Brandon Smith Warns: The Saudi Coup Signals War And The New World Order Reset

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

For years now, I have been warning about the relationship of interdependency between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia and how this relationship, if ended, would mean disaster for the petrodollar system and by extension the dollar"s world reserve status.

In my recent articles "Lies And Distractions Surrounding The Diminishing Petrodollar" and "The Economic End Game Continues," I point out that the death of the dollar as the premier petrocurrency is actually a primary goal for establishment globalists.

Why?

Because in an effort to achieve what they sometimes call the "global economic reset," or the "new world order," a more publicly accepted centralized global economy and monetary framework is paramount. And, this means the eventual implementation of a single world currency and a single global economic and political authority above and beyond the dollar system.

But, it is not enough to simply initiate such socially and fiscally painful changes in a vacuum. The banking powers are not interested in taking any blame for the suffering that would be dealt to the masses during the inevitable upheaval (or blame for the suffering that has already been caused). Therefore, a believable narrative must be crafted. A narrative in which political intrigue and geopolitical crisis make the "new world order" a NECESSITY; one that the general public would accept or even demand as a solution to existing instability and disaster.

That is to say, the globalists must fashion a propaganda story to be used in the future, in which "selfish" nation-states abused their sovereignty and created conditions for calamity, and the only solution was to end that sovereignty and place all power into the hands of a select few "wise and benevolent men" for the greater good of the world.

I believe the next phase of the global economic reset will begin in part with the breaking of petrodollar dominance. An important element of my analysis on the strategic shift away from the petrodollar has been the symbiosis between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been the single most important key to the dollar remaining as the petrocurrency from the very beginning.

The very first oil exploration and extraction deal in Saudi Arabia was sought by the vast international oil cartels of Royal Dutch Shell, Near East Development Company, Anglo-Persian, etc., but eventually fell into the hands of none other than the Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company. The dark history of Standard Oil aside, this meant that Saudi business would be handled primarily by American interests. And the Western thirst for oil, especially after World War I, would etch our relationship with the reigning monarchy in stone.

A founding member of OPEC, Saudi Arabia was one of the few primary oil-producing nations that maintained an oil pipeline that expedited processing and bypassed the Suez Canal. (The pipeline was shut down, however, in 1983). This allowed Standard Oil and the United States to tiptoe around the internal instability of Egypt, which had experienced ongoing conflict which finally culminated in the civil war of 1952.

Considered puppets of the British Empire at the time, the ruling elites of Egypt were toppled by the Muslim Brotherhood, leading to the eventual demise of the British pound sterling as the top petro-currency and the world reserve. The British economy faltered and has never since returned to its former glory.

Perhaps we are seeing some parallels here?

Civil war may not be in the cards for Saudi Arabia; so far a quiet coup has been rather effective in completely changing the power base of the nation over the past few years. The primary beneficiary of that change in power has been crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman, who only answers to King Salman, an 81-year-old ruler barely involved in leadership.

To understand how drastic this coup has been, consider this - for decades Saudi Kings maintained political balance by doling out vital power positions to separate, carefully chosen successors. Positions such as Defense Minister, the Interior Ministry and the head of the National Guard. Today, Mohammed Bin Salman controls all three positions. Foreign policy, defense matters, oil and economic decisions and social changes are now all in the hands of one man.

But the real question is, who is behind that man?

Well, the recent political purge of various "neo-conservative" tied Saudis might lead some to believe that Prince Mohammed is seeking an end to globalist control of Saudi oil and politics.

These people would be wrong for a number of reasons.

Prince Mohammed"s revolutionary "Vision for 2030" developed as he entered power was touted as a means to end Saudi reliance on oil revenues to support economic stability. However, I believe this plan is NOT about ending reliance on oil, but ending reliance on the U.S. dollar. In fact, the plan indicates a move away from the dollar as the world"s petrocurrency and a de-pegging of the Riyal from the dollar.

Prince Mohammed has also established much deeper ties to Russia and China, creating bilateral agreements which may end up removing the dollar as the mechanism for oil trade between the nations.

You would think that this kind of strategy would be highly damaging to the West and to American interests in particular and that the corporate establishment would be doing everything in their power to stop it. However, this is not at all the case. In reality, the globalist establishment is fully behind Mohammed Bin Sulman"s "Vision for 2030."

Corporate behemoths such as the Carlyle Group (Bush family, etc), Goldman Sachs, Blackstone and Blackrock have ALL been backing the Vision for 2030 and Prince Mohammed through his Public Investment Fund (PIF), of which he is the chairman.

Trillions in capital are flowing through PIF, most of it from the coffers of globalist establishment companies. Once again I point out that the so-called "East versus West division" and the Eastern "opposition" to the globalists is complete nonsense; banking elites and globalists are the true influence behind the move away from the dollar, as the Saudi example and the Vision for 2030 shows. The end of the dollar as world reserve works in their favor — it is planned.

This does not end with the death of the dollar"s petro-status, though. These kinds of upsets in the power dynamic invariably lead to war. War acts as a kind of cleansing of the historical record; it tends to distract the public, for generations, from those that truly benefit from geopolitical and economic strife.

Prince Mohammed has already triggered conflicts with Yemen and Qatar, but this seems to have only been a precursor to greater kinetic displays of force. The next target appears to be Lebanon, and eventually Iran and Syria.

The first signal came with the resignation of Lebanon"s Prime Minister Saad Hariri on November 4, a resignation Hezbollah claims was forced by the Saudi government. Interestingly, Saad Hariri recorded the televised announcement in Saudi Arabia.

