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.

 

The Impending Strike On Iran - MUST READ

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I found this very fine article and deep tought, MUST READ!

The impending strike on Iran
By David Fink



Fact. We are in the beginning of a worldwide recession that will last until at least late 2009. This recession will be worse than the "light" recession of 2001-2002, and the "serious" recession of 1990-1991. In scope, it will be a "severe" recession like the one in 1982.

Fact. People will start saving for the first time in a generation. The savings rate will go from a negative 1% to 8-9%. Fact. Without increases in consumer spending, the government will have to spend trillions of dollars to restart the economy. The United States is experiencing unprecedented levels of government, corporate, and individual debt. It cannot go through a period of inflation without its economy collapsing.

Policymakers know this and they will do anything in their power to prevent deflation and re-inflate the economy. The Treasury and Federal Reserve have literally been printing money in order to float us out of the current crisis in an ocean of liquidity. This policy has been working for over two decades. However, to inject this much liquidity into the system will create tremendous downward pressure on the dollar. If the dollar falls apart, the United States will no longer have the ability to fix its problems with the printing press.

How will we know if we will be able to get out of this recession in one piece? We will need to know if, a) we are experiencing deflation or inflation, and b) if the dollar is strong enough to keep reproducing itself at this rate. The price of gold will tell us what type of monetary environment we are in. If gold stays put at $700, or begins to go down from here, then we are in a deflationary period.

For the United States to be going through deflation when everybody in this country is over their heads in debt is dangerous. For these two problems to occur during an economic downturn where unemployment could hit 10% is potentially catastrophic. Over the past month, major downturns in the stock market indices have been preceded by huge drops in the price of gold. The US dollar index will tell us if we can still use the same medicine traditionally prescribed by Alan Greenspan.

If the dollar index holds above 70, we can print our way out of this recession. If the index breaks 70, then the dollar could be in trouble. Look for higher interest rates, inflation, and the government's ability to raise debt will be hampered - this could kill future growth. Gold and the US dollar index have become the two vital signs of the global economy.

If there is a run on the dollar, the US will not be able to borrow enough money to fight two wars, bail out the whole financial system, and initiate a spending program that will end the current recession. Policymakers will have to make difficult choices. This presents a once-in-a-lifetime "opportunity" for President George W Bush.

The smart money has chosen Senator Barack Obama as our next president. If we don't have a currency strong enough to borrow the necessary funds to do everything, I think Obama will try to pull out of Iraq. Given that we are winning the war in Iraq and have pledged to significantly draw down troop numbers in the next couple of years, how hard would it be for Obama to declare victory and pull out now?

Politically, this would signal a message to the rest of the world that America has changed course and is ready to work with everybody else. But that's not why Obama would pull out. He won't do it for political reasons - he will do it for economical ones. A beaten-down dollar means that spending in one place will mean less money somewhere else.

Up until now, Americans have been able to spend in one area, and borrow to finance another one. If president Obama doesn't end the war, monies that are needed at home will not materialize. We will hear stories about how the everyday American can't afford basic health care while we are still fighting in Iraq. The popularity Obama has enjoyed as a candidate will soon turn to hostility if the average American family had to suffer because he didn't keep his promise to end the war. His decision will be due to economic reality - but it will have very dangerous political, military, and national security implications.

Most of all, George W Bush's entire legacy will be wiped away. Don't you think the Bush administration is pondering this possibility? A president is definitely most powerful when he is a lame duck who is ceding power to an opposing party. If you are the outgoing president, or a member of the outgoing administration, you are thinking one thing: if Obama wins, November and December would be ideal time to attack Iran.

Consider this: Bush is a lame duck. He won't be around to have to deal with any fallout from such a move. Obama will never attack Iran. Four years from now, we will not be able to stop Iran from completing work on their bomb. Bush has always had a big sense of destiny in his leadership. If he believes that he is the only one who can save the world, he may decide to do it.

Obama can fix the damage. The Arab world loves Obama. They view him as a fellow Muslim. After Bush protects the nations of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar and half of Europe from nuclear disaster, and these nations openly proclaim their hatred for him, Obama can come to power and spend his first 100 days in office "apologizing" for Bush's "mistakes".

