THE-IRAN FIRST-BLOG

The Plan to tame China involves three regime changes (including Iran) and total control of global energy!

I’ve just spent a week in Shanghai on business. The pace of change in China is unprecedented. They are leaving not just the United States but the whole world behind as they steam ahead aggressively.

Not everything is rosy. The cranes that once adorned the Shanghai sky have diminished. But inside the factories, China is moving forward very fast. You can’t quite see it in numbers reported by the press, but the pace of Chinese innovation is much faster than anyone can imagine.

On the streets, electric cars are everywhere. And as you drive around town, the sheer size of new auto companies and their suppliers is mind-boggling.  And everything inside these cars is more advanced than any Western counterpart. Not even TESLA comes close. To boot, China has ‘several TESLAs’ – with one company, BYD, outselling TESLA globally.  

You pay for everything with your cell phone. Alipay, WeChat, … no cash is exchanged.   

Inside factories, there are plenty of robots. There are ‘dark’ factories with almost no humans present – humming 24 hours a day. So much for the ‘Workers communist party’! The workers are now machines and robots.

China, along with India, is producing 5x as many scientists and engineers as the US. And more PhD graduates than in the US, each. In other words, an order of magnitude more STEM graduates than in the United States.   

While there are, undoubtedly, slight drops in specific sectors of their economy, the fundamentals remain strong. China has the lowest energy costs among advanced economies. Inflation is under control. Unemployment is under control. Despite tariffs, they appear to be expanding their export base in many emerging markets. As you walk around factories and ask, ‘Who is this for?’ Who is that for? You hear – ‘a customer in India, or Turkey, or some African state’ … It almost doesn’t matter that Americans are not buying. They’ve diversified nicely – thank you.   

Tourism is expanding. China now has visa-free travel. Airports are super modern and clean. China’s service sector overall is strong. They have made, or are in the process of making, the transition to a fully advanced economy.

Comparisons to American cities are daft. There can be no comparison. I wish I could share pictures and examples of architecture here; everything from expo centers to public transport hubs is beyond anything you might see in America or Europe. Bullet trains. Chinese-made passenger planes.  

Meanwhile, the United States has scored a series of ‘bad’ own goals in Ukraine, Iran, or Venezuela – and voted in a clown into the Whitehouse.

Far from undermining Russia, it has created conditions forcing Russia to pivot eastward to supply cheap energy to a growing China rather than our European allies. It’s as if we have a preference towards China!

You can say the same thing about Iran and Venezuela. By sanctioning both, they had no choice but to find other customers and had to offer cheap (below-market) energy to a hungry, growing China.

And yes, China has taken full advantage of the situation, knowing the Russians, Iranians, and Venezuelans had no choice but to accept their terms and pricing. In effect, our sanctions have enabled substantial growth in China, fueled by the cheap energy we’ve precipitated via sanctions!!

 The primary beneficiary of sanctions on Iran, Russia, and Venezuela is China. In other words, by imposing sanctions, we have inadvertently aided and accelerated China’s rise.

Five years ago, China’s economy was on the brink. Real estate companies had collapsed. COVID had ravaged its economy. Chinese companies were competing with the West in global markets, buying virtually every commodity at inflated prices. Today, it finds itself in the driver’s seat – as the sole buyer for sanctioned nations – and fully able to handle anything thrown at it by Trump or anyone else.

Contrary to how this is painted in the West, this is not a temporary phenomenon. This is, in fact, a strategic consequence of careful planning by China, for a sustained ‘march’ to global economic dominance.

Although its economy still relies primarily on fossil fuels for energy, China is quietly diversifying away from them. It is making humongous investments in advanced renewable energy, with, for example, the world’s largest hydroelectric dam project recently kicked off in Tibet, and solar/wind energy installations in Outer Mongolia paired with energy storage systems (flow batteries and green hydrogen installations). China is installing more renewable energy systems than the rest of the world combined. They are also leading technological innovation in the field. For example, I saw production lines for next-generation solar panels – with much higher energy conversion than conventional systems available in the West.  The fossil fuel it does buy, it pays for in its own currency. So does, India. So much for the ‘Petro-dollar’. The world’s largest buyers of the world’s most important commodity – oil (and gas) are now NOT trading in US Dollars.

The reality is that, over time, this will mean a complete realignment of the global order, leading to a severe reduction in US economic and, consequently, political power. Europe and the US may have already lost the battle. It might be too late.

But the Trump administration apparently has a plan to reset this dynamic. New tariffs on the trade area are a big part of the ‘game,’ but they are obviously insufficient. Sanctioning major Chinese companies is another part of the ‘game’, but again, it is obviously inadequate (they’ve found other customers). At best, these maneuvers are band aids – or delaying tactics – slowing down the ‘inevitable’.

The US administration clearly knows this. And they are planning something far more effective and sinister in this game. If you look carefully and read between the tea leaves, it’s clear what the Trump administration is up to. And it seems the Europeans, too, have bought into the plan. In one sentence, there is a plan to ‘corner’ the world’s energy supply regions to force China to ‘play to America’s tune’. There is a plan to reassert American dominance. A plan to contain and confine China’s rise and force it to accept the terms the US needs to maintain its dominance.

The plan is really very simple.

Over the next three years, the US will catalyze regime change in Venezuela, Iran, and eventually Russia. In other words, take complete control of China’s energy supply. The US recognizes that, despite China’s substantial investments in renewable energy, it will remain heavily reliant on energy imports to sustain its economy and growth.

First, the US will force regime change in Venezuela – now. It’s imminent. The Nobel Prize committee knew exactly what they were doing when they snubbed Trump by awarding an opposition leader in Venezuela the prize. They were fully aware of Trump’s plan. They could not grant a Peace Prize to a President who is about to make war and invade Venezuela (if its attempts at destabilizing the regime fail by sinking fishing boats off Venezuela’s coast). The writing is on the wall. There were reports this week in the press of Trump’s approval of a CIA-led coup in Venezuela. Trump just announced the deployment of an aircraft carrier to Venezuela’s coast. Maduro will be gone. American oil companies will be back.

Then, sometime in the spring, there will be a full onslaught on the regime in Tehran. Israel has already been planting seeds for regime change in Iran and is fully invested in this process. In my view, the change is likely to expand beyond Iran to a transformation of the entire region. A new Kurdish state will be created in Northern Iraq and Syria (and possibly elsewhere). The idea is for Israel to have a ‘non-Arab’ pathway east – which will continue into Iran, and then Central Asia. The plan appears to be a little more ambitious. The idea is to create an entirely new, independent economic ‘sphere’ in Central Asia that can be nurtured into a fast-growing market for Western goods and services (and not dependent on Chinese or Russian goods or influence). I would imagine there will be subsequent regime change in places like Turkmenistan, etc.

Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine will still be raging, and Russia will be systematically bled to death – until, just like 30 years ago, Russia completely collapses. It appears that Russia has been unwilling to make peace or to ‘pivot’ to the Anglosphere. Putin continues to ‘humor’ Trump and sees him as a buffoon (that he is). Putin is too proud to bow to Western dominance. And more than anything else, wants to reassert Russia’s stature in Europe. For now, the policy is for the West to defeat Russia on its own terms eventually.

This is the plan. The West will take control of the top three fossil fuel reserves in the world (after the United States) – Russia, Iran, and Venezuela – and then use its energy access to force China to bow to its terms.

But can Trump pull it off? Very simply – no, and here’s why:

• Sequential Risk: In risk management, there is a concept called sequential risk. It goes something like this: if at each stage there is, say, a 90% chance of a positive outcome, a three-stage process will have a (0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9) % probability of success, i.e., approximately 70%. So, without even exploring whether this three-leg plan can succeed, just the simple fact that it’s a three-stage game reduces the odds of success dramatically.  And then there is a simple observation: in each case, the probability of success might be less than 90%. Do Russia, or indeed China, or Maduro, or the Mullahs understand what is going on? Absolutely! Will they make it easy? Is this a slam dunk for Trump? They are not stupid at all, and I am sure they have countermeasures in place to counteract this. Toppling three regimes sequentially is not a simple, done deal with a probability of over 90%.  