This shocking disruption to Lebanon"s political apparatus has been followed by an escalation in saber rattling by Saudi Arabia against Hezbollah (which is considered by many to be merely a puppet organization of the Iranian government). If official polls are to be believed, the Lebanese population is in extreme disagreement over Iran and Hezbollah, which could add to internal divisions and civil war if tensions continue to grow. Add to this the suspected (but officially denied) "secret visit" by Prince Mohammed to Israel in September, and the newfound "friendship" between the two nations in the months since, and we have quite a bit of momentum for a war in Lebanon.

The question is, will a war between Saudi Arabia and perhaps Israel against Hezbollah in Lebanon remain a proxy war, or will it gestate into a wider conflict drawing in Iran, Syria and perhaps even the U.S.?

First, keep in mind that Prince Mohammed has already frozen and/or confiscated approximately $800 billion in assets from his imprisoned political enemies. More than enough to fund a war campaign for several years, maybe even an expanded war against Iran.

Trump"s rhetoric against Iran and his re-institution of sanctions seems to coincide nicely with the increasing tension between the Saudis and Hezbollah. Israel attempted an invasion of Lebanon in 2006 and was soundly and embarrassingly defeated. But, the Israeli government does still showcase a willingness to enter into a ground war in the region, and with the combined forces of the Saudis and the Israelis, we might see a different outcome. Iran would be forced to intervene.

Syria under the Assad regime would also most likely be drawn in through its mutual defense pact with Iran.

I believe that major powers like the U.S. and Russia will probably not become involved in a wider sense, but continue to insert covert forces into the region and support opposing nations through funding and armaments. As with North Korea, I would not expect "world war" on the scale of a nuclear conflagration to develop in the Middle East.

What I do expect is something far more devastating - namely an accelerated disintegration of our already collapsing economic structure as war plays out abroad and the loss of the dollar"s world reserve and petro-status hits us hard at home. So far, in my view it appears that the insanity in Saudi Arabia, (along with the continued war drums against North Korea), is a perfect trigger point that provides a catalyst for mass distraction.

World economic war is the real name of the game here, as the globalists play puppeteers to East and West. It is a geopolitical crisis they will have created to engineer public support for a solution they predetermined.

Ayatollah Blasts Trump's "Rants And Whoppers", Says Iran Will "Shred" Deal If US Pulls Out

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - who famously waited three months before offering a tepid endorsement of the JCPOA – largely echoed the threats of other Iranian government officials when he said Wednesday that Iran would adhere to the terms of the deal if other world powers respected it, but would “shred it” if the US were to pull out.

Speaking publicly about the future of the deal for the first time since President Donald Trump refused to decertify it five days ago, Khamenei confirmed that Iran would likely terminate the deal – and restart its nuclear program – if the US Congress decides to unilaterally rule that Iran is not in compliance, opening the door to reimposing sanctions.

The ayatollah’s proclamation puts Iran at odds with the deals other signatories, who’ve maintained that the US doesn’t have the power to terminate a multilateral accord certified by the United Nations. Khamenei welcomed the support of the other signers - Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the European Union – but said it would not be enough to convince Iran to stay, Reuters reported.

“Europe must stand against practical measures (taken) by America,” he said. If Trump ditched the deal, “Iran will shred it”.

US lawmakers and President Donald Trump are presently pushing for a bill that would recertify the deal with one important caveat: Iran would be subject to “triggers” – like continued ballistic missile tests or evidence that it could build a nuclear weapon within a year’s time. Violating these conditions would lead to sanctions automatically being reimposed.

However, Khamenei also vowed to continue Iran’s ballistic missile program, which the country claims is strictly for defensive purposes, suggesting that Iran wouldn’t brook the additional restrictions being considered by the US Congress.

"Or to ask why Iran has missiles - well, why do you have missiles? Why do you have nuclear weapons? We will not accept the Europeans going along with America"s bullying."

The ayatollah also dismissed Trump"s attacks on Iran as "rants and whoppers", adding that Iran will continue to abide by its commitments under the nuclear deal.

"I don"t want to waste my time on answering the rants and whoppers of the brute US president," Khamenei said in a speech to students in Tehran, published on his Telegram channel.

The ayatollah insisted that ultimately Iran would prevail in its struggle against the US, adding that it would be unwise to underestimate the threat posed by the US because of Trump’s buffoonish persona.  

"Everyone be assured that this time, too, America will be slapped and defeated by the nation of Iran."

Khamenei said the world should not be fooled by Trump"s public persona.

"The US president displays stupidity, but this should not cause us to ignore America"s mischief," he said.

The Trump administration has pushed for a more aggressive approach to Iran’s missile program, repeatedly insisting that, while Iran is technically complying with the terms of the pact, it is more broadly violating the “spirit” of the agreement by continuing to test missiles and (allegedly) fund terrorist groups, AFP reported.

While the US has worked itself into a lather over the Iranian missile program, the regime amusingly “punked” their American adversaries last month when they tested what was purported to be a new type of medium range ballistic missile. Intelligence sources initially trusted the Iranian media reports, but later government sources determined that Iran had never actually fired a missile, and that the footage was from a failed launch seven months ago.

On Monday, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said Monday that the US would face stiff consequences if it withdraws from the JCPA – informally known as the Iran deal. He added that Iran "had a developed plan and a certain law,” should the United States withdraw from the agreement on Tehran"s nuclear program, adding that Washington would "regret it."

Iran Deploys Tanks To Border With Iraqi Kurdistan

Days before last week"s Kurdistan referendum, Iran took steps to isolate and punish the Iraqi Kurdistan region and the government in Erbil (KRG). This included closing Iranian airspace to northern Iraq"s two international airports and sending Iran"s elite Revolutionary Guard forces to conduct drills along the northwest border with Kurdistan, but in the early hours of Monday Iran dramatically escalated its military build-up along the border by deploying dozens of tanks supported by artillery - this according to a Kurdish government official and Iranian state television.