The US will literally get a "free pass" for this in the eyes of the world. When oil was at $147 a barrel, there was no way the Bush administration was going to risk spiking it to $250 - especially with a presidential election coming up. Come November, oil will be trading at $70 per barrel. A strike on Iran may raise the price temporarily to its 52-week high of $150 per barrel.

The election will be over and politically, the Bush administration will have nothing to lose. ( ... Continue ... )





posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   
... Continue ...


An attack on Iran will force the American military to stay in Iraq for a longer period of time. The immediate Iranian response to an American attack will be to escalate the war. They will "green light" Shi'ite groups in Southern Iraq to go back to war with American forces. They will finance and encourage terrorist groups around the world to hit America wherever and whenever.

They will broaden the war in the region by inciting Syria, Hamas in Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon to attack Israel - assuming they don't fire on Israel themselves. America will have to stay at least an extra 2-3 years until things "quiet down" again. This new situation will also insure that the national security infrastructure created after September 11, and nurtured throughout the Bush administration, will not lose any of its powers during the new administration.

Members of the Bush administration, who left their jobs in the private sector, will soon be returning to the private sector. They all came from the oil industry and they want to make sure that they will be taken care of. Those 433,000 stock options in Halliburton outgoing Vice President Dick Cheney put in a trust before he assumed office - he gets them back January 20.

It would be in his best interests if the shares of these companies were trading higher. That goes for the rest of the Bush administration - they will all want to make sure that the heads of the oil industry - their next employers - are happy.

Obama has promised to tax the oil industry next year. An attack on Iran will drive oil prices up so that the additional revenue generated by these companies will, at a least, make up for any new tax obligations.

The aftershocks of the US attack will keep oil prices in triple digits and reinitiate the debate about drilling for offshore oil. A higher price will give big oil new political clout in developing oil fields in areas considered environmentally unsound.

A heightened global tension means that the next administration will be forced to maintain current government outlays to the defense industry. The final three points will force Obama to continue the core policies of the Bush administration whether he likes it or not.

If you are viewing the world from the point of view of the Bush administration, you see a lot of very big arguments for attacking Iran now.

From this we can come to a very simple conclusion: America will either attack Iran in the next two and a half months, or it never will.


www.atimes.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I've been reading about an impending attack on Iran for how many years now? Every month it seems there is a new post on here about it, yet it never happens.

Sorry- I think not.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by JanusFIN


From this we can come to a very simple conclusion: America will either attack Iran in the next two and a half months, or it never will.

www.atimes.com...


Let me be the first to say, brilliant find. Of course, I am hoping for the latter option -- that we won't attack Iran.

It would not be hard to provoke the American people to war with Iran. All we would have to do is "uncover" some horrific plot. It worked in the case of Iraq -- it could work again in Iran.

Edit: Of course, Bush would not need complete concensus from the American people, but just enough agreement to exercise his power as commander in chief. That would not be too hard to achieve.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by xander68
I've been reading about an impending attack on Iran for how many years now? Every month it seems there is a new post on here about it, yet it never happens. Sorry- I think not.


I HOPE not, but I think: possible.

What is different here, at this time? Obviously, we have a lame duck leader, and a somewhat erratic President that has already committed the USA to an unpopular war in the past. And, of course, we have a severe and growing economic crisis at hand, as the article outlines.

[edit on 1-11-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Mr. Fink seems to be quite fond of presenting speculation as fact. Take the whole first paragraph as an example.



Fact. We are in the beginning of a worldwide recession that will last until at least late 2009. This recession will be worse than the "light" recession of 2001-2002, and the "serious" recession of 1990-1991. In scope, it will be a "severe" recession like the one in 1982.


He can no more say when any recession will end, than anyone else can. Nor can he say with anything approaching certainty how severe this or any other recession will be. These aren't facts. They're speculation, opinions or predictions maybe... certainly not facts. The rest of the article goes on similarly.