• Indirect Actions: While Trump moves on Venezuela this winter, we have already seen China ban rare earth exports to the US, and Russia continue to grab more land in Ukraine. Instead of making all this super easy for America, maybe they will ‘bog’ America down in Venezuela and stop it from moving to stage 2 of their plan?  Our allies in Europe are wilting under the heavy weight of uber-high energy costs (without access to cheap Russian energy), and Israel has just gone on a rampage in Gaza and witnessed a rain of missiles into its cities and strategic centers. France is bankrupt. How long will our alliances hold while energy costs and inflation skyrocket? Might there be massive social unrest in the West? These ‘characters and their allies (among the BRICS) can make things very uncomfortable – indirectly – while Trump moves on Venezuela. They can expand the fight.

• Direct Domestic Upheaval: Much of Trump’s planning is predicated on an explosive growth of data centers and the rise of AI (Artificial Intelligence). In his mind, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to choke China. While the US economy expands in an area where China cannot undermine American growth, the US can wage war. But this could be a false premise. AI might turn out to be an economic bubble that bursts, leading to a financial collapse.  The strangest part of this ‘assumption’ is that data centers need massive amounts of energy to function. China has by far the cheapest energy among developed economies—not the US—and also has the capacity to enter the AI game just as easily as the US does. It’s simply not clear that the US has a strategic advantage with AI. The way China operates, it could build data centers more quickly and cost-effectively and manage them more efficiently than the US or Western Europe. Ultimately, data processing can and will be done wherever it’s most cost-effective. The US cannot corner this service.

Another consideration of this AI boom is that it will lead to mass unemployment. In the final analysis, the value added by AI lies in reducing labor costs across many operations. As you move to self-driving autonomous vehicles, you will need fewer drivers! Far from bringing economic prosperity, this ‘boom’ could turn into a ‘bust’ if it leads to massive social changes and upheaval.

In this highly interconnected world, China can very carefully calibrate its actions to cause maximum domestic upheaval in the US. A good example of this is its recent complete stoppage of Soybean purchases from the US, forcing American farmers into Bankruptcy. The domestic ‘war’ could be larger than the ‘proxy wars’ against China. Trump is fully aware of this, and the recent effort to expand ICE and involve the national guard in major cities is clearly a signal to potential ‘disruptors’ of how severe the consequences will be if ‘federal’ forces are engaged.

• Wars are not cheap. If any of these actions lead to kinetic exchanges involving U.S. forces, the bill will be in the trillions. And the US doesn’t have the means to spend that kind of money. There is a serious risk that, in one of these three regime-change ‘battles,’ an escalation will occur that no one has predicted. Did Israel imagine, for example, that Iran would hit back and hit hard in the 12-day war? Will Maduro, the Mullahs, or Putin be pushovers? I can totally appreciate that the populations of Venezuela, Iran, and Russia are sick of their authoritarian governments. I support regime change in these three countries for the sake of their populations. But if these regimes have sustained themselves in power for decades, perhaps they know a thing or two about ruthlessness and fighting opposition? I would not rate the chances of regime change success in each theater at 90% or better. In my view, the overall chance of success with this project is less than 50%. We’ve tried regime change in Venezuela in the past and failed.

• China does not stand alone. China is now a key market for many significant economies, including its BRICS partners, Brazil and India. Will they sit back and allow one of their major partners to be undermined in favor of the West? Everyone forgets the West’s colonial history and how, in many places around the world, there is little support for Western regime change actions – and interference. Other nations may already have joined China’s pushback. And this ‘global’ push back will not be inconsequential for the United States.

I could go on with this analysis, but I think it’s safe to say Trump’s plan is perilous. It may not, in fact, provide the desired outcomes and may have the net effect of undermining the West itself. And if the West loses, it will be a loss not only for America and Europe, but also a considerable setback for democracy and freedom around the world. The net outcome of such a loss would be a substantial rise in authoritarianism and the reinforcement of Maduro, Mullahs, Putin, and China’s communist party (and its dark command and control system).

The point I am making is that the West needs to play to win and avoid risk as much as possible. Is this the best plan it can come up with? Is Trump the man to make it happen? Have the folks at Langley thought this one through? Will this turn into another Iraq debacle? Another genocide? Another Ukraine bloodbath with 7 million refugees peppered across Europe? Has the US really won any serious war it has fought in the past 50 years? Can the Pentagon execute?

There is a view that is best articulated by saying that a partial win is worth it. i.e., if one of these three nations undergoes regime change, then the whole project will be worthwhile. The huge absorption of one of these massive energy reserves alone could be game-changing in itself! Yes, maybe. Maybe not. It will all depend on how much we spend to make it happen. The costs may outweigh the risks. So far, there has been NO payback for our adventures in Iraq or Afghanistan. We gained nothing.

I’m not pouring cold water on Trump’s plan; I am simply pointing out some risks. I have little faith that the analysts at Langley have done their job. The blowback from Ukraine has been horrible – another great idea that came out of Langley. Again, the war in Ukraine has strengthened – not weakened – Russia and China. This notion that a sustained war will eventually undermine Russia and China comes from the same mouths that got us into the war to begin with. Thankfully, they’ve fired Victoria Nuland (who was an architect of the war in Iraq and the Ukraine War). How much credibility do these people sitting in their comfortable offices and homes in Virginia really have? When was the last time they saw (physically witnessed) the massive carnage and human dislocation they’ve engineered? PowerPoint slides don’t win wars.  Langley has consistently underestimated America’s opponents. What is America’s plan B?

If the mullahs didn’t exist, they would create them! People don’t understand there is no fundamental interest in toppling the regime – that does so much for them.

Notice how when they bombed Iran, they went after the IRGC forces that were primarily a threat to Israel, and nuclear scientists. They never hit the mullahs or the Basij force leadership. This is a very consistent pattern by Israel and the West.

Why?

1. The mullahs provide a pretext for ongoing war and military spending. Israel’s economy (much like the US) is entirely dependent on military spending. It’s officially 10% of the GDP (among the highest in the world). Approximately 50% of the population serves in the military, either directly or indirectly. The whole country is programmed for endless war. Israel needs enemies to sustain its economy. And there is no enemy better than the mullahs. They meet every criterion of a good enemy: credible, challenging, inspiring, and provide many opportunities for technological development, due to their distance and complexity.
2. The fact that it has now been positioned as an enemy of the West and Arab states is helpful too. The Israelis can point to Iran as a common enemy, and, for example, find a basis to make peace with Saudi Arabia (for example). The ‘enemy of my enemy is my friend’. Using Iran as a pariah allows Israeli lobbyists to raise tremendous amounts of money. There is a whole anti-Iran industry in America. They even ping Iranians for cash to keep the game going.
3. The mullahs provide a pretext for Israel to be supported by the US as a regional policeman – a representative of America in a dangerous neighborhood. Without Iran, many in America would seriously question the need to support Israel. Everyone else in the region is an Ally – so why do we need to arm Israel?
4. The mullahs provide an excellent pretext for Netanyahu’s internal political dynamics, too. There are literally hundreds of thousands of Israelis from Iran. Being aggressive toward Iran provides valuable votes. It’s a useful enemy.

I will never forget Senator Alfonse D’Amato of New York, in a congressional hearing, chewing out some poor State Department staffer for communicating with Iran on public television in the ‘80s, while his same gang (Reagan’s team) was secretly selling arms to Iran and bringing cocaine into America. D’Amato raised a lot of money from Iranian Jews on Long Island and at least publicly appeared to be a huge enemy of the new Iranian regime. They’ve been blowing smoke up Iranian a**** for 40 years – Al D’Amato style.

The most ironic thing is they sold nukes to Iran – Germany built the nuclear power plant, France had a multi-billion-dollar joint venture with Iran to enrich Uranium – and now… yes now… Iran is in contravention of the IAEA (led by a Spaniard) for its nuclear program (as judged by Europeans)! The IAEA gave Israel the names of Iran’s atomic scientists and now wants to continue inspections inside Iran. The stench of hypocrisy pervades the world! It’s simple – they want a pretext to sanction and contain Iran and out of global markets. They want Iranians to be impoverished and forced to immigrate abroad to survive as cheap professional labor. They don’t really want Iranians to prosper or succeed.