The Kurdish official confirmed the tank build-up, saying "The tanks can be seen from the Kurdish side.” And Iranian state TV on Saturday indicated that Iran and Iraq would cooperate in joint drills and the establishment of heightened border security, to the point that Iran would "receive Iraqi forces that are to be stationed at border posts”.

#Iran|ian military drill on Kurdistan Region border (Haji Omaran Crossing Border) despite business being conducted as usual.#TwitterKurds pic.twitter.com/UCrL1HPXvl

— Kurdistan 24 English (@K24English) October 2, 2017

Iranian government officials had warned just prior to last week"s referendum that, “The republic of Iran has opened its legitimate border gates on the premise of the consent of the federal government of the Iraqi state. If such an event [referendum] happens, these border gates from the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran would lose its legitimacy." It appears Iran is now making good on its threats as it worries that an independent Kurdistan at its border would be a destabilizing force concerning Iran"s own sizable Kurdish minority.

Last week multiple videos and images surfaced in Iranian social media purporting to show Iranian state police and security forces deploying to the Kurdish towns in Iran"s north. Multiple reports indicate pro-Kurdistan demonstrations took place in various Kurdish Iranian towns in response to the Erbil government"s referendum, something strictly banned and thus a rarity in the Islamic Republic. Iran"s Kurdish population numbers over 6 million out of a total population of about 80 million people - most of which are concentrated in a northwest strip of land which runs along the border with Iraqi Kurdistan as well as in a small northeast pocket.

#Kurdistan:1000s of Iranian police forces have arrived in the city of #Mahabad after Kurds in the region celebrated the #KurdistanReferendum pic.twitter.com/GoH17RTWso

— Thomas van Linge (@ThomasVLinge) September 27, 2017

Kurds in the #Iran-ian Kurdish city of Baneh (Bana) celebrate in support of the #KurdistanReferendum on independence.#TwitterKurds pic.twitter.com/mMQiGuFW3i

— Kurdistan 24 English (@K24English) September 25, 2017

According to Iraqi Kurdish network Rudaw English, Iran launched a major crackdown with dozens of arrests reported in Iran"s northwest region in the days following the referendum:

Two Iranian Kurdish political parties and a human rights watchdog all reported “scores” of arrests after thousands took to the streets in Kurdish cities of Iran chanting Biji Kurdistan, long live Kurdistan, and waving Kurdistan flags to celebrate the success of the independence referendum next door. Flying the Kurdistan flag and singing the national anthem are forbidden in Iran. 

Iranian intelligence and security forces have set up a joint command center “for the purpose of identifying and arresting the organizers of the demonstrations,” the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) stated. They are reportedly analyzing video footage of the gatherings. 

Furthermore it appears that Iranian TV sent a message to its broader Kurdish population indicating that all activities were being monitored by authorities:

The Kurdistan Human Rights Network (KHRN) reported that Iranian police were closely monitoring the demonstrations that attracted rare attention in the country. “Iranian state television on Tuesday acknowledged the rallies, a rarity in the Islamic Republic broadcast,” the group stated. 

As we previously explained, the Kurdish referendum pushed Iraq into the arms of Iran when the relationship between the Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar Abadi and Iranian officials was at its lowest level. But after the KRG"s insistence on pushing forward with moves toward independence, Abadi sees in Iran the only sincere partner to count on, and can rely on the Iranian Army and Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) in the case of any military escalation against Kurdistan, particularly in the disputed Iraqi cities, with Kirkuk at the top of the list.

Map source: Iran Times

Baghdad is confident that Iraqi Kurdistan President Masoud Barzani didn’t take this step without a blessing from the Americans, despite official US opposition to the referendum. It seems Washington decided to swap its relationship with Baghdad with that of Erbil because it won’t be able to support both at the same time.

Supporting Erbil is more attractive to the US and its regional allies (particularly Saudi Arabia), in the hope that the Kurdish Iraqi move would trigger the appetite of the Kurdish Iranians (and the Syrian Kurds who are already on this same path). If this happens and we observe an uprising in Iran, which the Saudis would certainly support, the Iranian economy and that of the government of Baghdad will both be under severe pressure.

Iran supported Barzani in 2014 and provided him with weapons (at a time when the US was denying any support to Iraq, during the 6 months after the fall of Mosul in 2014), but it is today in an undeclared war against Erbil, fully behind Baghdad’s measures and supporting future escalation and punitive steps.

Iran Closes Airspace To Iraqi Kurdistan Ahead Of Historic Independence Vote

The diplomatic and economic noose is tightening around Iraqi Kurdistan one day ahead of its historic independence referendum. On Sunday, the Iranian government announced closure of its airspace to northern Iraq"s Sulaimani and Erbil Airports, at the request of Iraqi authorities. The Baghdad government has repeatedly threatened military intervention in Iraq"s autonomous Kurdish region should the vote proceed on Monday, which Baghdad warns could provoke invasion by neighboring states. The United States too has warned that the non-binding referendum will be “particularly provocative and destabilizing” - this as Turkey musters tanks along its border with Iraqi Kurdistan. 

On Sunday the Iranian Supreme Security Council announced through state media that, “At the request of the Iraqi central government, Iranian airspace has been closed on all flights that originate from Kurdistan Region.” The move comes after a month"s worth of warnings that Iran could close its borders to Iraqi Kurdistan should the independence vote proceed. Iranian government officials had previously warned that, “The republic of Iran has opened its legitimate border gates on the premise of the consent of the federal government of the Iraqi state. If such an event [referendum] happens, these border gates from the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran would lose its legitimacy."

