The western establishment media (who are seldom foolish enough to actually go into Syria) say the Russians have started a massive bombing campaign, bombing schools and hospitals in Idlib and killing lots of children, while the Syrian Arab Army is massing all around Idlib for a brutal assault. They get this information from tweets sent out by al-Qaeda (under whatever name they're using now). One western reporter, Robert Fisk, who was foolish enough to go to Syria and drive the ring road around Idlib said he heard no bombing, so, while Russia admits it's bombing places sending missiles and drones to bomb Russian bases, the bombing must be very sporadic, or he'd have seen and heard it. The 'Syrian Arab Army' massing around Idlib' he did not see, just a few Syrian soldiers exchanging small arms fire with the peaceful, pro-democracy protesters (and some of their sniper fire came near him). Of course, during this month (which lasts until about 8 October), war is prohibited by Islam, so the Syrian assault to liberate Idlib might be planned for then.
The Russians say they have evidence that NATO (US/UK/France/Turkey) are planning to force regime change in Syria in the very near future. Their intelligence said that a US film crew went into Idlib and filmed a 'chemical attack' by the evil Syrian and Russian regimes, and this was done so the US/UK/France can say they have no choice but to force regime change since the evil Syrians and Russians are using chemical weapons. The film is now being edited, and will be sent to the UN and the OPCW, while out-takes will be posted on social media, whereupon the US/UK/France are already getting ready to start a Libyan-style regime change in Syria. Only it's not 2011 (a fact of which NATO do not seem to be aware, perhaps their calendars stopped because they forgot to wind them?). In 2011, Putin felt that Russia could not stand up to NATO, and Russia did not veto the UN resolution to attack Libya (the resolution did not mention regime change, but even if it had been explicit, Russia and China considered themselves too weak to challenge NATO for Libya). In 2018, Putin says Russia absolutely will not allow NATO to force regime change in Syria. Is Putin bluffing? NATO says he is, they say Yeltsin dismantled the Soviet military, and all Putin's 'weapons' are just Photoshop. When NATO starts bombing, Putin has no choice but to withdraw whatever is left of the Russian military and let NATO remove the evil Syrian regime, put a member of the peaceful, pro-democracy al-Qaeda in charge, and NATO will return to those NATO bases on which the USSR and then Russia have been squatting since the days of the current Syrian president's father. All the NATO 'experts' that I've read say Russia will be about as difficult an opponent as Grenada or Panamá were. Somehow, I don't have quite as much confidence in the NATO 'experts' as they have in themselves. Likewise, I have no idea if Russian intelligence is any good.
We'll all know very soon if Russian intelligence is right. If they're wrong about the NATO regime change in Syria being imminent, it might be awhile before we're sure they were wrong.
And if Russian Intelligence is correct, no one has a clue what will happen. I guess we'll find out.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Idlib
Islam prohibits war this month and next month; however, that means aggressive war, not defensive war. Syria says foreign jihadis invaded Idlib, so war against them is defensive. The fact that they've been shelling Latakia is one more reason the Syrians and Russians are saying this is a strictly defensive action, which is allowed, even in the four months when war is prohibited in Islam.
The problem is that NATO (i.e. the US, UK, France, and Turkey) have said they will not allow the Syrians and Russians to take Idlib, they will fight to defend the innocent, peaceful, pro-democracy activists (al-Qaeda and the ISL). Russia has said it will see that the abscess of jihadis in Idlib is removed. The Syrian Army is gathering around Idlib. The Russian and American fleets are sailing toward Syria. US, UK, and French planes are getting ready to bomb Syria. The Turkish Army is getting ready to defend Idlib.
I have read many columnists, reporters, and Internet commentators write that Putin is bluffing, his hand is nothing, not even a pair, while NATO holds a straight flush. He's been pretending Russia is still the USSR (with strictly Orthodox Marxism-Leninism, unlike the old, unOrthodox kind they had before), but as soon as NATO starts bombing Syria, he'll pull whatever is left of the Russian military out of Syria, NATO will finish regime change and all those military bases where the Russians have been squatting will return to their rightful owners, NATO.
Pity those columnists, reporters, and Internet commentators don't understand any of the new, clear fizzics. Some of us remember the Cuban missile crisis. It looked like the end of the world, but Kennedy called Khrushchev and said, 'I have to run for re-election, and you don't. If you'll say you gave me everything I asked for, I'll give you everything you're asking for.' And so, without letting anyone know, Kennedy removed all the US nukes from Turkey (we found out about 40 years later), Khrushchev said he'd capitulated completely because the US led by Kennedy was too strong and he knew he'd lose, and everyone lived (happily ever after, just because they were still alive, against every expectation).