Iranian Americans will never learn. We are simple people, being manipulated. Monarchists, especially, are often very naive. Netanyahu is blowing smoke up their a****. There is no core intention to change the regime in Tehran.

The only way the mullahs will go is if Iranians physically take care of them. To me, it’s astounding that 180,000 mullahs can rule over 100 million Iranians with no real threat to their status. It’s reminiscent of 100,000 Brits ruling over 300 million Indians for 200 years. The Brits could not have done it without massive numbers of Indian troops (nokars) working for them. Iranians should not be fooled and not become nokars for the West – again. We can topple the regime ourselves and win true independence and freedom.

Sooner or later, this charade will be over, but mark my words, none of it will happen with RP as the catalyst. His father was an idiot, and the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree.  They blew smoke up his father’s a** too. Deluded idiot, he was. While raising the price of oil and canceling the consortium agreement, BP and its major oil partners were secretly working on plans to extract expensive oil from Alaska and the North Sea. When those fields started producing, they engineered a revolution in Iran and shut off Iran’s oil production to make room for their output. They don’t get how the world works. Here’s a tip: “follow the money”.

And we don’t need to kowtow to Netanyahu. He’s a ruthless, son-of-a-bitch who doesn’t give a flying hoot about Iran or Iranians. Israelis are takers, not givers. If they really cared, they would not have joined in the toppling of the Shah, given arms to the mullahs in the ‘80s, after the Shah literally saved them from defeat by the Arabs in the Yom Kippur War by giving them oil. They have no real intention of helping Iranians. In fact, their long-term real agenda is to balkanize Iran so it can never be a future threat. They are discreetly spending billions with Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Ahwazis, etc., so that any destabilization inside Iran quickly leads to splintering.

Iranians need to engineer regime change on their own, without any interference or support from Israel. They can’t be trusted.  

On September 22, 1980, the Iraqi Army invaded Iran. Iraqi military aircraft bombed Iran’s major airports. In days, Iraqi soldiers had occupied and conquered many major Iranian cities. Iraq targeted oil tankers, oil platforms, and Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf with weaponry supplied by France, the same country that had funded Khomeini’s flight back to Tehran a year or so before. Iran’s oil exports were effectively shut down.

Said K. Arburish, biographer and author of Saddam Hussein: The Politics of Revenge, said Hussein met with CIA agents in Amman approximately one year before the invasion. Kenneth R. Timmerman, a political journalist and executive director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, backed up the claim, proposing that the sessions were Brzezinski’s idea. Timmerman quoted National Security Council member Gary Sick as saying, “Brzezinski was letting Saddam assume there was a U.S. green light for his invasion of Iran.”

Besides the US ‘encouragement, there are now allegations that key members of Iran’s opposition, consisting of former Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, former senior Iranian military officers, and Prince Reza Pahlavi, also held meetings with Iraqi officials. They provided intelligence and guidance for the Iranian invasion. One of Reza Pahlavi’s aids (Shahbazi) later alleged his involvement in identifying integral Iranian military targets. Bakhtiar’s associates have also confirmed that he had travelled to Baghdad many times before the invasion. It is also now established that in August of 1980, Saddam Hussein met with Saudi princes who encouraged the war for their own reasons.

Suddenly, Iraq and its army perceived an opportunity and had also become a tool for enemies of the regime in Iran.  

Hussein quickly planned the invasion of Iran. He hoped to seize a substantial portion of Iranian territory early on, which would destabilize the Islamic Republic and allow him to overthrow Khomeini’s regime.

Iran, for all intents and purposes, was defenseless against Hussein’s forces. With the Iranian government against the wall, Reagan’s staff and Iranian officials held a final, secret meeting in Paris during October 1980. This meeting was led by America’s Vice President-elect George Bush, William Casey (later Reagan’s Director of the CIA), and Iran’s Speaker of the Majlis, Mehdi Karroubi.

Bush and Casey delivered $40 million to the Iranians. This, along with $5 billion in illegal arms deals and an agreement not to interfere with the Islamic Republic, was a bribe offered in exchange for the 52 American hostages held in Tehran not to be released until after the 1980 election. This would guarantee Carter’s defeat and Reagan’s victory.

The agreement not to challenge the new Iranian regime allowed the Islamic Republic to take complete control of Iran.

On January 20, 1981, the very day of President Reagan’s inauguration, America released nearly $8 billion in Iranian assets. Iran finally freed the hostages more than a year after their initial capture.

Israel agreed to ship American weaponry to Iran. The Washington Post claimed Haig authorized the shipment and that it was worth between $10 million and $15 million. Other reports said the weapons were worth up to $246 million.

Haig denied his involvement, but said, “I have a sneaking suspicion that someone in the White House winked.”

An aircraft carrying American weaponry from Israel to Iran crashed in Turkey in July 1981. Banisadr said it was the third arms shipment from Israel during Reagan’s presidency. Israeli Housing Minister and former Defense Minister Ariel Sharon said the American government sanctioned all Israeli arms shipments to Iran during the war. The Israeli ambassador to America, Moshe Arens, said the government supported Israel’s arms shipments at “almost the highest of levels.”

The arms shipments ceased on October 28, 1988. Over 2,000 American missiles and parts had been shipped to Iran by that point.

America sustained the war beyond simply supplying Iran. Haig told the Senate’s foreign relations committee he anticipated better relations with Iraq. The government removed Iraq from the American government’s list of terrorist countries and gave a $400 million credit guarantee for American exports to Iraq. By 1984, America and Iraq held full diplomatic relations for the first time since 1967.

The process continued until the end of the war as Iraqi and Iranian forces alike died in the line of fire. Waves of soldiers and civilians fell to bombs and chemical agents, a tragedy beyond the comprehension of the beltway strategists who sat in their comfortable homes and planned the deaths of thousands. America, an advocate of world peace, supplied both countries and sustained the war for its own gain.

America, the United Kingdom, and Germany provided technology to Iraq, which allowed it to expand their missile program and radar defenses. According to a leaked, uncensored copy of Iraq’s declaration to the United Nations, they obtained the knowledge and materials required for developing unconventional weapons from 150 foreign companies. These companies came from countries including America, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and China.

The Russians remained neutral until 1982. Scared that the ideology behind the Islamic Revolution could spread to neighboring regions they controlled, the Soviets supplied weapons to Iraq. With Russia presenting itself as an enemy once again, Iran’s mullahs expelled 13 Soviet diplomats and commenced a mass execution of Tudeh Party members. Iran also began supporting Afghanistan’s fight against the Russians.

In response, the Soviets established a working relationship with Kuwait. They agreed to sell arms and protect Kuwaiti ships in the Persian Gulf. This move threatened America’s control and strategy in the Persian Gulf and led to an American-influenced Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1991, several years after Kuwait’s mistake.

Russian arms shipments to Iraq are estimated to have been $10 billion, including over 2,000 tanks, 300 aircraft, 300 surface-to-air missiles, and thousands of artillery and armored vehicles.

North Korea was also a major supplier to Iran. They produced and sold their own arms and also served as a deniable intermediary to Iran for Russia and China. North Korea first sold and shipped Russian weaponry to Iran in October 1980, not long after the war began. A billion-dollar sale of Chinese equipment followed. Iran paid for the supplies with cash and crude oil, and North Korea became Iran’s leading arms and munitions supplier in 1982.

The deals between North Korea and Iran were no laughing matter. The details of an SA-7 missile sale conducted in 1987 show the extent of international involvement in the war. As the North Korean purchases continued, Russia, which publicly sold weapons to Iran’s enemies, benefited as well. In fact, the SA-7 missile shipment came from a Polish, Soviet-controlled firm known as Perenosny Zenitiny Raketny Kompleks.

European companies prospered from the deals. The London branch of Commerzbank A.G., a West German bank, posted a $100,000 performance bond. Swiss firm Wuppesahl A.G. insured the shipment, and the Union Bank of Switzerland issued a letter of credit to Iran in the amount of $18,640,000. Funds were transferred through London’s Commerzbank, which received commission for its services, to Russia’s account with the West German bank, Deutsche Bank AG.