Kurdistan referendum ballot book held by an employee from the Independent High Electoral Referendum Commission. Image source: AFP

Iran worries that an independent Kurdistan at its border would be a destabilizing force concerning Iran"s own sizable Kurdish minority. Iran also reportedly launched Revolutionary Guard led military drills in its northwest region bordering Iraqi Kurdistan on Sunday.

Likewise Turkey has for the past week amassed tanks and troops along its border with Iraq, while reportedly conducting "anti-terror operations" in Kurdish areas of the country. In a geographic sense Turkey would play a key economic lifeline for the completely landlocked Iraqi Kurdistan region. But Turkey"s Parliament voted Saturday to renew for one year a mandate authorizing military intervention across Iraq"s border should Turkey"s national security come under threat.

Over the weekend the Kurdish regional capital of Erbil saw tens of thousands of Kurds flood the streets demonstrating in support of an independent Kurdistan. However, protests against the planned referendum broke out in other areas of Iraq. Violence also began to hit the region as an IED killed four Iraqi Kurdish soldiers and injured over a dozen more in the province of Kirkuk, an area where the referendum is set to be held. 

Arab parts of the country have voiced frustration that such a divisive move would come at a key moment in the fight against ISIS. The fact that Israel is the only outside country voicing official support for Kurdish independence is also deeply controversial. 

Map source: International Iran Times

On Sept. 13 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stunned the region when he commented specifically of the referendum saying, "Israel supports the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to achieve their own state" (though he"s made similar statements starting in 2014). Netanyahu noted further that Israel still considers the Turkey-based Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) a terrorist group.

Other current and former Israeli officials have made bolder and more detailed statements, however. The former Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), Major General Yair Golan told a national security policy conference in Washington D.C. in early September that he believes establishing a Greater Kurdistan (a state that will include the Kurdish-populated territories of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey) in the Middle East could be a positive stabilizing force in the region. He also said that he personally does not be believe the PKK to be a terrorist organization. 

Israel"s public stance provoked a quiet diplomatic war with Turkey, which Israel accuses of supporting Hamas. Turkey has for years accused Israel of forging a secretive vengeful alliance with the PKK due to Turkey"s pro-Palestine statehood position. But Israel has consistently pointed to what it perceives as Turkish hypocrisy in failing to designated Hamas a terror organization. Furthermore, Iranian state media has frequently equated an independent Kurdistan with Israeli plans to Balkanize the region as part of a "divide and rule" policy in the region. 

But despite signs of looming destabilization ahead of Monday"s vote, it appears Kurdish authorities in Erbil are determined to see the referendum through, no matter the consequences.

Quoted by Bloomberg, Kurdistan Regional Government President Massoud Barzani said in televised news conference that Iraq’s Kurds "reached conclusion that only through independence can we secure our future" and said he is ready to engage in "very long" talks with Iraq govt on borders, oil, gas, water after the vote. He also added that the Iraq, Kurdistan partnership failed after Baghdad violated the constitution.

Like in Germany, Barzani urged voters to head to polls and maintain a "peaceful process" while saying that Peshmerga forces will continue cooperation with Iraqi troops and the U.S.-led coalition in the "fight against terror."

Barzani also said that referendum is not a threat to Turkey’s national security, and added that he "doesn’t expect military confrontation with Iraq after referendum", a rather clear hint that military confrontation with Iraq after the expected vote to break away may be inevitable. To be sure, Iraq Prime Minister Haider Al-Abadi said in televised speech that Kurdistan’s problems are "a result of corruption, mismanagement of public money" adding that a referendum would only exacerbate such issues.

Finally, addressing Iran"s closure of airspace, he said that it was Tehran’s decision.

"I Have Decided": Trump Says He Has Made Decision On Iran Deal

Following his extremely aggressive statements yesterday at The United Nations regarding Iran, President Trump has told reporters this morning that:

"I have decided," when asked what he’s going to do about Iran deal.

However he refused to say what the decision is, responding"I"ll let you know."

NEW: Pres. Trump says he has decided what to do about the Iran nuclear deal, declines to say what his decision is: https://t.co/xFVbAoTX4x pic.twitter.com/L6He9EyUPi

— ABC News (@ABC) September 20, 2017

But judging by his harsh comments yesterday...

The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy. It has turned a wealthy country, with a rich history and culture, into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violent, bloodshed and chaos. The longest suffering victims of Iran"s leaders are, in fact, its own people. Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian live, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.

This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran"s people, also goes to shore up bashar Al Assad"s dictatorship, fuel Yemen"s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East. We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.

The Iran deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into. Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don"t think you"ve heard the last of it. Believe me.

It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran"s government end its pursuit of death and destruction. It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained. Above all, Iran"s government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors. The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran"s people are what their leaders fear the most. This is what causes the regime to restrict internet access, tear down satellite dishes, shoot unarmed student protesters, and imprison political reformers.

It would seem hard for him not to back away from Obama"s deal.

Shortly after Trump"s threats, Iran"s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said on Twitter that the accord “is not (re)negotiable. A "better" deal is pure fantasy.”

But perhaps most notable, this "decision" comes hours after Russia branded U.S. President Donald Trump’s hostility toward the Iranian nuclear agreement as “very worrying,” vowing to do everything it can to protect the pact.

“We will defend this document, this consensus, which was met with relief by the entire international community and strengthened both regional and international security,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters in New York Tuesday after meeting U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

This, if Trump decides to abandon the deal, yet another cold-war front with Russia will be opened, and which would further escalate the already tense geopolitical situation in the middle-east.

The Fate Of Saudi's Vision 2030 Rests On Aramco IPO

Authored by Zainab Calcuttawala via OilPrice.com,

It has been two months since Prince Mohammed Bin Salman’s ascendance to the role of heir to the Saudi Arabian throne, and the preliminary effects of his aggressive economic diversification and anti-Iran platforms are beginning to show.

