"For I am a direct descendant of slaves, too near to the actual enterprise to believe that its echoes are over with the reign of emancipation. Moreover, I am a direct descendant of Prospero worshipping in the same temple of endeavour, using his legacy of language - not to curse our meeting - but to push it further..." George Lamming
Just twelve days ago I posted that "Iran is making history". Although many of us somehow intuited that our world was on the cusp of momentous changes, we probably didn't realize (at the time) just how earth-shattering they would be, once the dust cleared. The pace of activity picked up (I won't detail it here since there are a plethora of analyses by capable authors one can reference), and just one week after my post, Peter Haenseler via the blog of former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson summarized the "state of affairs" in the following manner:
No one expected Donald Trump to sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—especially in Versailles. Iran is taking its place at the big table with the major powers, and the world looks different—we’re asking questions—many of which have no answers.
Although the dust hadn't (and still hasn't) settled, the immediate question on everybody's lips was:
What drove Trump to hurriedly sign the MoU?
The President himself let slip the answer to that question during a masterful display of circumlocution at the following press conference. The answer makes its debut at 2:35😆:
Neither I nor Larry C. Johnson are oil industry specialists, but Larry has conveniently done his homework before I could begin researching the issue (more HERE, and a further update HERE). Coming to think of it, I should just refer you to Larry C. Johnson's blog since he has done a masterful job of following, researching and documenting this entire affair.
I will perhaps end with a segment from another Middle East analyst of the highest caliber, the incomparable Alastair Crooke. in which he quotes a former senior Israeli Iran military intelligence analyst:
An unquestioned dogma has bitten the dust:
“The long-standing expectation in parts of Jerusalem and Washington has been that sustained pressure could lead to regime change in Tehran … [However] the announced agreement suggests a [new] fundamental reality: The campaign that many hoped would weaken or even destabilise the Islamic Republic will instead conclude with the regime intact, strengthened, and formally engaged by the U.S. … [This] amounts to the collapse of a broader strategic assumption: that coordinated American and Israeli pressure could generate conditions conducive to fundamental political change inside Iran. Instead, the likely outcome is the opposite … [it is] an outcome likely to reinforce confidence amongst [Iran’s] ruling elite rather than weaken it …”.
This moment represents a major strategic achievement for Iran: A heroic image is surging across the globe – whereas Israel’s isolation on the Iran issue, even amongst its Gulf allies, has spiked. On the personal level, Netanyahu’s standing in Israel has plunged catastrophically.
Much to the chagrin of the western establishment, the way of the future is being articulated by this man:
"We have consistently underscored the diversity of the world as a prerequisite for its sustainability.
It may appear paradoxical, as greater diversity complicates the construction of a unified narrative.
Naturally, universal norms are presumed to aid in this regard. Can they fulfill this role?
It stands to reason that this is a formidable and complicated task.
Firstly, we must avoid a scenario where the model of one country or a relatively minute segment of humanity is presumed universal and imposed upon others.
Secondly, it is untenable to adopt any conventional, albeit democratically developed code, and dictate it as an infallible truth to others in perpetuity.
The international community is a living entity, with its civilisational diversity making it unique and presenting an inherent value.
International law is a product of agreements not even between countries, but between nations, because legal consciousness is an integral part of every unique culture and every civilisation.
The crisis of international law, which is the subject of broad public discussion today, is, in a sense, a crisis of growth.
The rise of nations and cultures that have previously remained on the periphery of global politics for one reason or another means that their own distinct ideas of law and justice are playing an increasingly important role.
They are diverse. This may give the impression of discord and perhaps cacophony, but this is only the initial phase.
It is my deep conviction that the only new international system possible is one embracing polyphony, where many tones and many musical themes are sounded together to form harmony.
If you like, we are moving towards a world system that is going to be polyphonic rather than polycentric, one in which all voices are heard and, most importantly, absolutely must be heard.
Those who are used to soloing and want to keep it that way will have to get used to the new 'scores' now.