The whole world seemed to benefit from the war. America, Europe, and Russia all supplied arms to Iraq. In turn, neighboring Arab states provided financial support to Iraq. America, and indirectly Russia and China, supplied weaponry to Iran as well. Global superpowers maintained the war’s stalemate and reaped the financial rewards at the cost of innocent lives.

The tides turned on October 5, 1986, when an American cargo plane crashed in southern Nicaragua. Two crew members died, but one, Eugene Hasenfus, lived. The Sandinista army captured him and escorted him from the crash site at gunpoint.

Hasenfus’ capture set in motion a chain of events which ultimately led to the embarrassment of Reagan’s administration. The truth of one of the biggest political scandals in American history was blown wide open. The true nature of the October Surprise, including America’s arms deals with Iran, was finally exposed to the American people.

Over the course of several Congressional hearings, members of Reagan’s administration were convicted. However, none of the sentences reflected the nature of their crimes. The harshest ruling was two years of probation and a $20,000 fine. None of the politicians was imprisoned.

These events came to be known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

American involvement in the war was contradictory. Despite privately supporting Iran, they publicly opposed the Islamic Republic.

President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 4-82 and selected Donald Rumsfeld as his emissary to Saddam Hussein. Rumsfeld met with Hussein in December 1983 and March 1984. American ambassador Peter W. Galbraith said, “The Reagan administration was afraid Iraq might actually lose.”

Howard Teicher, the Director of Political-Military Affairs for the National Security Council, accompanied Rumsfeld to Baghdad in 1983. According to his affidavit, the CIA secretly directed armaments and technology to Iraq through third parties in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Kuwait. They encouraged private suppliers and military companies to do the same.

Two of every seven approved licenses for the export of “dual-use” technology were issued to American companies. This technology was sent to Iraqi forces, weapons producers, or enterprises suspected of diverting technology to weapons of mass destruction, according to an investigation by Chairman Henry B. Gonzales of the House Banking Committee.

In the last five years of the Iran-Iraq War, 771 export licenses were given to Iraq for items relating to weapons. Iraq purchased ingredients for chemical weapons, biological agents, including anthrax, cluster bombs, and calibration devices for mustard gas production. Recently declassified congressional and NSA documents reveal that the American government was aware of and supportive of these sales.

Americans mourn the events of 9/11, which led to the deaths of over 3,000 innocents and resulted in 4,000 more military deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iranians should mourn 9/22, the date of Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980, which resulted in the deaths of half a million Iranian and Iraqi people.

Ironically, Jimmy Carter, who played a large part in encouraging one of the bloodiest wars in modern history, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

Here’s an animated movie I made of this story:

The Great Substitution: Gold, BRICS, and the End of Dollar Dominance

Summary Statement

As trust in U.S. Treasuries erodes and the Global South accelerates its break from dollar hegemony, gold is undergoing a structural revaluation — quietly reemerging as the global settlement asset of choice. Backed by rising BRICS reserves and a wave of tokenized monetary infrastructure, this transition mirrors the 1970s petrodollar strategy in reverse: just as the U.S. once inflated oil prices to create artificial demand for dollars, today’s commodity powers are driving up the price of gold to build a neutral, collateral-backed trade system that bypasses U.S. control. This is not a collapse — it’s a substitution. And it’s already underway.

I. Introduction: The Unseen Reset

History rarely announces itself with fanfare. There’s no press release when an empire begins to lose its grip, no buzzer that sounds when a new monetary order quietly takes hold. Instead, things shift silently. Settlements change hands in different units. Reserves move from promise to weight. New pipes get laid underground — until one day, the old channels run dry.

This is where we are now. Not at a moment of collapse — but at the dawn of substitution.

The U.S. Treasury market — once the unrivaled cornerstone of global trade and savings — still stands at roughly $29 trillion in marketable securities. But beneath its surface, trust is leaking fast. Sanctions, yield volatility, politicized monetary policy, and unsustainable deficits have shaken confidence across the Global South.

Meanwhile, something ancient is being reborn.

Gold, the inert metal long dismissed by Wall Street as a “barbarous relic,” has quietly surged. In 2025 alone, it added $5.5 trillion in market capitalization, bringing its total valuation to $25.9 trillion — now within striking distance of the Treasury market itself.

This exposition explores what that revaluation means. We’re not just watching a price movement. We’re witnessing a geopolitical recalibration, where gold is positioned to replace Treasuries as the neutral, non-politicized base layer for global settlement.

It’s not theoretical. It’s happening. And it echoes something we’ve seen before — just in reverse.

II. Historical Parallel: How the Dollar Took the Throne

To understand what’s happening now, you have to understand what happened then — when the U.S. dollar became more than just a currency. It became the denominator of the entire global economy.

The turning point came in 1971, when President Richard Nixon closed the gold window, severing the dollar’s direct convertibility to gold. This broke the Bretton Woods system, which had pegged global currencies to the dollar, and the dollar to gold. The immediate consequence? The world no longer had a neutral settlement asset. Fiat replaced collateral.

But the U.S. had a problem: If dollars were no longer backed by gold, what would compel the world to keep holding and using them?

The answer came in 1974, engineered by Henry Kissinger.

The Oil Gambit

In a now-infamous realignment, Kissinger brokered a deal with Saudi Arabia:

• The U.S. would provide military protection and technological support.
• In return, Saudi oil would be priced exclusively in U.S. dollars.
• OPEC would follow suit.
• Surplus revenues — petrodollars — would be recycled into U.S. Treasury debt.

But there was a catch. For the system to work, there had to be enough dollar demand. And so, according to later interviews with Saudi oil minister Ahmed Zaki Yamani, Kissinger signaled that oil prices would rise dramatically — by 400% — creating the scale needed to make petrodollar recycling viable.

“The price of oil is going up 400%. Get on board.” — Yamani, recounting Kissinger’s warning at a 1973 Bilderberg meeting

The result? A global artificial demand for U.S. dollars is enforced through energy markets. Nations needed dollars to buy oil, and once they had them, they recycled those dollars back into Treasuries to earn interest. This became the foundation of U.S. fiscal dominance for the next 50 years.

• Dollar demand = oil demand
• Oil demand = global trade
• Global trade = U.S. Treasuries as world reserve

It was a brilliant piece of monetary jiu-jitsu. The U.S. turned oil into the new backing for its currency and Treasuries into the global piggy bank. A world that once saved in gold now saved in debt — because the system offered no alternative.

Until now.

III. Present Day: A New Settlement Layer Emerges

Fast forward to 2025, and the foundation that supported dollar dominance is cracking. The machinery that once recycled petrodollars into U.S. Treasuries is seizing up — not because of a catastrophic breakdown, but because key players have quietly exited the game.

Saudi Arabia has begun settling oil trades in yuan, rupees, and dirhams. China and Russia are transacting in local currencies. BRICS+ nations are reducing U.S. Treasury holdings and increasing gold reserves at a record pace. Central banks bought over 2,100 tonnes of gold in 2022 and 2023 alone — a post-Bretton Woods record. This is not a hedge. This is a pivot.

And now, the numbers tell the story.

Gold’s 2025 Repricing: The Silent Shock

• In just one year, gold has added $5.5 trillion to its market cap.
• At $3,300/oz, the total above-ground gold supply (~244,000 metric tons) is now worth ~$25.9 trillion.
• This figure is within striking distance of the $29 trillion U.S. Treasury market.

This isn’t just symbolic parity — it’s functional.

Gold, once deemed too small to replace Treasuries, is now large enough to do the job.

Just as the U.S. engineered a 400% increase in oil prices to force dollar demand in the 1970s, the 2025 gold repricing achieves the same scale — but this time in reverse. Instead of inflating energy to support fiat debt, BRICS appears to be inflating gold to support neutral settlement.

The Infrastructure That Makes It Possible

This isn’t just about shiny metal in a vault — it’s about monetary plumbing. And the pipes are already being laid:

• Tokenized gold instruments like XAUt (Tether Gold) and other CBDC-collateralized ledgers are proving that gold can move at the speed of code, not ships.
• mBridge, a cross-border CBDC settlement project involving China, UAE, Hong Kong, and Thailand, is live-testing interoperable digital currency transactions — potentially backed by tangible assets like gold.
• CIPS, China’s SWIFT alternative, is growing steadily — handling hundreds of billions in cross-border yuan flows.