The influence of Bin Salman (widely known as MBS) on foreign policy can most readily be seen in Iraq, where Iranian support for the war against the Islamic State has carved out a special niche for Tehran. While Riyadh had been preoccupied with battling Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian government strengthened their commitment to a unified Iraq, free from ISIS and free from the threat of an independent Kurdistan.

But now the tides are changing. Emirati and Saudi politicians are making their rounds in Baghdad, rekindling old Gulf ties that have suffered since dictator Saddam Hussain invaded Kuwait in the 90s. Riyadh announced the inauguration of a new embassy in Najaf and sponsored Iraqi Sadrist leader Muqtada al-Sadr’s visits to the Arabian Peninsula, leading Iranian news sites to condemn the tours as a betrayal to the Yemeni people.

Sadr, who leads a Shiite movement that receives a majority of its support from the lowest rungs of Iraq’s socioeconomic ladder, also recently visited Egypt - a country allied with the KSA in its ongoing row against Qatar. Doha has been ostracized by its Gulf allies due to its close ties to Tehran in light of the gargantuan South Pars gas field, which it shares with Iran thanks to an unfortunate coincidence of geography. 

But at home, it’s all about money, and all about oil revenues.

Domestically, revenues from non-oil services and goods dropped in the second quarter of 2017, but the policy trend overall favors its growth.

Oil revenues for Riyadh grew in the same period due to a new wave of crude production in the KSA. The monarchist regime turns measuredly more protectionist as U.S. shale production and exports continue to rise.

“Non-oil revenues are somewhat lower year-on-year in the first half of 2017 but should increase materially starting from 2018 onwards as fiscal reforms kick in,” said economist Jean-Michel Saliba in a Merrill Lynch note.

Non-oil revenue for the KSA is due to jump by $21.3 billion by 2018 because of the enforcement of a value-added tax (VAT) on luxury products and new fees on immigrant laborers who have brought their family members along from their home countries. Already, a lower tax on soft drinks and tobacco products has caused Riyadh’s revenues to lurk upwards in hot summer months.

By 2020, Bin Salman expects non-oil revenues to rise by $100 billion - a sizeable jump, considering Riyadh forecasted a total of $128 billion in oil profits for the government over the course of 2017.

MBS’ Vision 2030 plans depend on an extra couple hundred billion dollars from the Saudi Aramco initial public offering (IPO) in 2018. The IPO, the largest of its kind in financial history, would make just a five percent portion of the oil giant accessible to private investors. Still, the volume of the company’s assets guarantee MBS the capital he needs to retrain the Saudi work force, develop a services sector and tone down the influence of the fossil fuel interests.

Oil prices have fluctuated in recent months and MBS has so far not been able to leverage his political savvy to use OPEC to stabilize world oil markets. This is not to say that fixing barrel rates is his responsibility per se, but the future monarch does pretty much dominate the cartel, which controls 40 percent of the world’s total oil production.

Overall, the crown prince’s control of the Saudi image in the Middle East has become clear over the past 60 days of his official title change.

The KSA also seems to be on track to meet its non-oil revenues benchmark for 2020, meaning MBS has a lot to be proud of already. But the future of his hallmark Vision 2030 plan rests in the success of the Aramco IPO. The final determinant of its success depends on market conditions the moment the company goes public.

So far, Brent rates hovering around $50 do Riyadh no good.

Iran May Start Giving Drugs To Addicts In Effort To End Illegal Drug Trafficking

Authored by Carey Wedler via TheAntiMedia.org,

The Trump administration continues to demonize Iran, advocating regime change even as the U.S. acknowledges that the country is complying with the nuclear deal.

Defying Western perceptions, however, the Middle Eastern nation recently announced its plans to move toward decriminalizing drugs in order to combat addiction and weaken the power of drug traffickers. If the plan receives final approval, the country will join a handful of other nations that have opted to help addicts rather than punish them.

The Independent reports that “[b]y allowing the government to give out diluted drugs to addicts, the proposal aims to cut the relationship between drug addicts and drug traffickers.”

The plan would allow the government to distribute methadone to addicts in place of heroin, cannabis, and other commonly used drugs in Iran. It would also allow the government to provide addicts with diluted forms of these commonly used drugs to help wean them off the substances.

Hassan Norouzi, a spokesperson for the Parliament’s Judicial and Legal Commission, said that in order to undermine the relationship between addicts and traffickers, “we decided that the government hand out diluted drugs to addicts, so that they will be able to give up their addiction gradually and, instead of being drawn to drug-traffickers, turn to the Establishment and meet their needs through official channels,” Iranian government-approved outlet IFPNews reported.

“These drugs include methadone and substances more diluted than previous ones, and the authority to decide on that rests with bylaws which are to be jointly drawn up by the Ministry of Justice and [Iran’s] Drug Enforcement HQ, and which could come into effect after getting the all clear from the Cabinet,” Norouzi said.

Norouzi noted that “The plan to distribute [low-grade] drugs is similar to what used to be implemented before the [1979 Iran’s Islamic] Revolution.”

IFP reports that Norouzi said “all relevant authorities have given the go-ahead to the proposal,” though it has not been finalized.

The Independent reported that “The judicial committee has also proposed a draft law halting the death penalty for carrying and distributing less than 100kg of traditional drugs such as opium or less than two kilograms of synthetic drugs.”

Iran has employed militarized anti-narcotic measures against traffickers in the past, even while showing some sympathy to addicts. Human Rights Watch previously reported that authorities often obtained forced confessions for traffickinf and also imposed the death penalty on indivuals possessing large quantities of drugs.

The latest measures come in response to skyrocketing rates of addiction in Iran in recent years, particularly in regard to opium. According to Iran’s Drug Control Organization, there are roughly 2.8 million people in the country consistently using drugs.