Putin promised to shoot down any and all NATO planes attacking Syria, which would have escalated as NATO would have had to shoot back. So Trump called, and Putin gave NATO 3 abandoned, empty building they could bomb and no Russian anti-aircraft fire would be used. Trump claimed a great victory, three major weapons plants destroyed (but actually, nothing lost and no one got hurt). Putin officially fumed about the attack, but did nothing. And the phone call (which must have happened) is still Top Secret.
The establishment media said, 'Trump's no Obama. He only hit three buildings, when he should have carpet bombed Damascus the way Obama carpet bombed all the Libyan presidential residences and army until he achieved regime change. The evil Syrian and Russia regimes are still running Syria and Russia, so Trump is one of the worst presidents we've ever had for not forcing the regime change St Hillary promised, putting the good, democratic rebels in charge of Syria.' (Note that those 'democratic rebels' are al-Qaeda and the ISL.) And there it's sat for a year. But now Trump's cabinet and Trump (and the UK and France) have said they will not allow Russia to attack Idlib. After Trump said he would send the US military if Russia bombed Idlib, the jihadis immediately tweeted to Western reporters that Russia started bombing yesterday. Russia neither confirmed nor denied the bombing.
Yesterday was, of course, Labor Day, so the US was off, including most newspaper reporters. But today, everyone is back at work, the Russian bombing is starting to make the news as a fact (after all, al-Qaeda and the ISL cannot tell a lie, since their religion prohibits lying, plus the US and UK are paying them, and US and UK employees never lie), and all the establishment media are starting to scream. And so ...
The problem is that NATO (i.e. the US, UK, France, and Turkey) have said they will not allow the Syrians and Russians to take Idlib, they will fight to defend the innocent, peaceful, pro-democracy activists (al-Qaeda and the ISL). Russia has said it will see that the abscess of jihadis in Idlib is removed. The Syrian Army is gathering around Idlib. The Russian and American fleets are sailing toward Syria. US, UK, and French planes are getting ready to bomb Syria. The Turkish Army is getting ready to defend Idlib.
I have read many columnists, reporters, and Internet commentators write that Putin is bluffing, his hand is nothing, not even a pair, while NATO holds a straight flush. He's been pretending Russia is still the USSR (with strictly Orthodox Marxism-Leninism, unlike the old, unOrthodox kind they had before), but as soon as NATO starts bombing Syria, he'll pull whatever is left of the Russian military out of Syria, NATO will finish regime change and all those military bases where the Russians have been squatting will return to their rightful owners, NATO.
Pity those columnists, reporters, and Internet commentators don't understand any of the new, clear fizzics. Some of us remember the Cuban missile crisis. It looked like the end of the world, but Kennedy called Khrushchev and said, 'I have to run for re-election, and you don't. If you'll say you gave me everything I asked for, I'll give you everything you're asking for.' And so, without letting anyone know, Kennedy removed all the US nukes from Turkey (we found out about 40 years later), Khrushchev said he'd capitulated completely because the US led by Kennedy was too strong and he knew he'd lose, and everyone lived (happily ever after, just because they were still alive, against every expectation).
Putin promised to shoot down any and all NATO planes attacking Syria, which would have escalated as NATO would have had to shoot back. So Trump called, and Putin gave NATO 3 abandoned, empty building they could bomb and no Russian anti-aircraft fire would be used. Trump claimed a great victory, three major weapons plants destroyed (but actually, nothing lost and no one got hurt). Putin officially fumed about the attack, but did nothing. And the phone call (which must have happened) is still Top Secret.
The establishment media said, 'Trump's no Obama. He only hit three buildings, when he should have carpet bombed Damascus the way Obama carpet bombed all the Libyan presidential residences and army until he achieved regime change. The evil Syrian and Russia regimes are still running Syria and Russia, so Trump is one of the worst presidents we've ever had for not forcing the regime change St Hillary promised, putting the good, democratic rebels in charge of Syria.' (Note that those 'democratic rebels' are al-Qaeda and the ISL.) And there it's sat for a year. But now Trump's cabinet and Trump (and the UK and France) have said they will not allow Russia to attack Idlib. After Trump said he would send the US military if Russia bombed Idlib, the jihadis immediately tweeted to Western reporters that Russia started bombing yesterday. Russia neither confirmed nor denied the bombing.