In short, either the author is an absolutely 100% reliable psychic of some kind, or he is guilty of misrepresenting his speculations and opinions as hard facts. That being the case, anything he says, should at the very least, be taken with a grain of the proverbial salt.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Resinveins]

mod edit: code tags to external source]

[edit on 2-11-2008 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
This just fit to this threat...

World faces growing risk of war: US intelligence chief

Oct 31 02:06 PM US/Eastern


The world faces a growing risk of conflict over the next 20 to 30 years amid an unprecedented transfer of wealth and power from West to East, according to the US intelligence chief.
Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence, predicted rising demand for scarce supplies of food and fuel, strategic competition over new technologies, and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

"What I'm suggesting — there's an increased potential for conflict," McConnell said in a speech Thursday to intelligence professionals in Nashville, Tennessee.

"During the period of this assessment, out to 2025, the probability for conflict between nations and within nation-state entities will be greater," he said.

Conditions for "large casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or less likely, nuclear materials" also will increase during that period, he said.

McConnell described a multi-polar world in 2025 shaped by the rise of China, India and Brazil, whose economies will by then match those of the western industrial states.

"In terms of size, speed, and directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic power, now underway, as noted from West to East is without precedent in modern history," McConnell said.

Territorial expansion and military rivalries are not likely but cannot be ruled out, he said.

"We judge these sweeping changes will not trigger a complete breakdown of the current international system, but the next 20 years of transition to a new system are fraught with risks and many, many challenges," he said.


By 2025, China is likely to have the world's second largest economy and to have emerged as a major military power, the largest importer of natural resources and the largest contributor to world pollution.

"China is poised to have more impact on the world over the next 20 years than any other country," he said.

India will have either the third or second largest economy and will press to become "one of the significant poles of this new world," he said.

Russia also will be part of that group but only if it expands and diversifies its economy and integrates it with the world global economy, he said.

"Strategic rivalries are most likely to revolve around trade, demographics, access to natural resources, investments and technological innovation. There will be a struggle to acquire technology advantage as the key enabler for dominance," he said.

www.breitbart.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him. --Franklin D. Roosevelt

I think this pretty much applies to Iran



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I think ive seen this article before or something very close to it about 1-2 years ago. Seems like this impending strike stuff keeps showing up but nothing ever happens and i dont think it will.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:53 PM
link   
The first problem is in the first word of the article..."Fact". Fact, credibility in question.

Iran is not a good candidate for an attack...not a conventional one at least.
The good people of Iran would love for someone to overthrow the Mullah's choking them from joining the modern world. We would be retarded to allienate them with some shock and awe type plan.

someone said something about the rearing up of the snakes head. Well remove the head, not run a tank through the flower garden to crush it.

Seriously, I am hopeful that Obama gets in because he has the intellectual curiousity to learn about the situation in Iran and how best to achieve a best interest objective. Attacking sheit and bombing sheit hasn't worked so well for us lately. You just can't kill a father's family and not have made a dangerous enemy for life.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Velvet, How do you equate snakes with humans, and Iran poised to strike, how so or do you mean US/Israel poised to strike.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by xander68
I've been reading about an impending attack on Iran for how many years now? Every month it seems there is a new post on here about it, yet it never happens.

Sorry- I think not.


I wholeheartedly agree. Every 3 months since 2002-2003, someone has argued that the US would "soon" strike Iran and every 3 months these predictions prove to be false. This supposition is just Bush bashing being taken to its most absurd extreme.

"He's gonna do it folks!"
Bull...



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by traderjack
Every 3 months since 2002-2003, someone has argued that the US would "soon" strike Iran and every 3 months these predictions prove to be false. This supposition is just Bush bashing being taken to its most absurd extreme.

First, you are right about Bush bashing – it is not constructive and I am absolutely guilty of indulging in that. (In my weak defense, every citizen has a right to bash any president at any time – that is part of being in a free country, of course.)

Secondly, I think you are right that this PROBABLY will not happen. However, what I find interesting about this thread is that it illustrates a clear path to something that is possible, if not likely.

This moment in time is distinctly different, and more precarious, than prior times.