In short: The Global South isn’t just talking about de-dollarization. It’s rebuilding the trade stack from the base layer up — with gold as the root collateral.

Gold is no longer a passive reserve — it is being activated.

IV. Deconstructing the Fiat Defenses

Western economists and financial media have long dismissed gold’s return as unworkable. Not because it isn’t trusted — but because, they claim, it isn’t functional. The arguments come dressed in complex jargon, but they boil down to four main critiques:

1. Gold lacks liquidity
2. Gold doesn’t yield interest
3. Gold lacks modern infrastructure
4. BRICS is too fragmented to coordinate around gold

Let’s dismantle each of these defenses — not from the perspective of Wall Street — but from the real world of goods, trade, and sovereignty.

1. The Liquidity Myth

“Treasuries are more liquid — they trade $900 billion a day. Gold only trades $100–$150 billion.”

So what?

Liquidity is a speculator’s metric, not a sovereign’s concern. Nations aren’t flipping Treasuries like day traders — they’re settling balances, clearing accounts, and securing reserves. They care about reliability, not intraday trading volume.

And with the rise of automated settlement rails (blockchain, smart contracts, CBDCs), the need for high-frequency intermediated liquidity is fading fast.

The dollar-centric system was built for brokers. The gold system being constructed now is built for builders.

2. The Yield Illusion

“Gold doesn’t pay interest. Treasuries do.”

Yes — and that “interest” is paid in newly printed money.

Treasury yield is a synthetic reward to compensate for the risk of holding an inflationary asset. It’s the fiat version of staking rewards in crypto — paying holders to sit tight while their share of the pie shrinks.

Gold doesn’t yield because it doesn’t dilute.

In fact, the lesson from crypto is clear: non-yielding, hard-capped assets outperform yield-bearing inflationary systems in the long run. Bitcoin taught this to a new generation. Now, gold is teaching it to the world’s central banks.

3. The Infrastructure Lie

“Gold lacks the infrastructure for global settlement.”

False.

The BRICS bloc and its allies are building parallel financial systems in real-time:

• mBridge for cross-border digital currency settlement
• CIPS as a SWIFT alternative
• BRICS Bridge for unified payment corridors
• Tokenized gold running on Ethereum, Tron, and private ledgers

These aren’t experiments — they’re operational, and they’re growing.

Gold is no longer a rock in a vault — it’s a programmable monetary primitive.

4. The Fragmentation Fallacy

“BRICS can’t coordinate — they’re too diverse.”

They don’t need to unify politically. They only need to align economically.

The goal is not one currency or one bank. The goal is a network of trade corridors, powered by neutral settlement, free from U.S. coercion.

That’s already happening:

• India-Russia trade in rupees and rubles
• China-Iran settles in yuan
• UAE-Africa explores gold-pegged digital trade

It’s a modular system. Not centralized. Not fragile. And exactly what’s needed in a multipolar world.

These so-called “flaws” of gold are only flaws if your goal is to preserve the U.S. financial empire.
If your goal is to trade fairly, settle securely, and build sovereign trust — they’re features.

V. The New Trade Terrain

The terrain is shifting — and fast.

For decades, the U.S. dollar acted as the global middleman. You couldn’t settle large-scale trade without it. You couldn’t park your reserves in anything else. Treasuries were the universal lubricant.

But that was a feature of monopoly, not of necessity. And now, with BRICS and the Global South building new corridors, the global economy is discovering it doesn’t need the dollar middleman anymore.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

Let’s get practical:

• Annual global trade (goods + services): ~$32–34 trillion
• BRICS trade volume (among members and aligned countries): ~$10–12 trillion
• Collateral typically required to support this trade (10–20%): $1–4 trillion
• Gold market cap at $3,300/oz: ~$25.9 trillion

This means that even a fraction of gold’s value is more than enough to underwrite the entire BRICS trade system, and then some.

BRICS doesn’t need to replace the entire dollar system overnight. It just needs to build a parallel one that works for them. That’s happening now.

The New Rails in Motion

Here’s what’s being quietly deployed:

• mBridge — a live CBDC settlement system used by China, Thailand, the UAE, and Hong Kong, now expanding to other Global South nations.
• CIPS — China’s yuan-based alternative to SWIFT, with expanding usage across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
• Digital gold instruments — like XAUt (Tether Gold) or institutional vault-backed tokens, allowing gold to be instantly settled, fractionally used, and digitally audited.
• BRICS Bridge — a proposed settlement network that doesn’t need a single currency, just trusted rails + shared standards.

This is not an abstract idea. This is monetary infrastructure deployment at a scale and speed that no one in Washington or Brussels expected.

What’s Being Built Is Simple but Profound

• Hard collateral (gold, commodities)
• Programmable rails (CBDCs, tokenized assets)
• Neutral pricing (local currencies or new units)
• Non-coercive alignment (voluntary trade blocs, not forced military pacts)

It’s not globalism. It’s localism, scaled. A world where countries don’t need to bend the knee to access the global economy.

And the key that unlocks this new terrain?
Gold. Not as a relic — but as a root layer.

VI. Strategic Implications: The End of Dollar Dominance

The U.S. dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency was never about ideology — it was about infrastructure. It offered three things no one else could:

1. A neutral unit of account,
2. A safe asset to store global savings, and
3. The deepest, most liquid markets for collateral and trade settlement.

But now, all three pillars are eroding.

1. Treasuries Are No Longer Safe

The U.S. Treasury market — once the envy of the world — is showing structural cracks:

• Foreign holdings of Treasuries are in a multi-year decline. China alone sold $53.3 billion in early 2024.
• Yields are rising, not because of growth, but because of vanishing demand.
• The U.S. debt spiral is feeding on itself:
  → More debt issuance → higher interest expense → more issuance → rinse and repeat.

In a world where demand for Treasuries is no longer guaranteed, the U.S. must either raise rates to attract buyers or print money to plug the gap.

Either option is terminal:
🔺 Higher rates = collapse in asset prices
🖨️ More printing = dollar debasement

2. The Dollar’s Utility Is Being Bypassed

For decades, countries used dollars because they had to — not because they wanted to. But that era is ending.

• Oil is now priced in multiple currencies.
• SWIFT is no longer the only channel.
• Trade corridors are forming based on regional logic, not U.S. approval.

This changes everything. The dollar’s greatest strength — network effects — is becoming its greatest vulnerability. Because once countries see they can trade without it, they won’t go back.

3. Trust Has Collapsed — Quietly

The U.S. financial system isn’t being abandoned because it failed economically.
It’s being abandoned because it failed politically.

• Weaponizing the dollar (via sanctions, asset freezes) told sovereign nations one thing:
• Your money isn’t yours if we don’t like your politics.
• Freezing Russia’s reserves in 2022 was a seismic event — a loud warning to every non-aligned country.

That’s when the quiet gold accumulation began. That’s when the rails started getting built. That’s when the substitution began.

This is not a crash. It’s not a war. It’s a re-routing.
It’s the slow, irreversible migration of trust — from promises to weight.

VII. Conclusion: Gold Didn’t Win — Debt Lost

This isn’t a gold rush.
It’s a debt retreat.

Gold didn’t rise because it lobbied for trust. It grew because everything else burned it.

• The U.S. dollar, once a symbol of strength, became a tool of coercion.
• Treasuries, once a global savings vehicle, became debt instruments feeding on artificial demand.
• The financial system, once a neutral arena, became a political battlefield.

And in that vacuum, gold did what it always does:
It waited.
It didn’t inflate.
It didn’t default.
It didn’t care who was in power.
It just sat there, weighty and incorruptible, until the world remembered why it mattered.

The shift we’re seeing isn’t loud. It’s not a collapse.
It’s a great substitution — from:

• Speculation to settlement
• Debt to collateral
• Yield to trust
• Dollar to gold

The BRICS nations aren’t launching a revolution. They’re launching an exit.

They are not trying to replace the dollar with a new empire — they are replacing the empire model itself. One trade at a time. One vault at a time. One ledger at a time.

The West, blinded by its own metrics — liquidity, yield, control — never imagined a world that could function without them. But that world is now emerging. Quietly. Competently. Irreversibly.

