the banker to the Iranian government and has the exclusive right to issue banknotes and coinage. CBI is tasked with maintaining the value of the Iranian rial and supervision of banks and credit institutions. It acts as custodian of the National Jewels, as well as the foreign exchange and gold reserves of Iran.[7] It is also a founding member of the Asian Clearing Union, controls gold and capital flows overseas, represents Iran in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and internationally concludes payment agreements between Iran and other countries.[7]Who owns Iran’s central bank?
According to article 10(e) of the Monetary and Banking Act of (1972), CBI’s capital “is fully paid up and wholly owned by the Government”. Bank Melli Iran had supervisory functions and regulated the activities of all banks in Iran, while being the largest profit-making commercial bank in the country.
WES:
You are cheering the killing of Iran people and the bombing of their country by U.S. and Israel for what reason?Because you think some people in Iran have money that flows to the City of London?
WES wrote
“
the US war on London’s proxy Iranthe City of London/Globalists owe no loyalty to any one nation
Only 3 nations do not have Rothchild controlled central banks
Don’t be fooled by those saying Iran is not crumbling
The Iranian elites control just over 40% of Iran’s economy.
That part is gone!Oman and UAE London bankers branches have been closed, for now.
This economic strangulation of London’s proxy Iran is taking hold
“WES:
Which 3 nations do not have Rothchild controlled central banks?Empire of Piracy blockades Iran and China
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.suAll hail the almighty return of Pirates of the Caribbean, now upgraded to Pirates of the Persian Gulf.
The spectacular collapse of the Islamabad diktats – Barbaria came to dictate, never to negotiate – has been followed by a coercion psy ops on steroids: Jesus! (literally, as he posted it on Truth Social) threatening every single ship now paying the Strait of Hormuz toll booth.
As every grain of sand from the Gobi to the Sahara already knows, this is all about China.
So the question needs to be posed again. CENTCOM has now merged into INDOPACOM, a new pyrate hydra. Will INDOPACOM have the balls to harass a Chinese supertanker which sailed through the Strait of Hormuz after paying the toolbooth in yuan?
In his trademark delusional supremacy mode, US Treasury Secretary Bessent said that China will no longer be able to get oil from Iran.
This Baboon of Barbaria gimmick in fact translates as economic warfare against not only China but an array of mostly Asian nations, disturbing global energy flows, trade, and major shipping transporting all manner of goods from the West down to the East and from East to West. An oil blockade targeting not only China but also a great deal of the multipolar world.
Before the start of the American blockade, ships from only five nations could transit through the Strait of Hormuz: China, Russia, India, Iraq and Pakistan. Once again: will INDOPACOM dare to seize or sink ships from four nuclear powers?
South Korea went a step ahead and sent a special envoy for direct negotiations with Tehran to guarantee safe passage through Hormuz and buy more cheaper oil and gas. As it stands, at least 26 South Korean tankers remain stranded.
Now compare Bessent with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in Beijing, after talking to Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and being received in person by President Xi:
“Russia can, without a doubt, compensate for the shortfall in resources that has arisen.”
Roughly 13% of China’s oil imports come from Iran – approximately 1.38 million barrels a day. In parallel, Power of Siberia-1 – operating at full capacity – delivers 38 billion cubic meters of gas a year of gas, and the ESPO oil pipeline is hitting record highs.
Power of Siberia-2 may only become operational next year. Russia already supplies as much as 20% of China’s oil. “Compensate”, in Lavrov’s terms, means pushing spare capacity to the limit. But that’s doable.
Iran for its part can count on an alternative pipeline and the Jask oil terminal, with capacity for 1 million barrels a day, which completely bypasses the Strait of Hormuz.
So far, 8 Chinese tankers transited via Hormuz since the blockade was announced. Moreover, China has as many as 1.3 billion barrels in inventories, enough to cushion some losses from Iran for months. And China will continue – in theory – to receive oil from tankers departing from other non-Iranian Persian Gulf ports (they will still need to pay the toll booth).
The big question is how long Iran – and China, for that matter – will tolerate the shadow fleet being interdicted by INDOPACOM without a ballistic response.
Waiting for the Al Aqsa Triangle Blockade
A blockade of all Iran’s ports – and not of the Strait of Hormuz per se – may soon meet its match: the incoming Al Aqsa Triangle Blockade (Bab-al-Mandeb, Yanbu port in Saudi Arabia, Suez, in connection with Hormuz), as qualified by Yemen’s Ansarallah. The Houthis are just waiting for the uber-strategic moment to join the chat. That will inevitably lead to oil reaching over $200 a barrel – and counting.
Translation: an irretrievable, system-wide supply shock.
The cowardly Baboon of Barbaria administration certainly did not think this through – as it’s obsessed with starving China of oil and US dollars while destroying, in theory, key nodes of the New Silk Roads/BRI.
What everyone else is paying attention to is how the INDOPACOM-enforced blockade will devastate scores of nations outside of China.
Which brings us to a pedestrian but quite feasible calculation – in tune with mutts such as Bessent: let’s starve everyone of oil and US dollars so they will be desperate to sell their US Treasury bonds back to the US way below face value, as long as they can get oil and/or US dollars in return.