Despite Western perceptions that Iran is country doomed to the dark ages, some of its relatively progressive stances on drug addiction prove otherwise. In 2015, Maziyar Ghiabi, an Iranian-Italian Ph.D. candidate at Oxford University discussed rumors that the Iranian government would legalize cannabis and opium.

“This is an actual possibility but not in the short term,” Ghiabi, who focuses on drug policy and use in Iran, told Salon two years ago.

“One institution is really discussing measures to regulate the drug market. By regulation of the drug market, we can mean many different things. One of the ideas is to allow certain substances, in this case cannabis and opium, to be used under specific circumstances. It hasn’t been clearly stated what these circumstances are. What is interesting to me is that the discussion is open. It is a very interesting fact that in the Islamic Republic such discussions are taking place.”

Though Iran is far from completely ending its war on drugs — and its government is indisputably repressive in a variety of ways — its openness to a more lenient policy mirrors some Western nations like Portugal, which decriminalized all drugs in 2001, and parts of Canada, where injection centers have been established to allow addicts to consume drugs like heroin in safe environments. The Iranian government already has some 8,000 rehab clinics that offer methadone treatment for opium addicts  (however, it has been reported that addicts are tennis forcibly admitted to these clinics and arrests still occur).

Norouzi said the Judicial and Legal Commission will continue work to finalize the latest policy change.

Why Does The US Target Functioning Democracies For Regime Change?

Authored by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently admitted that America’s official foreign policy includes a regime-change operation in Iran. The CIA has created an office for this sole purpose, tasking Michael D’Andrea — also known as the Dark Prince or Ayatollah Mike — with leading this operation.

Iran just had an election in May, and voter turnout was as high as 70 percent. Even prisoners were allowed to vote, something so-called moderate democratic countries like New Zealand disallow.

In contrast, voter turnout in the 2016 U.S. elections was around 58 percent, and support for Donald Trump’s impeachment is now higher than support for his presidency.

Though Iran is hardly democratic by Western standards given the stringent requirements for becoming a political candidate in the first place, it is still vastly more democratic than most of America’s closest allies in the region. According to a U.S. State Department document:

“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by the Al Saud family…The following significant human rights problems were reported: no right to change the government peacefully; torture and physical abuse; poor prison and detention center conditions; arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention; denial of fair and public trials and lack of due process in the judicial system; political prisoners; restrictions on civil liberties such as freedoms of speech (including the Internet), assembly, association, movement, and severe restrictions on religious freedom; and corruption and lack of government transparency. Violence against women and a lack of equal rights for women, violations of the rights of children, trafficking in persons, and discrimination on the basis of gender, religion, sect, and ethnicity were common. The lack of workers’ rights, including the employment sponsorship system, remained a severe problem.” [emphasis added]

Despite this grim reality, Saudi Arabia remains a close U.S. ally while Iran is being targeted for regime change even though the Iranian people just elected a popular reformist government on their own — without American interference.

In 1953, the Iranian people democratically elected Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh immediately posed a threat to the U.S. and British economic interests in the region, and the CIA worked with the British to topple him and replace him with a brutal dictator, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. According to the Guardian:

“Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.” [emphasis added]

The idea that America’s interests and priorities have changed over half a century later is clearly untenable considering the current American president has openly suggested that America should seize Iraq’s oil as “reimbursement.”

In 2011, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — together with Britain’s David Cameron and France’s Nicolas Sarkozy — told us the world needed to bomb Libya to save the country from a massacre. Never mind that under Gaddafi, the people of Libya had state-sponsored healthcare, education, subsidized housing and transport and enjoyed the highest standard of living in the entire region. Never mind that Sarkozy was being investigated for accepting  50 million euros from Gaddafi himself for his 2007 presidential campaign.

Never mind that Libya actually had a fully functioning democratic system that allowed for decision-making at the local level. As Counterpunch has explained:

“Far from control being in the hands of one man, Libya was highly decentralized and divided into several small communities that were essentially ‘mini-autonomous States’ within a State. These autonomous States had control over their districts and could make a range of decisions including how to allocate oil revenue and budgetary funds. Within these mini autonomous States, the three main bodies of Libya’s democracy were Local Committees, Basic People’s Congresses and Executive Revolutionary Councils.”

This system was no secret to the mainstream media, as further explained by Counterpunch:

“In 2009, Mr. Gaddafi invited the New York Times to Libya to spend two weeks observing the nation’s direct democracy. The New York Times, [which] has traditionally been highly critical of Colonel Gaddafi’s democratic experiment, conceded that in Libya, the intention was that ‘everyone is involved in every decision…Tens of thousands of people take part in local committee meetings to discuss issues and vote on everything from foreign treaties to building schools.’”

Was Gaddafi a brutal leader who tortured and oppressed his own people? Most probably.

Is the Iranian government a brutal theocratic regime that also oppresses its own people? Almost certainly.

However, America’s concerns with these countries are not rooted in goals of promoting “freedom” or “democracy.” These countries already had democratic institutions that worked more or less effectively.

As the Times notes, Libya’s health care system was “once the envy of the region.” Now, Libya isn’t the envy of anything. Thousands of people are dying trying to flee the country.

Iran already had democracy before the U.S. overthrew it in favor of a monarch in 1953. Now, the U.S is attempting the same strategy with full knowledge that ISIS-inspired Sunni movements are the types of elements currently exerting pressure on the Iranian government.

There is a reason why “spreading democracy” is no longer an official explanation for America’s military adventures in the Middle East: that claim is a complete (and unbelievable) lie.

It’s time to call this strategy out for what it is – an unnecessary, baseless, undemocratic, rights-abusing neoconservative agenda that will see the region explode as countless more lives are lost in the near future.