And so the question is no longer: Will gold replace Treasuries?
The question is: What will you hold when promises no longer settle the trade?

Let me leave you with one stunning statistic: BRICS control roughly one-third of the world’s gold production, and about 70% of global gold reserves. Ghana has been ‘dancing with China and other BRIC nations to enable greater value capture for its Cocoa and Gold production. In effect, substituting USD reserves with Gold reserves is a straightforward shift to a reserve system under BRICS control. It’s inevitable.

The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin, China, provided vivid insights into a shifting global order. Images of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping sharing smiles and warm embraces spoke volumes about a realignment that few could have predicted at the start of 2025. Against the backdrop of a “binding memorandum” for the Power of Siberia 2 (POS-2) pipeline supplying Russian natural gas to China, this summit was no mere public relations exercise.

The summit marks a profound shift in global energy geopolitics, one that underscores Europe’s decline in relevance, the competitive headwinds facing US LNG exports, and the spectacular failure of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision of US strategic supremacy over Russia, constructed mainly during the tumultuous 1990s. The United States, in its pursuit of Eurasian hegemony, has alienated a critical ally in India, pushed Russia and China closer together, and left Germany — once an industrial powerhouse — prostrate. This is a tale of hubris, miscalculation and unintended consequences.

The Tianjin Summit: A New Energy Axis

The Tianjin summit crystallised a new geopolitical reality. The warm camaraderie among the leaders of India, Russia, and China —three of the world’s five largest economies — signalled a growing alignment, not just in rhetoric and optics but in tangible energy partnerships. The “binding memorandum” for POS-2, a 50 billion cubic meter pipeline to deliver gas from Russia’s Yamal fields to China via Mongolia, is a cornerstone of this realignment.

Unlike the existing Power of Siberia 1, which draws gas from Irkutsk (north of Mongolia), POS-2 taps into the same Arctic reserves in Yamal that once fueled Germany’s industrial might for half a century. For decades, German prosperity rested on a bargain: cheap Russian gas in exchange for high-value German-manufactured exports. This was the essence of Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and the foundation of Germany’s rise as Europe’s economic powerhouse.

Russia’s pivot to Asia – accelerated by Western sanctions since 2014 (after the annexation of Crimea) and intensified after the 2022 Ukraine invasion – is now consolidating. With POS-2 and the expansion of existing pipelines, Russia could supply China with up to 100 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas annually after 2030, when the new pipeline would be up and running.

This is significantly less than the 150 bcm Russia once exported to Europe at its peak. Furthermore, the price for Russia’s natural gas sold to price-sensitive China will be materially less than what it received from its European customers. However, this reorientation, while costing Russia lost revenues from lower prices and volumes, significantly alleviates Russia’s economic security after the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.

It also reduces China’s reliance on seaborne LNG, which is typically two to four times as expensive as piped gas. Critically, this reduces China’s vulnerability to US naval dominance in chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and Straits of Malacca through which all Middle East gas exports to China must pass.

For India, the Tianjin summit was a stage to assert its defiance. Reeling from the Trump administration’s decision to double trade tariffs from 25% to 50% — a punitive measure targeting India’s purchase of Russian crude oil — Prime Minister Modi has signalled a shift. Reports of Modi repeatedly refusing phone calls from President Trump are unprecedented. Few global leaders turn down a call from the president of the US.

India, the world’s fourth-largest economy in nominal GDP terms, has not only deepened diplomatic ties with Russia and China but is set to increase its imports of Russian oil this month in defiance of the US secondary sanctions. This underscores India’s refusal to be cowed by what its Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar called hypocritical US policy during his recent visit to Moscow. The Minister pointed out that China imports significantly more Russian oil, and Europe remains the largest buyer of Russian gas; yet, India alone faces such draconian tariffs. Three years into the Ukraine war, the US and European Union still import billions of dollars’ worth of Russian energy and commodities ranging from liquefied natural gas to enriched uranium.

The results of the sanctions regime have been contrary to what was predicted. In 2022, European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen said that the “Russian industry was in tatters” and it was “taking chips from dishwashers and refrigerators to fix their military hardware”. Von Der Leyen is eating crow now as Germany, France, and the UK teeter on the edge of economic and political collapse while Russia shows little sign of being in “tatters”.

Russia has pivoted East to forge energy and trade ties with China, India, and other countries, such as Turkey and Brazil. The POS-2 deal, though not yet a finalised sales and purchase contract between buyer and seller, signals Russia’s success in finding alternative markets for its gas. The “binding memo” still lacks details on price, ‘take or pay’ terms, tenor of the long-term contract and relative contributions to capital costs. Nevertheless, the POS-2 memorandum signed in Tianjin shows that China is now willing to overcome its longstanding reservations over greater dependence on Russia’s energy resources. The gas that powered German factories and made the country the world’s manufacturing export powerhouse will now underpin China’s ambitions for continued economic dominance.

The US has gained a vassal in Germany, but at what cost? A deindustrialising Germany lacks the economic and diplomatic heft to bolster its own interests, let alone those of the US, effectively. Meanwhile, the Tianjin summit showcased an alternative constellation of interests. China, India and Russia, despite their historical rivalries, are finding common cause. Border tensions between India and China persist, as do Russia’s fears of being dominated by China’s economic might.

Yet, the West’s aggressive posture — sanctions on Russia, tariffs on India and hostility towards China — has pushed these powers toward cooperation. Fueled by the West’s own missteps, the BRICS grouping is gaining momentum with its focus on reducing dependence on the US dollar and the US-dominated SWIFT inter-bank payments system.

India: The Diplomatic Blunder of the Century

Perhaps the most egregious error in this saga is the U.S. treatment of India. For two decades, U.S.-India relations had been warming, driven by shared interests in countering China’s rise and India’s growing economic clout. During Modi’s visit to the U.S. during Trump’s first term, the prospect of a closer strategic partnership seemed bright. Since 2014, strategic cooperation between the two nations has deepened, and India was declared a “Major Defence Partner” of the United States in 2016. India and the United States have also stepped up their cooperation within multilateral groups, such as the Quad.

India, with its deep defence ties to Russia, was seen by the US as a potential strategic partner to the West, weaning it away from Moscow’s orbit. President Trump’s decision to add a 25% tariff rate on Indian exports to the U.S. for buying Russian oil—a move not applied to China or Europe, despite their larger imports from Russia—is challenging to understand. And if Indo-American relations are not salvaged soon, it may backfire spectacularly.

Jaishankar’s pointed remarks in Moscow highlight the absurdity of this policy. Why single out India, a critical ally, when others engage in larger energy trade volumes with Russia? The tariffs, perceived as bereft of logic, have alienated India at a time when its geopolitical weight is growing. Modi’s presence at Tianjin, alongside Putin and Xi, was a deliberate signal: India will not be bullied.

By increasing Russian oil imports, India is not only defying U.S. sanctions but also aligning closer with the BRICS framework, which potentially offers an alternative to Western-dominated financial and trade systems. The US risks pushing India—a democracy of 1.4 billion people and a rising economic power—into the arms of Russia and China. The U.S. may thus squander a strategic opportunity, turning a potential ally into a wary partner. As David Blackmon notes in his Substack, India’s geopolitical choice may already be made, driven by the West’s own miscalculations.

Europe’s Self-Inflicted Wound

Europe’s plight is equally instructive. The EU, in its zeal to punish Russia, has “managed to pull off one of the greatest self-owns you could ever imagine”, as veteran journalist Brian MacDonald puts it. By severing ties with Russian gas — available at its doorstep at competitive prices — Europe has condemned itself to expensive LNG imports. Western sanctions intended to cripple Russia have instead crippled Europe’s economic vitality. The POS-2 deal exacerbates this.

Germany, once the engine of European growth, now faces deindustrialisation and rising unemployment. The loss of cheap Russian gas has led to a reliance on costly US and Qatari LNG, driving up energy costs and eroding competitiveness. German standards of living are declining, burdened by debt and an overstretched welfare state. Western sanctions on Russia have boomeranged, creating an energy and food crisis that has hit Europe hardest. While the end of cheap Russian gas is not the only factor in the economic malaise and social divisions facing Europe, it’s undoubtedly a major contributor.