Yesterday was, of course, Labor Day, so the US was off, including most newspaper reporters. But today, everyone is back at work, the Russian bombing is starting to make the news as a fact (after all, al-Qaeda and the ISL cannot tell a lie, since their religion prohibits lying, plus the US and UK are paying them, and US and UK employees never lie), and all the establishment media are starting to scream. And so ...
Friday, August 31, 2018
War as a Distraction, but Where?
On 21 August 2018, Trump's lawyer Cohen pleaded guilty to 8 counts, some of which were criminal conspiracy with 'a candidate for president'. Of course, we know which 'candidate for president', making a certain president an unindicted co-conspirator. The Democrats are saying it's the beginning of the end, the impeachment clock is ticking down. As it happens, Alan Dershowitz says that Cohen's confessions do not implicate Trump, while David Jolly says Trump is finished.
It is an old American tradition that, when a president is in trouble, he starts a war to distract the voters and tells them it would endanger the troops to change Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. But where? Trump was promising regime change in Iran back in '15, but his Cabinet wants regime change in Syria, Russia, and the DPRK. Iran is screaming 'Mother of all Wars' just like Saddam did, and war with Iran should go like Libya, but might be more like Iraq, whichever way Trump thinks will best distract the voters. Obama was going to win anyway, so a quick victory in Libya worked (and made a lot of money for the US/UK/France), but Bush, sr was not so popular, and, after he finished the First US-Iraq War, the voters said, 'Job well done, but it's done, and now we want Clinton.' So Bush, jr kept the Second US-Iraq War going (and it's still going 9 years after Bush, jr left office).
Candidate Obama said he'd end all the wars, and President Obama did pause the Iraq War briefly, but mostly, President Obama expanded all the wars he inherited, and added some new ones. Candidate Trump ran on ending the wars, but President Trump expanded the ones he inherited, and is in a corner where he needs one or more new ones.
Iran can scream, but they can't do much. Carpet bombing like Libya should force regime change about as quickly as it did in Libya, but ground troops like Iraq might be a better distraction for the voters, so Trump cold go either way.
However, Trump's Cabinet, France and the UK all want regime change in Syria, which means also in Russia, and the Cabinet would also like to finish what Truman started in the DPRK. Truman, of course, fired his general for suggesting he risk a nuclear war against the only other nuclear power in the world, and one would hope Trump and his Cabinet would learn from Truman, but Trump and his cabinet don't seem capable of learning anything from anyone (and nor do the British and French governments). So they might try Russia and/or the DPRK. Russia might not be as strong as the USSR, but they still have MAD (the New York Times says Russia's MAD WMD are just Photoshop, but they now print whatever their readers want to be true, not necessarily the facts). China did not sit idly by when Truman tried regime change in the DPRK, and they're not going to sit idly by if Trump and his Cabinet try again, not to mention that the DPRK is almost certainly able to execute an EMP strike on the US all by itself.
If the Cabinet, Britain and France convince Trump to start a war anywhere except Iran, it'll be, 'So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.'
It is an old American tradition that, when a president is in trouble, he starts a war to distract the voters and tells them it would endanger the troops to change Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a war. But where? Trump was promising regime change in Iran back in '15, but his Cabinet wants regime change in Syria, Russia, and the DPRK. Iran is screaming 'Mother of all Wars' just like Saddam did, and war with Iran should go like Libya, but might be more like Iraq, whichever way Trump thinks will best distract the voters. Obama was going to win anyway, so a quick victory in Libya worked (and made a lot of money for the US/UK/France), but Bush, sr was not so popular, and, after he finished the First US-Iraq War, the voters said, 'Job well done, but it's done, and now we want Clinton.' So Bush, jr kept the Second US-Iraq War going (and it's still going 9 years after Bush, jr left office).
Candidate Obama said he'd end all the wars, and President Obama did pause the Iraq War briefly, but mostly, President Obama expanded all the wars he inherited, and added some new ones. Candidate Trump ran on ending the wars, but President Trump expanded the ones he inherited, and is in a corner where he needs one or more new ones.
Iran can scream, but they can't do much. Carpet bombing like Libya should force regime change about as quickly as it did in Libya, but ground troops like Iraq might be a better distraction for the voters, so Trump cold go either way.