This is Grifter Central: the Americans take their debt out of circulation – at a huge discount – and simply erase those humongous interest payments on the debt which they are unable to pay.
There’s no guarantee the Baboon of Barbaria administration will get what it wants. Tehran does not depend on maritime routes. After decades of sanctions, they developed an array of alternative land corridors, barter trade channels, and swapping mechanisms, for instance via Turkmenistan.
China, once again, is not a prisoner anymore of the Malacca Dilemma – between Malaysia and Sumatra in Indonesia – because they have meticulously diversified their sources, starting with the Sino-Russian pipelines.
Moroever, the China-Myanmar pipeline totally bypasses Malacca.
The long China-Central Asia gas pipeline spanning Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan – paid by China and bypassing American thalassocracy – has been in effect since the early 2010s.
Then there’s Gwadar deep-sea port in the Arabian Sea, the key node of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and a stalwart of BRI. Gwadar is only 80 km east of the port of Chabahar in Sistan-Balochistan in Iran: hence far away from the Persian Gulf. That translates into an overland route from the Arabian Sea to Xinjiang.
China will not starve if deprived of Iranian oil. China leads in nearly every single energy and power production sector. They have the industrial capacity – talk about productive capitalism – the raw materials, the supply chains, and enough skilled labor to produce the technology and infrastructure necessary for every relevant energy system: solar panels, turbines, batteries, transmission lines, everything in solar, wind, hydro and next-gen nuclear power. That’s exactly what I saw traveling across Xinjiang back to back last year while shooting a documentary.
Obviously myopic Baboon of Barbaria minions cannot possibly understand how China’s strategy of total domination in EVs, solar batteries and exporting electricity is protecting the Middle Kingdom from artificial oil/gas shocks such as the blockade.
As it stands, The Invincible Armada remains in the outer fringes of the Gulf of Oman, out of range of many – but not all – Iranian missiles and drones, but certainly targeteable by long-range ballistics and hypersonics. The Americans will continue to use their ISR to track ships; then small boats and helicopters will engage in the “interdiction” procedure.
So far, nothing happened. Well, actually a big thing happened: a sanctioned, non-Iranian supertanker capable of carrying 2 million barrels of oil, sailed to Iran via the Strait of Hormuz with the AIS switched on for every tracker to see. INDOPACOM didn’t dare to touch it.
The Iranians, meanwhile, are just waiting. Asymmetrically. But make no mistake: they are itching to fight – in case the ceasefire collapses.
In this case, we’ll be plunged right into the Mother of All Cliffhangers. Iran just needs to sink one American destroyer; and/or “disable” one of those multibillion-dollar sitting ducks with a missile/drone volley, guided by Chinese intel.
The whole planet will then see it for what it is: the definitive, graphic strategic defeat of the Empire of Chaos, Lies, Plunder, Piracy and “If I Don’t Like You I’ll Kill You”.
Bring it on.
US lawmakers move to impeach War Secretary Hegseth over Iran ‘war crimes’
Wednesday, 15 April 2026 7:05 PM [ Last Update: Wednesday, 15 April 2026 7:37 PM ]A number of US lawmakers are set to file five articles of impeachment against Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over war crimes committed in Iran.
The impeachment resolution will be introduced by Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the first Iranian American Democrat in Congress, on Wednesday, accusing Hegseth of war crimes in connection with the US-Israeli aggression against Iran, abuse of power and mishandling of the Department of War, according to Axios.
Eight Democrats are co-sponsoring the resolution, including Reps. Steve Cohen (Tenn.), Jasmine Crockett (Texas), Nikema Williams (Ga.), Sarah McBride (Del.), Brittany Pettersen (Colo.), Dina Titus (Nev.), Dave Min (Calif.), and Shri Thanedar (Mich.).
Ansari announced last week that she was filing articles of impeachment, saying Hegseth was “complicit” in President Donald Trump’s “devastating, illegal war” against Iran.
The first article says Hegseth violated his oath of office in overseeing an “unauthorized war against Iran and reckless endangerment of United States service members.”
According to the resolution, the secretary is guilty of war crimes by targeting civilians and breaking the rules of armed conflict, citing the deadly US bombing of a girls’ elementary school in Iran’s Minab.
The articles also focused on the mishandling of sensitive information, referring to the use of the Signal app on his personal cell phone to discuss a pending strike on targets in Yemen.
Moreover, the resolution accuses Hegseth of obstructing Congress’s ability to oversee the military by withholding information regarding military actions in Venezuela and Iran, and other countries.
It also accuses the secretary of abusing his power, “including targeting and launching bogus investigations against specific elected officials for the express purpose of political retribution.”
The articles, however, are almost certain to go nowhere in the House controlled by the Republicans.
Trump’s war on Iran, which began on February 28, has further fueled Americans’ anger. According to a poll published last week, most Americans want Congress to impeach US President Donald Trump over his war on Iran and other controversial policies.
The costly and illegal war on Iran has already consumed tens of billions of dollars and raised concerns about the strain on US weapons stockpiles.