We have a lame duck President who committed us to war, and we have a deteriorating economic situation. And Iran is developing nuclear technology.

Whatever motivates President Bush – and it very well may be patriotism and altruism – can now be expressed fully by him, without any recourse by political adversaries. And time is running out for him to accomplish any vision he holds.

Even if you totally agree with Bush, you have to admit (and this is not really arguable) he is strongly religious, believes in destiny, and is willing to follow his moral convictions, even when faced with strong disagreement.

I think we are probably safe from nuclear war with Iran, as you say. But the fact that a significant path is now open is worth discussing. Even if you dismissed an attack on Iran before, I don't think this possibility should be dismissed right now.

It is a very interesting and potential dangerous period of time for the USA.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
How did this happen?The president cannot declare war. He needs congressional approval to do that so again how and why do so many people think that Bush invaded Iraq? The president quite simply does not have that kind of power. People need to wake up and relaize its their congressmen and women that they elect and put into office that makes things happen or not happen. Its not the president.



[quote
We have a lame duck President who committed us to war, and we have a deteriorating economic situation. And Iran is developing nuclear technology.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
The president cannot declare war. He needs congressional approval to do that so again how and why do so many people think that Bush invaded Iraq?


Very good point, and one that is often overlooked.

The only way this could happen, without rigorous congressional oversight, would be in the case of some sort of national emergency, possible nuclear attack against the US or one of its allies (or belief that one was about to occur.)

It would require very careful manipulation. That is really one of the main reasons I think this is unlikely. But the fact that it is even possible -- can even be discussed rationally -- is very interesting to me.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:56 AM
link   
We are going to attack Iran " AGAIN" ?

Didnt we just do that last month or was it the month before?


Oh wait I remember This is ATS



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
People need to wake up and relaize its their congressmen and women that they elect and put into office that makes things happen or not happen. Its not the president.




great point!


I love it when people tend to forget that it takes the house and the senate

Both sides of the isle and all you hear in the Media is Bush this and Bush that.!



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Prince, you need to wake up, its not politicians who wage war, they are just the mouth pieces for the parasites who really run the show. The sole objective of any politician is to make money and gain power for themselves and they do not represent the people who put them there and never will.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Well its not tbhe president either!! So the idiots who go around blaming the president for everything need to wake up then shut up because he has no real power. HE alone does not wage war or keep war from happening.





Originally posted by magicmushroom
Prince, you need to wake up, its not politicians who wage war, they are just the mouth pieces for the parasites who really run the show. The sole objective of any politician is to make money and gain power for themselves and they do not represent the people who put them there and never will.



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by traderjack
Every 3 months since 2002-2003, someone has argued that the US would "soon" strike Iran and every 3 months these predictions prove to be false. This supposition is just Bush bashing being taken to its most absurd extreme.

First, you are right about Bush bashing – it is not constructive and I am absolutely guilty of indulging in that. (In my weak defense, every citizen has a right to bash any president at any time – that is part of being in a free country, of course.)

Secondly, I think you are right that this PROBABLY will not happen. However, what I find interesting about this thread is that it illustrates a clear path to something that is possible, if not likely.

This moment in time is distinctly different, and more precarious, than prior times.

We have a lame duck President who committed us to war, and we have a deteriorating economic situation. And Iran is developing nuclear technology.

Whatever motivates President Bush – and it very well may be patriotism and altruism – can now be expressed fully by him, without any recourse by political adversaries. And time is running out for him to accomplish any vision he holds.

Even if you totally agree with Bush, you have to admit (and this is not really arguable) he is strongly religious, believes in destiny, and is willing to follow his moral convictions, even when faced with strong disagreement.

I think we are probably safe from nuclear war with Iran, as you say. But the fact that a significant path is now open is worth discussing. Even if you dismissed an attack on Iran before, I don't think this possibility should be dismissed right now.

It is a very interesting and potential dangerous period of time for the USA.


[edit on 1-11-2008 by Buck Division]


Nice post.

I agree with you on several points. I am not a Bush-bot, I just think it has become to easy to make Bush the evil overlord of our nightmares. We the People give our masters their strength.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join