However, Trump's Cabinet, France and the UK all want regime change in Syria, which means also in Russia, and the Cabinet would also like to finish what Truman started in the DPRK. Truman, of course, fired his general for suggesting he risk a nuclear war against the only other nuclear power in the world, and one would hope Trump and his Cabinet would learn from Truman, but Trump and his cabinet don't seem capable of learning anything from anyone (and nor do the British and French governments). So they might try Russia and/or the DPRK. Russia might not be as strong as the USSR, but they still have MAD (the New York Times says Russia's MAD WMD are just Photoshop, but they now print whatever their readers want to be true, not necessarily the facts). China did not sit idly by when Truman tried regime change in the DPRK, and they're not going to sit idly by if Trump and his Cabinet try again, not to mention that the DPRK is almost certainly able to execute an EMP strike on the US all by itself.
If the Cabinet, Britain and France convince Trump to start a war anywhere except Iran, it'll be, 'So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.'
Thursday, August 16, 2018
John Perkins and Financial Theory
Suppose you have $200,000 and a bank says it will loan 80% at 10% interest. Further suppose you have an investment that will pay 20%. How much should you borrow from the bank? The textbook answer is, of course, $800,000. You'll pay $80,000 a year in interest, but your investment will pay $200,000 a year. The correct answer is $0. John Perkins job was to convince people to borrow money by promising a 20% return. The banks insisted the money go to the contractors they specified, contractors who built nothing, but who took the $1,000,000, after which, the borrowers had a debt of $800,000 and no way to repay, so the banks foreclosed and got all the assets the borrowers had. With kickbacks from the contractors, the banks got all the borrowers' assets for almost nothing.
Perkins said he did this to Indonesia. After the IMF and World Bank foreclosed, Indonesia had to let mining companies dump toxins in the rivers, so people died. They had to let companies take farms from subsistence farmers to use for cash crops, so people died. Saudi Imams said (quite correctly) that the infidels had killed Muslims, and said (incorrectly) that everyone working in the New York World Trade Center was guilty. Which is why the 9/11 hijackers destroyed the New York World Trade Center. Yes, people were guilty, but the 9/11 hijackers killed few, if any, of the guilty parties, and a lot of people who were completely innocent of the crimes for which they were murdered.
Not clear how to punish the guilty. Perkins said he had no idea who they were, he got his orders (and payment) via a carefully camouflaged trail that hid those ultimately responsible.
So Justice seems unlikely for this world.
Perkins said he did this to Indonesia. After the IMF and World Bank foreclosed, Indonesia had to let mining companies dump toxins in the rivers, so people died. They had to let companies take farms from subsistence farmers to use for cash crops, so people died. Saudi Imams said (quite correctly) that the infidels had killed Muslims, and said (incorrectly) that everyone working in the New York World Trade Center was guilty. Which is why the 9/11 hijackers destroyed the New York World Trade Center. Yes, people were guilty, but the 9/11 hijackers killed few, if any, of the guilty parties, and a lot of people who were completely innocent of the crimes for which they were murdered.
Not clear how to punish the guilty. Perkins said he had no idea who they were, he got his orders (and payment) via a carefully camouflaged trail that hid those ultimately responsible.
So Justice seems unlikely for this world.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Eurasia, Eastasia, and the Ministry of Truth
I read 1984 back in the '60s. Airstrip 1 went back and forth from an ally of Eurasia at war with Eastasia to an ally of Eastasia at war with Eurasia to an ally of ..., and every time they switched, the Ministry of Truth had to fix all the history books and newspaper morgues. If Airstrip 1 was at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia, they had always been at war with Eurasia and allied with Eastasia. Only, in the '60s, Eurasia was obviously the USSR, and Eastasia was obviously the PRC, and both were allied against Airstrip 1. It took me 50 years to figure out 1984. Eurasia was the Central Powers of WWI, Germany, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire. Eastasia was Russia/USSR. In the Crimean War, Airstrip 1 allied with France and the Ottomans against Russia. Then in WWI, Airstrip 1 was allied with Russia against the Central Powers. Then, after WWI, Airstrip 1 allied with Hitler against Stalin's USSR. Then, after '41, Airstrip 1 allied with Stalin's USSR against the Axis. Then, after '47, Airstrip 1 allied with West Germany against Stalin's USSR. And every time Airstrip 1 changed it's alliance, it tried to change the history books.