The war has also carried a considerable political cost for Trump. His approval rating dropped to 39 percent in early April, down from 42 percent in late February before the war began, with 53 percent disapproving, marking the lowest rating of his second term.
Inside Congress, Democrats supported impeachment by 84 percent to 8 percent, with 78 percent strongly backing removal. Republicans, however, opposed impeachment by 81 percent to 14 percent, with 77 percent of GOP foes strongly opposed. Independents swung toward impeachment, 55 percent to 34 percent.
In the House, lawmakers need only a simple majority to impeach Trump, but Democrats lack the majority.
Senate conviction requires a two-thirds vote in a chamber that remains firmly Republican. Currently, no votes for removal exist on either side of the chamber.
Iran has declared a “historic victory” following the war of aggression by the United States and the Israeli regime that lasted 40 days, announcing that Washington had been forced to accept an Iranian proposal.
On April 8, the United States and Iran agreed to a two-week ceasefire after Washington received the 10-point proposal from Tehran.
Israel’s Maariv newspaper admitted that the US-Israeli war against the Islamic Republic has ended in a “decisive victory for Iran,” with both the US and Israel conceding to a “strategic surrender” and retreating from the battlefield.
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2026/04/15/766950/US-lawmakers-move-to-impeach-War-Secretary-Hegseth-over-Iran-%E2%80%98war-crimes%E2%80%99Iran not blockadable’: Tehran says all ‘means of pressure’ will fail
Wednesday, 15 April 2026 1:20 PM [ Last Update: Wednesday, 15 April 2026 3:34 PM ]Iran is “not blockadable,” the Foreign Ministry spokesman says, rejecting the US attempt to impose a naval blockade on the country, while warning that it violates the fragile ceasefire and could trigger a proportional response from Iranian armed forces.
Esmail Baghaei was responding to recent American announcements that Washington has imposed a blockade of Iranian ports and disrupted the country’s maritime trade.
He dismissed the feasibility of any such effort.
“Firstly, Iran is not blockadable,” the spokesman said. “Secondly, if you fail to reach a result through a diplomatic process, resorting to other means of pressure will certainly not lead to any result and you will not succeed.”
He added that the US move is a provocative act, contrary to the principles of international law, and has no legal legitimacy. “This US action could be considered a prelude to violating the ceasefire,” he warned.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran and its armed forces are carefully monitoring developments and will respond proportionally wherever necessary.”
Strait of Hormuz security assured with regional help
The spokesman also addressed European proposals for an international coalition, potentially under UN auspices, to secure navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, including mine-sweeping operations.
“The security of the Strait of Hormuz has been ensured by Iran for decades. Iran has been the guardian of this waterway’s security,” he said.
“The only reason security and safety in this waterway were disrupted during the past 40 days was the US-Zionist-imposed war.”
He rejected foreign intervention, saying any move or interference in regional affairs would only complicate the situation further.
“We are glad that many European countries have the wisdom not to fall into the trap laid by the US and the Zionist regime.”
He stressed that Iran, as a coastal state and with the help of regional countries, is fully capable of providing security for the strait, provided that American aggression and interference in the region come to an end.
Neighbors’ role in aggression documented
Asked about Persian Gulf states that allowed the use of their infrastructure for attacks on Iran, the spokesman said Tehran has documented all cases.
“We consider any use of these countries’ facilities or territory for aggression against Iran, whether missile launches, drone launches, refueling or any logistical support, as part of the US-Zionist military aggression.”
He said any assistance to aggressor nations entails international responsibility for the assisting countries.
“This is an accepted principle in international law, clearly stated in the UN General Assembly’s Definition of Aggression resolution and affirmed by general principles of international law.”
“All cases we have been informed of have been documented by the armed forces and are being pursued seriously.”
He warned that countries involved in such assistance will be held accountable.
US presence fuels insecurity
The spokesman painted a bright outlook for Iran’s relations with regional countries, provided that all parties learn from recent events.
“The first lesson is that US military presence in the region fuels insecurity and does not create security.”
“Second, regional security will only be achieved through cooperation and collaboration among regional countries.”
“Third, regional countries must not allow the Zionist regime and the US to use their facilities, territory and capacities for aggressive actions against another country.”
He expressed hope that regional governments would end any unintentional or intentional provision of facilities for US-Israeli attacks on Iran.
“Relations between Iran and regional countries must be based on good neighborliness, friendship and respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”
Iran will not accept US dictates
Turning to the ongoing Iran-US talks mediated by Pakistan, the spokesman dismissed any notion that Tehran would accept American conditions.
“We are not entering negotiations to accept US conditions. Our criterion is the interests and rights of the Iranian nation.”
“If negotiations are based on one side imposing conditions on the other, that is not negotiation; that is dictation and imposition. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian nation will never accept such imposition.”
He said Washington’s expectation that Iran would unconditionally accept its proposals is unrealistic and incompatible with the logic of negotiations.
“No date has been set for the next round of talks,” he added, noting that the nuclear issue remains the most significant point of disagreement between the two sides
Dear Dr. D,
Do you agree with:
U.S. military operations against Russia?
U.S. military operations against Iran?
U.S. military operations against China?