Iran poses no tangible threat to the United States — and neither did Libya in 2011. Overthrowing the Iranian government will not lead to stability or security and has no legal basis in the first place, something the mainstream media and the international community rarely discuss.

All of this poses the question: why is the U.S. targeting functioning democracies for regime change and siding with dictatorships across the globe?

Do democracies pose a threat to the United States? The United States seems to think so.

In this context, it may not be a surprise to learn that a study from Princeton and Northwestern University contended that the U.S. is not a democracy, but rather, an oligarchy that serves the interests of the rich and powerful while ignoring the majority of its people.

From America Worst To America First In One Presidency

Authored by James Freeman, op-ed via The Wall Street Journal,

The Unapologetic American - Donald Trump brings a new message to the Middle East.

President Donald Trump’s Sunday address in Saudi Arabia was bound to inspire comparisons to the speech Barack Obama delivered in Cairo, Egypt at a similar point in his young presidency. And just like his predecessor, Mr. Trump expressed gratitude and respect for his hosts. But the 45th U.S. President quickly made clear that he did not fly to the Middle East on his first overseas trip in order to explain what’s wrong with America.

It would be a crude overstatement to say that the message has gone from America worst to America first in one presidency. Mr. Obama did speak favorably of his country several times during his Cairo address. But the difference between Barack Obama’s speech in 2009 and the Trump remarks on Sunday in Riyadh is striking.

In 2009, Mr. Obama started out by making the case why Muslims should view his country with distrust:

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Later, Mr. Obama faulted the United States for overreacting to 9/11 and noted that he had ordered the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay by early 2010—a promise he would not fulfill. Mr. Obama also sought to make sure that the U.S. received an ample share of the blame for its poor relations with one of the world’s primary sponsors of terrorism:

For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward.

Even on issues of women’s rights, Mr. Obama didn’t want to give the U.S. much credit in comparison to the Muslim world. The latter is a world where women sometimes struggle just for the freedom to read books or drive automobiles. But Mr. Obama said that “the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.”

In Riyadh on Sunday, President Trump spent no time blaming America or making excuses for our adversaries. But he did note the possibilities available to a Middle East that rejects terror:

The potential of this region has never been greater. 65 percent of its population is under the age of 30. Like all young men and women, they seek great futures to build, great national projects to join, and a place for their families to call home.

But this untapped potential, this tremendous cause for optimism, is held at bay by bloodshed and terror. There can be no coexistence with this violence.

There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.

Mr. Trump added that “no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete” without mentioning the government that gives terrorists “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran.” And he left no ambiguity about who was responsible:

The Iranian regime’s longest-suffering victims are its own people. Iran has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured hardship and despair under their leaders’ reckless pursuit of conflict and terror. Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.

By the way, this column should note that perhaps the most striking comment when one looks back at Mr. Obama’s 2009 remarks has little to do with U.S. foreign policy, but underlines how far and how quickly the Democratic Party has moved on issues of sexual identity. Toward the end of his speech, Mr. Obama said,

“The Holy Koran tells us: ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”

Referencing that line today in the era of transgender politics would have progressives back in the U.S. shrieking for a safe space.

As for the safety of the entire civilized world in its fight against Islamic terror, this column expects that many overseas listeners will find reassurance in a message from America without apologies.

Amazon Discloses Iranian Transactions That May Have Violated US Sanctions, Warns It May Be "Penalized"

In a 10-K filed on Friday afternoon, Amazon disclosed that certain transactions and business ties with Iran may have violated U.S. sanctions, warning that it may be penalized after a regulatory review of the activities.

In the "Other Contingencies" section of its 10-K, Jeff Bezos" company had determined that, between January 2012 and December 2016 it had "processed and delivered orders of consumer products for certain individuals and entities located outside Iran covered by the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act or other United States sanctions and export control laws. The consumer products included books, music, other media, apparel, home and kitchen, health and beauty, jewelry, office, consumer electronics, software, lawn and patio, grocery, and automotive products."

The world"s biggest online retailer also said that it has "voluntarily reported these orders to the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control and the United States Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security." and said it will cooperate with a review by the agencies, "which may result in the imposition of penalties."

As Bloomberg, which first spotted the violation, explains, the violations are the result of then-President Barack Obama"s signature of the ITRA in 2012, meant to strengthen trade restrictions on Iran and try to persuade the country to stop its nuclear activities. This law imposes civil penalties and takes other action against foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies engaging in transactions with Iran. In January 2016, the U.S. lifted many of the economic sanctions tied to the nuclear program.

Amazon further clarified the violations which consisted of consumer products sold to individuals and unspecified groups controlled or owned by the Iranian government, among which "consumer products valued at approximately $50 for an Iranian embassy located in a country other than Iran; consumer products valued at approximately $1,300 for an individual designated under Executive Order 13224; consumer products valued at approximately $2,400 for an entity owned or controlled by the Iranian government; and consumer products valued at approximately $250 for an individual who may have been acting for an entity designated under Executive Order 13382 and owned or controlled by the Iranian government. The consumer products included books, other media, apparel, home and kitchen, jewelry, office, toys, consumer electronics, software, health and beauty, pet products, and lawn and patio."

The company also said that is was "unable accurately to calculate the net profit attributable to these transactions" and said it does "not plan to continue selling to these accounts in the future."

The statement concludes with Amazon"s declaration that its "review is ongoing and we are enhancing our processes designed to identify transactions associated with individuals and entities covered by the ITRA."

Why come clean now, and disclose violations that took place as far back as 2012?

Perhaps because Amazon, along with many other tech companies, was a key catalyst behind the recent successful lawsuit against the Trump administration"s immigration executive order. While it is unknown if AG Sessions (or Trump himself) will retaliate against said companies, Jeff Bezos, who has a long "history" with Trump, decided not to take the chance.