By redirecting Yamal gas to China, Russia not only secures a new market but also undermines US LNG exports. China’s reduced reliance on seaborne LNG — estimated at up to 40 million tons per annum (mtpa) once POS-2 is operational in the 2030s — deals a blow to US energy export ambitions. For context, 40 mtpa represents just over half of China’s total imports of LNG in 2024. US tariff threats against China and talk of future military confrontation have only accelerated Beijing’s pivot to Russian gas, which is cheaper and secure from Western sanctions.

In a further twist, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the Financial Times in an interview published on Monday that the European countries must halt imports of Russian oil and gas if they expect Washington to escalate sanctions against Moscow. He said that the Trump administration is prepared to invoke more sanctions on Putin and Russia. Still, it is contingent on EU countries halting their ongoing purchases of Russian oil and gas. Furthermore, the EU would also need to commit to similar secondary sanctions as the US.

Whether the EU – with Germany, France and the UK teetering on the edge of economic and political crises – is capable of imposing secondary sanctions on large countries such as China, India, Brazil, etc., without bringing even more harm on itself, is doubtful. Under current EU plans, the bloc will phase out Russian oil entirely by 2028. It is also important to note that not all EU member states are on board with cutting energy links with Russia.

However, it would be ironic to blame Putin for German deindustrialisation, even though much of what passes for analysis in the mainstream media these days is variations of ‘Putin did it’. Germany was on the ‘green’ road to reducing the use of fossil fuels well before the Ukraine war. Cutting back on fossil fuels was a top priority of Energiewende (energy transition) policies adopted in 2010. German deindustrialisation is a process of economic suicide at which the German ruling class was already challenging itself to achieve since the Green party became a political force in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Unravelling of Brzezinski’s Legacy

At the heart of the geopolitical shifts signified in the Tianjin summit lies the failure of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision articulated in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. This vision became a central tenet of America’s neocon movement, which straddled both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Brzezinski – National Security Advisor in the Carter administration – argued that US hegemony over the Eurasian landmass required severing the natural economic complementarity between Germany and Russia. The former provided manufacturing prowess in exchange for the latter’s cheap energy and other natural resources. By disrupting this relationship, the US aimed to prevent the emergence of a Eurasian Berlin-Moscow axis that would challenge its dominance.

The sanctions on Russia, which have escalated since 2014 (after the annexation of Crimea) and intensified after 2022 (after the invasion of Ukraine), were designed to weaken Russia’s economy, isolate it diplomatically, and pave the way for confronting China. The sanctions regime hasn’t worked, and the Russian economy is neither weakened nor isolated. There also seems to be no let-up in Russian advances on the Ukrainian battlefront.

Brzezinski’s strategy has unravelled. By weaponising the US dollar and SWIFT, the West incentivised Russia, China, India and others in the Global South to diversify their financial systems as much as possible. By targeting Russia’s energy exports to Europe, the US handed Moscow the impetus to forge closer ties with Asia. And by alienating India with hypocritical tariffs, the US has pushed a key ally toward its adversaries.

It is not as if the historical and political differences among the three great Eurasian powers – China, India and Russia – will all be resolved quickly under the pressure of US and EU sanctions policies. Fundamental bilateral tensions among them will remain as limits to potential cooperation. But now, in the face of EU and US provocations on trade and political relations, the level of converging national interests among the three giant neighbours in Eurasia has created a new energy terrain on the ground.

The Tianjin summit and the POS-2 memorandum are not the end but the beginning of a realignment in energy flows in Eurasia. The permanent deflection of Russia’s Yamal gas supply – which was meant for Western Europe under Ostpolitik – to China reflects Brussels’s decline into geopolitical irrelevance and Germany’s vassalage to US interests. For the US, POS-2 creates a significant hole in its LNG exports outlook, as it loses a substantial market in China to Russian pipeline gas.

Brzezinski’s vision of US dominance in Eurasia – long the tenet of the US foreign policy establishment – has given way to a resilient Russia, a defiant India and a China poised for growing dominance in global manufacturing. The West’s hubris has sown the seeds of its own marginalisation, and the international energy map has changed irrevocably.

In 1975, Major (later Sir) David Steel became chairman of BP. He had previously been BP’s vice Chairman and had a long, illustrious history in the company.

Steel had joined BP in 1950, when the company still operated under its old imperial name as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. He joined as one of the first members of the new legal department. One of his first jobs was to sort out the aftermath of Iran’s nationalization of the company’s Iranian assets. He was promoted and moved to New York in 1959 as president of the group’s North American operations. In the next few years, he took senior jobs in London and the Middle East, before joining the main board in 1965 as the managing director responsible for exploration, including the North Sea and Alaskan fields. Steel spent seven tumultuous years at the head of the group, leaving in 1981 after the Conservative government had sold off even more of its shareholding.

The Brits never forgave Iran and Iranians for nationalizing Iran’s oil assets and sparking the demise of their imperial holdings. Even though BP was back in Iran after the coup, Iran’s oil production had increased to a point where, even with a smaller share of output, it was still a significant source of revenue for BP.

BP and Shell, together, commanded then (and still now) more than 25% of Britain’s GDP. And the British government was a 50% shareholder of the company. And this is also a very strategic asset. Steel was very close to the government and its operatives.

By the ‘70s, the Shah had telegraphed that he was not going to renew the 25-year consortium agreement (signed in ‘53, authored by Steel), and the Shah had become a hawk demanding maximum pricing for Iran’s oil exports via OPEC production controls.

Steel hatched a very clever plan to completely undermine the Shah and exact revenge on the Iranians (who had popularly supported nationalization). Britain persuaded the U.S. to explore Alaskan Oil assets and to partner with Britain to explore North Sea assets. Both these assets would require a high oil price since the cost of extraction was 4x the cost of assets in the Persian Gulf. The ‘west’, as they put it, could not be dependent on so much oil from a volatile Persian Gulf.

As the naive and simple Shah was pushing for higher oil prices, he was digging his own grave, accelerating and improving the economics of Alaskan and North Sea oil extraction.

The North Sea fields were necessary in shifting BP’s focus from the Middle East. The Forties field pumped its first oil ashore in 1975 – a great boon for BP as well as the government. The company also benefited during Steel’s tenure from its lengthy investment in Alaska, bringing the Prudhoe Bay scheme on stream in 1977- the year Steel was knighted (presumably for making it happen and unifying US and UK energy policy).

There was one problem: as all this oil was coming on stream, global production needed to be reduced to maintain high prices. Whose production do you cut?

Once they had a second and third option, the answer to the question was simple. Topple the shah, take Iranians back to the Stone Age (by putting fanatic religious zealots in power), and cut off Iranian oil. The Shah had supported Nixon, and once Jimmy Carter (a democrat) had come to power, it was time to strike and topple him.

I can hear Steel in his grave: “So you think you can ‘just’ walk away from the consortium agreement?” And to Iran and Iranians – it was a giant bilakh – “if ‘we’ hadn’t found oil in Iran, you would still be in the stone ages … and we’ll bring you back to the stone ages!!”

To make things even sweeter, they persuaded Saddam Hussein to invade Khuzestan! And they neutralized Iran’s Air Force with a false coup they secretly precipitated that led to Iran’s Air Force pilots being executed, so Iran could not respond to Saddam!

The ‘surprising’ backlash from Iran’s Mullahs led to Iraq’s oil being shut down too! And voila, there were 6 million barrels of oil off the market! Prices stayed high, and the war didn’t end till both Alaskan and North Sea oil production started diminishing in the late 80s! Funny coincidence.

The Mullahs have been quietly supported by the Brits (and Europeans) ever since. They discovered that sanctioning and containing Iran has tremendous value. After selling a nuclear power plant and asking Iran to invest in a European enrichment, they’ve been using the ‘nuclear’ pretext to sanction and contain Iran.

Meanwhile, they’ve built beautiful cities on the south side of the Persian Gulf – more ‘bilakh’ to Iran and Iranians. Dubai is a banking center home to numerous British banks. Dubai has a huge port that transships containers to Iran. Every penny of commercial Goods in and out of Iran flows through their banks, ports, and institutions. Massive airports and huge airlines have been built that sponsor British soccer clubs, with expensive European Airbus and American planes!