But, after 1939, the Airstrip 1 of 1984 was a neo-colony of the US. After WWI, the US went isolationist, and then came the Great Depression in 1930, with 25% unemployment, and nothing tried by a Republican president, Hoover, or a Democrat president, FDR, had any effect. Finally, two brilliant applied economists named Adolph and Tojo formed the Axis and quickly reduced US unemployment from more than 25% to less than 2%. US history books (incorrectly) blamed the Great Depression on WWI, and correctly credited the Axis with its cure. The collapse of the Axis was predicted to cause a quick return to a situation where only 25% unemployment would be considered practically full employment, and quite unachievable. What to do? Then, in '47, Truman said the USSR was a greater threat than the Axis! The US Congress voted to keep the military mobilised, not disbanded. They voted for the Marshall Plan, chits for Europe they could use to buy American products, food (since their agricultural sector had been badly damaged) and tools for reconstruction, chits that Americans (and only Americans) could cash in for dollars. Truman won re-election (after being so far behind in the polls he'd been written off by the experts). And the Republicans jumped on Truman's bandwagon (even though Truman was a Democrat). The Republicans found USSR spies everywhere. The head of the FBI spoke of card-carrying Communists, dupes, and fellow-travelers. (It annoys me that Hoover's terminology that I had to learn in school has been changed from 'dupes' to 'useful idiots'; why abandon what worked so well for so long?) No Depression, instead the US enjoyed great prosperity.
Then, in 1990, the USSR collapsed. The fact that the USSR had MAD meant the US was limited in what it could do. But now, the US could absorb the Warsaw Pact into NATO. It could destroy Yugoslavia, and the USSR wasn't around to stop it. It could even absorb chunks of the USSR into NATO, and Russia was powerless. After Yugoslavia came Iraq, and the 100 hour war. Then sanctions that killed maybe half a million Iraqis. And Russia had no say. Then came 9/11, and Islam was the new and improved threat, a replacement for the USSR. War in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and lots of other places to keep the US economy from falling back into a Great Depression.
But, in spring 2013, the presidents of the US and France and the UK PM all agreed to force regime change in Syria. For some reason, the UK PM asked Parliament to vote, and they voted 'NO!' And then Putin stepped in and offered to remove all of Syria's WMD, and regime change was left to the Free Syrian Army, whom the Israelis said would quickly achieve victory without the necessity of a major US campaign. By Fall 2013, Russia was back, and would no longer allow regime change in Syria and let its only Mediterranean Naval Base go to NATO.
So the US has moved Russia back to the #1 threat to world peace. Russia has always been the #1 threat to world peace. And US newspapers assure us Russia no longer has MAD. All the Soviet WMD are gone, thanks to the decade when Russia was ruled by a good democratic president installed by the CIA, Yeltsin. Putin's presentation of Russian WMD was just Photoshop. St Hillary promised regime change in Russia starting on Day 1, but Russia stole the election, an atrocity worse than Pearl Harbor. All the US media want immediate regime change in Russia.
Trump ran on a platform of peace with Syria and Russia. The US media, Democrat and Republican, all agree that makes him a traitor. The Democrats say the stolen election should be returned to it's rightful winner, St Hillary. The Republicans say Trump must reform, or be replaced by Pence. So Trump is making some waffling anti-Russian comments.
The world is closer to annihilation than it's ever been. The Concerned Scientists say the Doomsday Clock is 2 minutes to midnight. Pollyannas, those Concerned Scientists.
But, after 1939, the Airstrip 1 of 1984 was a neo-colony of the US. After WWI, the US went isolationist, and then came the Great Depression in 1930, with 25% unemployment, and nothing tried by a Republican president, Hoover, or a Democrat president, FDR, had any effect. Finally, two brilliant applied economists named Adolph and Tojo formed the Axis and quickly reduced US unemployment from more than 25% to less than 2%. US history books (incorrectly) blamed the Great Depression on WWI, and correctly credited the Axis with its cure. The collapse of the Axis was predicted to cause a quick return to a situation where only 25% unemployment would be considered practically full employment, and quite unachievable. What to do? Then, in '47, Truman said the USSR was a greater threat than the Axis! The US Congress voted to keep the military mobilised, not disbanded. They voted for the Marshall Plan, chits for Europe they could use to buy American products, food (since their agricultural sector had been badly damaged) and tools for reconstruction, chits that Americans (and only Americans) could cash in for dollars. Truman won re-election (after being so far behind in the polls he'd been written off by the experts). And the Republicans jumped on Truman's bandwagon (even though Truman was a Democrat). The Republicans found USSR spies everywhere. The head of the FBI spoke of card-carrying Communists, dupes, and fellow-travelers. (It annoys me that Hoover's terminology that I had to learn in school has been changed from 'dupes' to 'useful idiots'; why abandon what worked so well for so long?) No Depression, instead the US enjoyed great prosperity.