The Bigger Picture of Trump’s Muslim Ban

Whether you love or hate Trump’s “Muslim ban” (it’s actually a temporary 3-month ban, except for Syrians), there’s a bigger picture …

CNN notes:

The seven Muslim-majority countries targeted in President Trump’s executive order on immigration were initially identified as “countries of concern” under the Obama administration.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer on Sunday pointed to the Obama administration’s actions as the basis for their selection of the seven countries. Trump’s order bars citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen from entering the U.S. for the next 90 days.

“There were further travel restrictions already in place from those seven countries,” Spicer said on ABC’s “This Week.”

6 out of the 7 countries on the list – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria – were targeted for regime change by the U.S. 25 years ago. Specifically,   (Indeed, the U.S. previously carried out coups to implement regime change in these countries numerous times in the past.)

The 7th country – Lebanon – dodged a bullet, and Yemen replaced it.

But the world’s leading sponsors of terror are not on the list …

CNN notes:

In the hours after its release, many questioned why the list omitted other countries with direct links to those terror attacks. The 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon.

In fact, British intelligence officer, British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee Craig Murray points out (based on numbers from the Cato Institute) that the dangerous countries are not on the list … while those who haven’t attacked Americans in the United States are on the list:

Saudi Arabia – which is not on the list – is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists. The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups. And the most pro-ISIS tweets allegedly come from Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis). And top American terrorism experts say that U.S. support for brutal and tyrannical countries in the Middle east – like Saudi Arabia – is one of the top motivators for Arab terrorists.

So whether you love or hate the idea of banning radical Islamic jihadis from the U.S. , the fact is that Trump – using a list compiled by Obama (in turn largely compiled by Neoconservatives pushing regime change 25 years ago) – is banning people from the wrong countries.

Postscript: Admittedly, there are ISIS jihadis in Syria, Libya and Iraq. But they are only there because the U.S. and our allies created the conditions that allowed them to form and then metastasize. Neither ISIS nor Al Qaeda were in those countries before the Iraq and Libyan wars and the U.S. and its allies started supporting Syrian “rebels“.

In all 3 countries, the governments hate the jihadis because the jihadis are fighting – and trying to bring down – the governments.  This is the opposite of governments like Saudi Arabia which actively back terrorists.

As for Iran, the CIA admits that the U.S. overthrew the moderate, suit-and-tie-wearing, Democratically-elected prime minister of Iran in 1953. He was overthrown because he had nationalized Iran’s oil, which had previously been controlled by BP and other Western oil companies. As part of that action, the CIA admits that it hired Iranians to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its prime minister. If the U.S. hadn’t overthrown the moderate Iranian government, the fundamentalist Mullahs would have never taken over.

And we"re busy creating a lot of new terrorists in Yemen.

Israeli Police Enter Netanyahu's Home For Questioning Over Corruption Allegations

As the Obama administration shunned Israel last week, we warned that police were calling on Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit to allow them to open a full criminal investigation against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Today, as Channel 2 reports, Israeli police entered Bibi"s home for questioning. The prime minister was quick to react, blasting "don"t celebrate too soon over corruption probe."

As we detailed last week, on Monday, December 26th, Israeli police announced that they are absolutely convinced that a criminal investigation will be opened in the next few days due to new documents that were recently received in a special inquiry that began about 9 months ago.

The offenses that Netanyahu allegedly will face will be bribery and aggravated-fraud. In June it was reported that police had recently started their secret investigation, with demand that no details be leaked to the media.

Attorney General Mandelblit also allegedly instructed employees in the state prosecutor’s office to investigate allegations that Netanyahu accepted 1 million euros (about $1.1 million) from accused French fraudster Arnaud Mimran in 2009.

Earlier in December, in an apparently unrelated case, there were calls for the Netanyahu to be investigated for his role in a Defense Ministry deal to purchase submarines from a German company that is partly owned by the Iranian government.

The affair overtook public debate in Israel last month, as accusations came about that the Israeli prime minister may have been financially swayed in the decision by his personal counsel David Shimron, who himself had ties with the submarines’ builder, ThyssenKrupp. The purchase was opposed by sectors of the defense establishment, including former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon.

A spokesman for Netanyahu defended the Prime Minister by telling The Times of Israel, “This is absolutely false. There was nothing and there will be nothing.”

And today, as The Telegraph reports...

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, is being questioned by detectives on suspicion of illegally accepting valuable gifts from prominent businessmen in a scandal that is roiling Israeli politics.

Police officers came to the prime minister’s official residence in Jerusalem on Monday evening to question him about claims that he took designer suits and overseas trips his son from at least two businessmen.

Mr Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged but the criminal investigation into him is one of several probes swirling around him and his family. His wife, Sara, was questioned by police in a different case just weeks ago.

Police probes against politicians are common in Israel and Mr Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, is in prison for corruption. Ariel Sharon was questioned by police over accusations he accepted bribes but the case was dropped and he was never charged.

On Monday he had another defiant message for the opposition, saying:

"There will be nothing because there is nothing. You will continue to inflate hot air balloons and we will continue to lead the state of Israel."

The 67-year-old politician, who is on course to become Israel’s longest-serving leader, has avoided prosecution at least twice so far in a long career.

As we concluded last week, what is most interesting about this news is the possible correlation with the U.S. decision to abstain from the vote in the United Nations that aims to stop Israeli construction on occupied Palestinian territory. While it only makes logical and legal sense for such construction to be halted, the U.S. decision not to support Israel is a public slap in the face and one that comes at a time where it also makes sense to ask a logical question: Does the U.S. know something about Netanyahu’s investigation and possible crimes and are they now seeking to publicly separate themselves from the controversial Israeli Prime Minister?