I distinctly remember PanAm air stewards checking in daily at a hotel in Tehran, just up the road from our home, in the ‘70s! Tehran, after all, has a high-altitude airport that is 1000 km closer to Europe and East Asia. In the 70s, Dubai was a pearl-fishing village. The Brits have partnered with Arabs – they’re printing global maps with the Arabian Gulf on them, who also hate Iran and Iranians to impoverish Iran!

While Iran is sanctioned and contained, they’ve grabbed Iran’s oil and gas fields in the Caspian via Azerbaijan and the Persian Gulf via Qatar. It’s BP in Azerbaijan and Shell Oil in Qatar. Yes they are happily exploiting the world’s largest natural gas field ‘the Pars Field’ – and Iran can’t do a damn thin about it. And Azerbaijan exports its oil via a BP-built pipeline to Turkey!

Steel designed and implemented the plan to ‘pay back’ Iran – which today still in play.

The Brits have never liked Iran and Iranians. It was Winston Churchill (who, by the way, was Director of BP and engineered the British Government’s ownership of BP), who commanded the British army to grab all of Iran’s food supply during the Second World War to cause a massive famine (with millions dead) in Iran so that they could feed their troops.

This isn’t a bunch of Dai-Jan Napoleon conspiracy talk. As I’ve mentioned, the French, US, and even Germany were and are fully complicit in the ‘Iran Bilakh’ program (and plan).

It will soon be 50 years since this plan was hatched! And they are not done. The Mullahs are still in power…. And still secretly supported by the West. In their latest role, they are being used to put pressure on Israel, because these same politicians are too scared of directly confronting Israel (because of domestic Israeli lobby considerations). Iranians and Jews are historic Allies. I am not apologizing for Israel or defending their government, but since when are Iranians so clever as to find and align with ‘Shia’ Muslims in Yemen, Lebanon, or Iraq to ward off Israel? What’s Iran’s beef with Israel? It’s a war hatched outside Iran, and the Mullahs are their pawns.

Last month, the Foreign Minister of Britain, in an interview, said there is no plan for regime change in Iran. The Mullahs have handed over virtually all of Iran’s sovereignty in the Caspian to others!

Sir David Steel initiated a plan that remains in effect. He chewed up Iran and has now spat Iran to the pavement – to be licked by these mullah dogs.

I’m writing this so Iranians everywhere know exactly how things went down in 1979 and who was behind it. Take it or leave it. Kill me with your comments. But it’s now on record.

There is an adage from the Watergate saga – coined by “Deep Throat” in the movie “All the President’s Men” (depicting Mark Felt, associate director of the FBI at the time) – in secretly guiding Washington Post reporters into looking in the right places: “Follow the Money”!  A few things in life don’t change, and this is one of them! Follow the Money!

To truly understand why Israel has been so relentless in prosecuting the “Gaza” war, you need to look deeper than the surface narrative and propaganda spewed out by mainstream media. As you probably know, 90% of the media is controlled by six global conglomerates, all controlled by executives deeply sympathetic to Israel. They parrot Israel’s false narratives.

First, let’s look at the buildup to the war. While the ‘standard’ narrative is that Hamas was a serious threat to Israel, it is critically important to appreciate that Hamas was an Israeli creation. They were Israeli pawns designed to splinter the Palestinians and avoid making a conclusive peace agreement. Israel funded Hamas for many decades indirectly. It is well known (and confirmed) that Israel gave Qatar $30 million a month as a conduit for financing Hamas. Hamas stationed its leadership in Doha in expensive apartments and remained antagonistic to the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank, and conveniently opposed any peace overture being made by anyone. Israel’s plan to invade Gaza was always there – it simply needed the ‘right moment’ to happen.

The right moment, as we all know, was October 7^th, when Israel conveniently abandoned its defensive infrastructure at the Gaza borders – despite intelligence from several foreign intelligence agencies of an impending attack – and enabled “Hamas” to fly over them and take Israelis (who were at some Hippy Festival [hated by the more religious conservative politicians in Israel]) hostage. It took 7 hours for an Israeli helicopter to fly from a military base nearby to the Gaza border. It was a total setup.

And nut cases in Netanyahu’s coalition government made the job much easier. Netanyahu could subsequently blame his newfound militancy on these fanatics, Smotrich and Gvir (ministers for Defense and National Security), for pushing the government into an all-out assault on Gaza in response. The whole thing was carefully engineered and manipulated to allow Israel to take over Gaza in a massive land (and sea) grab and expand the State of Israel.

None of this was a surprise to anyone who follows Israeli politics. If you visit Israel and walk into their souvenir stores, you see ashtrays, cups, plates, scarves, jewelry … you name it … donning Israeli maps that include Gaza and the West Bank for decades. Yes with an expanded map over 10 years ago. The intention has always been there. Israel needed to devise a means to do this.

The cost of this invasion is not cheap. While it’s true that something like 70,000 Palestinians have died so far, Israel has lost 2000 in this effort. The direct cost of armaments used has been estimated at over $50 billion, not to mention the considerable cost to Israel’s economy in terms of diminished economic output and emigration. Israel has lost roughly 10% of its population during this period. People have left.

But, as we all know, Israelis (and especially Netanyahu) are not stupid. You don’t spend this volume of resources on anything stupidly. There MUST be a substantial economic payoff for this. So, what is Israel’s expected return from this operation?

It doesn’t take much to realize that a massive economic prize sits right around the corner for Israel that, within a relatively short time (10 years or less after Gaza has been stabilized), could triple Israel’s economy from roughly $500 billion today to over $1.5 trillion. The payback is clearly visible and can be summarized as essentially four buckets of ‘revenue’ as follows:

Ben Gurion Canal:

You may remember that a big cargo ship was ‘stuck’ in the Suez Canal, which paralyzed the global economy. 15% of the world’s cargo travels through the Suez Canal. Trade between East and West has mushroomed to $9 trillion and is growing at 5% per year as Southeast Asia, India … 2/3rds of the world’s population migrates from poverty to the middle class. The Suez Canal is umbilical. And it’s a significant risk factor in the global economy. A war, a ship sinking, or an act of terror would paralyze the world. There is simply a need for a second parallel canal to derisk global shipping traffic and provide scope for increasing international trade. Not to be overlooked is the high transit fees charged by the Suez Canal Authority (over $700,000 per transit for a container ship); and their monopoly in providing this ‘service’!

The Ben Gurion Canal has been on the drawing table for a long time as an alternative canal option. It would start at the mouth of the second northern finger of the Red Sea – the Gulf of Aqaba (not far from Saudi Arabia’s new mega city Noem) and traverse to the Mediterranean Sea. There is a problem, though. Gaza sits near the mouth of the Canal, where it would touch the Mediterranean Sea (i.e., Ashkelon).

The planned canal would be roughly one-third longer than the Suez Canal, at approximately 293 kilometers. It is designed to be deeper and broader than the Suez, with two lanes for simultaneous two-way traffic. Estimates for the construction of the canal are in the $50 billion range.  If the Ben Gurion Canal takes, let’s say, 1/3 of the traffic through the Suez and even charges less for transit, it would generate $3.5 billion in revenues per year. This could easily pay for the capital costs of construction, with huge payoffs in terms of building a new container port on the Mediterranean (which would generate additional revenues), enabling the redevelopment of what is now a very arid desert-like region of Israel (Negev), and providing a physical boundary with Egypt in the form of a waterway.  The Canal would provide a massive boost to Israel’s economy, literally hundreds of Billions of dollars, bringing new investment, opportunities, and development to a very sparse part of the country.

It’s a great project that has the backing of the West (that is quietly fretting over being dependent and the security of the Suez Canal).

Gaza Oil and Gas Fields:

In the early 1990s, a British gas company discovered a gas field right off the coast of Gaza.

The two Gaza Marine fields were estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet (about 30 billion cubic meters) of natural gas, more than is needed to power the Palestinian territories, with potential to export.

Israel is already exporting massive quantities of gas (via Egypt) to Europe in the form of lng. Clearly a competing gas field, closer to Egypt would cut into Israel’s market!