Then, in 1990, the USSR collapsed. The fact that the USSR had MAD meant the US was limited in what it could do. But now, the US could absorb the Warsaw Pact into NATO. It could destroy Yugoslavia, and the USSR wasn't around to stop it. It could even absorb chunks of the USSR into NATO, and Russia was powerless. After Yugoslavia came Iraq, and the 100 hour war. Then sanctions that killed maybe half a million Iraqis. And Russia had no say. Then came 9/11, and Islam was the new and improved threat, a replacement for the USSR. War in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and lots of other places to keep the US economy from falling back into a Great Depression.
But, in spring 2013, the presidents of the US and France and the UK PM all agreed to force regime change in Syria. For some reason, the UK PM asked Parliament to vote, and they voted 'NO!' And then Putin stepped in and offered to remove all of Syria's WMD, and regime change was left to the Free Syrian Army, whom the Israelis said would quickly achieve victory without the necessity of a major US campaign. By Fall 2013, Russia was back, and would no longer allow regime change in Syria and let its only Mediterranean Naval Base go to NATO.
So the US has moved Russia back to the #1 threat to world peace. Russia has always been the #1 threat to world peace. And US newspapers assure us Russia no longer has MAD. All the Soviet WMD are gone, thanks to the decade when Russia was ruled by a good democratic president installed by the CIA, Yeltsin. Putin's presentation of Russian WMD was just Photoshop. St Hillary promised regime change in Russia starting on Day 1, but Russia stole the election, an atrocity worse than Pearl Harbor. All the US media want immediate regime change in Russia.
Trump ran on a platform of peace with Syria and Russia. The US media, Democrat and Republican, all agree that makes him a traitor. The Democrats say the stolen election should be returned to it's rightful winner, St Hillary. The Republicans say Trump must reform, or be replaced by Pence. So Trump is making some waffling anti-Russian comments.
The world is closer to annihilation than it's ever been. The Concerned Scientists say the Doomsday Clock is 2 minutes to midnight. Pollyannas, those Concerned Scientists.
Friday, August 3, 2018
Evil genius or idiot?
The US establishment media all write that Trump is a Russian agent, an evil genius who is working to destroy the US. The Persian press think Trump is an idiot. He ordered sanctions on Iran (not that Obama ever lifted them: everyone is still warned that it's a violation of US law to do any US dollar transactions with Iran, and Iran is still cut off from the international banking system, so one must bring at least $10,000 in cash if one wants to visit Iran).
Trump added new sanctions on Iran that meant that most EU companies have announced that they have halted all trade with Iran because of the threat that they will be blocked from all trade with the US if they do not. The EU said it's sticking to the JCPOA, but EU companies can't afford to be cut off from the US market: the EU market isn't enough to balance their books without the US market.
China would probably have been forced to join the rest of the world and cut Iran off, forcing Iran back to the 17th century, but Trump has already banned most Chinese products from the US, so China announced that it will be buying most of the oil it needs from Iran, and will sell Iran all that they need. And, given that China is China, that greatly mitigates the US sanctions on Iran, to the point where Iran won't feel much damage from Trump's new sanctions!
Trump added new sanctions on Iran that meant that most EU companies have announced that they have halted all trade with Iran because of the threat that they will be blocked from all trade with the US if they do not. The EU said it's sticking to the JCPOA, but EU companies can't afford to be cut off from the US market: the EU market isn't enough to balance their books without the US market.
China would probably have been forced to join the rest of the world and cut Iran off, forcing Iran back to the 17th century, but Trump has already banned most Chinese products from the US, so China announced that it will be buying most of the oil it needs from Iran, and will sell Iran all that they need. And, given that China is China, that greatly mitigates the US sanctions on Iran, to the point where Iran won't feel much damage from Trump's new sanctions!
Monday, July 30, 2018
Mid-terms
Many are sure the Congress will go solid Blue in '19 after the Democrats sweep the mid-terms. But it's actually not at all clear what will happen. The Democrats are fairly certain to get more votes, just as they did in the 2016 election, but whether those votes will turn into a majority of seats in the Congress is not at all clear. The good Republicans Mr Gerry Mander and Mr James Corvus will do their best to hand the Congress over to the Republicans, even if most of the voters disagree with them. It's not clear how much Mr Gerry Mander and Mr James Corvus will be able to do, and we won't know until 7 Nov this year. The best source is Five Thirty Eight, but so far, they're only predicting that the Democrats are going to win the most votes, they haven't started on seats, yet (but they will as we get closer to the election).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)