It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kerry: Rejection of Iran Deal Will Lead to U.S. Dollar Not Being the World's Reserve Currency

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Well,

"Accept the deal we made or else" it appears. Kerry pretty much just told us that failure to do so will bring down the US economy.

If true, then they have put a gun to the head of Congress.





posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The fact that Kerry says this is reason enough for me to not believe one word he says.

Like the entire U.S. Dollar system hinges on Iran all-of-a-sudden?





posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Was that a lesson from John 'flipflop' Kerry, about the dangers of flipflopping?

Amazing!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
The fact that Kerry says this is reason enough for me to not believe one word he says.

Like the entire U.S. Dollar system hinges on Iran all-of-a-sudden?




That vid didnt really show context to his rant but from what I gather it would effect the US economy to sweet talk it's allys into working with Iran and then stepping out of the deal and threaten sanctions against anyone that deals with Iran.

Or in other words... 1+1=2



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
So in other words

" we've built into this deal a failsafe that if the deal is not passed it will assist in the utter destruction of the United States"

Last laugh is on the American citizen thanks to the wonderful work provided by Obama-Kerry.

Damned if you do - damned if you don't.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Maybe Kerry is worried Iran will nuke the Federal Reserve Banks.




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Failure to do so could potentially allow Iran to develop a nuke, even if they had decades to make this a reality.

Failure to do so could lead to a possible war with Iran.

We can add that to the list of priorities.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

This is interesting, as Hillary pretty much said the same thing.
Not buying it.

If this happens now, it is because it was engineered to happen
at a certain point in time. They can blame it on whatever....

They have the Power Protection/Plunge Team ready.
Timing is everything.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
If they did that it should be a treasonous offence. Willingly endangering the nation in such a way.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




Like the entire U.S. Dollar system hinges on Iran all-of-a-sudden?


Not quite...the US economy, along with the rest of the world, is headed for a complete trainwreck and they know it. Expect them to cast around around for someone else to blame if they can't hang it around Iran's neck. I suspect China and Russia will be the go to boogy men for that.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:21 PM
link   
What difference does it make? Since we didn't stop the communists in Vietnam, they took over Southeast Asia. Then communism expanded to Australia and New Zealand. Then the communists took over Central America and Mexico. If the communists are on the same schedule we were told in the '60s, they should be invading the US next week.

Let them deal with Iran.
edit on 11-8-2015 by VictorVonDoom because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:25 PM
link   
i really think i saw the strings when he moved his arms!!



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadcalm
a reply to: xuenchen




Like the entire U.S. Dollar system hinges on Iran all-of-a-sudden?


Not quite...the US economy, along with the rest of the world, is headed for a complete trainwreck and they know it. Expect them to cast around around for someone else to blame if they can't hang it around Iran's neck. I suspect China and Russia will be the go to boogy men for that.


I agree.

They are setting up multiple scapegoats in advance.




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I read this on Zero Hedge this morning and have a feeling that it is related to some other negotiations that are going on in China.

Zero Hedge Link

P.S. The comments section of Zero Hedge is many times better than the article:


There you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth.




The Iranian Deal’s Cast

The Good (our Ayatollah-in-chief)

The Bad (their Ayatollah), and

The Ugly (John Kerry)




posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The US rejecting this deal was never an option. The US had basically zero negotiating position here but had to proceed with the deal. Not going along with it would weaken the anti Iranian side which would only aid them in building a nuclear weapon. If the US were to back out, the other nations would be seriously pissed off as they would be committed to a weaker deal. Wars have been started over less, and the blowback would probably result in China, EU, Russia, Iran, Australia, and some others all uniting against the dollar as a form of sanctioning us.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

this should have been better thought out.
we [ the US ] should never have gotten ourselves into this position in the first place.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: autopat51
a reply to: Aazadan

this should have been better thought out.
we [ the US ] should never have gotten ourselves into this position in the first place.



That's not possible. Our sanctions are only as good as long as other nations are willing to accept them and we have the purchasing power. This deal has been worked on since 2006.

There's essentially two things we, and the rest of the world could do. Either leave the sanctions in place which everyone agrees would eventually lead to a war, and probably a pretty serious one as China/Russia would help to defend Iran. This war would potentially even go nuclear given the powers involved. Alternatively we use a diplomatic solution and get Iran to not pursue building a nuclear weapon. This is the route that pretty much everyone not named Israel favored.

Diplomatically the US was very weak in this deal, but such a negotiating position is unavoidable because the strongest diplomatic leverage we can exert once military action is off the table is economic pressure and we already exhausted that on the sanctions. The rest of the world wanted to move away from the sanctions (and even agreed in the mid 2000's that they would be removed within a decade) which left the US with little power.

By participating in the negotiations however we could leverage future economic power, and push for a stronger front against Iran and get for example a 24 day notice on inspections rather than say a 36 day notice. We also got enough safeguards to push the breakout time to a nuclear weapon from 3 months to over a year. Those aren't hollow victories, we're getting something quite good out of this deal.

The reason we can't back out however is that if we back out, Iran can simply ignore everything we pushed for, this leaves the rest of the world in a position where they don't have sanctions and where they don't have a deal. It would be absolutely catastrophic for the US to pull out, not only would it unite the world against us but it would empower Iran.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Swills

The "nuke" story is just more cover baloney.

The real risk is that if Iran deploys nuclear power, they will push their oil into the market lowering the bbl price, and providing them further independance and autonomy.

The game is always about 2 things: controlling the oil resources, and exploiting the dictatorial puppets greed by shovelling IMF loans at his county. If Iran can sell the majority of its oil, rather than using it domestically, their economic position changes considerably, and they gain quite a bit of power.

As it stands now, the government owned Central Bank of Iran is like a steak on the grill for the banking vultures.

War is never (never, never ever) about security. We are as secure as it gets. War is about pillaging. Especially for nations founded on the whispers and memories of the Roman Republic.



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

They're getting into bed with China..allenbwest.com...



posted on Aug, 12 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The real risk is that if Iran deploys nuclear power, they will push their oil into the market lowering the bbl price, and providing them further independance and autonomy.


Iran is a member of OPEC, it's highly unlikely they will use the removal of sanctions as an excuse to flood the market with oil, instead they'll stick to agreed on production quotas as it gets them the best price, especially considering that they're going to have a lot of excess cash just as a result of this nuclear deal.


War is never (never, never ever) about security. We are as secure as it gets. War is about pillaging. Especially for nations founded on the whispers and memories of the Roman Republic.


War is about economics. Pillaging is only secondary in that it can bring wealth to the pillaging nation.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join