Have I mentioned post-WWII international law?
This international law is based on the UN Charter, which was written by the victorious countries.
But the world is changing – with new centres of power emerging, and powerful economies growing and coming to the forefront.
That predictably calls for a change in the legal regulation as well.
Of course, this must be done carefully, but it is inevitable.
Law reflects life, not vice versa."
Enter the BRICS+. The recent Kazan Summit is indeed a watershed, but there is disagreement over what was intended and what was achieved. The following video will go a long way toward clarifying these issues. In it, political economist Radhika Desai is joined by Ben Norton and former central banker Kathleen Tyson, author of the book "Multicurrency Mercantilism" to explain BRICS's plans to transform the international monetary and financial system, and to discuss policies at the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia.:
By the way, Youtube has the bad habit of censoring taking down inconvenient videos. If that happens in this case, the audio of said video can easily be accessed here.
I will dare to make a prediction: The United States has reached the end of its rope: It will (if it hasn't already done so, surreptitiously) throw in the towel. I'm not saying that it will perform some sort of public "mea culpa" and accept that its "unipolar moment" is finally dead and buried. No! By no means. It will instead cling to its pretense of being the world's "indispensable nation" for some indeterminate period of time into the future. For how long? I don't know, but it is likely to be years, if not decades. History is often written in retrospect. Whenever the USA finally admits to its fate (sometime in the near or distant future), the historians and analysts of the epoch will likely ask (or speculate) when it arrived at that conclusion. When was it forced to throw in the towel? It is my firm belief that the consensus will eventually coalesce around the year 2024 (or the transition from 2023 to 2024). The Roaring Twenties? What do you think?😎
In the following interview with Michael Brenner, the key take-away is his explication of a Western behavioral puzzle, a veritable "collective psychopathology" (commencing at 22:55):
I am glad to have lived long enough to witness this, even if it is in its early stages and the road ahead is long and treacherous. Here is a major marker to celebrate on that long road:
To be clear, it’s a positive development that a broad range of countries will now participate in BRICS’ countless gatherings each year ahead of its annual summit, but the only thing that they all have in common is their interest in accelerating financial multipolarity processes via their national currencies. That’s not to downplay the importance of BRICS expanding in the way that was ultimately decided upon, but just to inform readers of its newfound limits in order to temper their expectations. At the same time, BRICS also has more opportunities than before in the sense that more countries can now participate in whatever alternative financial architecture their group unveils in the future such as an inclusive non-Western SWIFT-like payment system. These benefits balance out the obstacles and arguably make the latest move worthwhile in the long term, which is the period that they have in mind, not the short- or medium-terms per se.
There have been some momentous developments since the year commenced, but these have rarely made it into the minds of North Americans. It has been said that what is happening in Ukraine is a hybrid war being fought on multiple fronts, one of which is the sphere of information:
[Eurasia Economic Union’s Sergey] Glazyev: My book, The Last World War, that I already mentioned, which was published as far back as 2015, argued that the likelihood of this happening eventually is very high. In this hybrid war, economic warfare and informational/cognitive warfare are key theaters of conflict. On both of these fronts, the U.S. and NATO countries have overwhelming superiority and I did not have any doubt that they would take full advantage of this in due course.
As far as this informational/cognitive warfare is concerned, professor of philosophy Peter Ludlow at Northwestern University published an article which appeared in the New York Times nearly a decade ago entitled The Real War on Reality. I'll quote it in part:
This may sound like nothing so much as a “Matrix”-like fantasy, but it is distinctly real, and resembles in some ways the employment of “Psyops” (psychological operations), which as most students of recent American history know, have been part of the nation’s military strategy for decades. The military’s “Unconventional Warfare Training Manual” defines Psyops as “planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.” In other words, it is sometimes more effective to deceive a population into a false reality than it is to impose its will with force or conventional weapons. Of course this could also apply to one’s own population if you chose to view it as an “enemy” whose “motives, reasoning, and behavior” needed to be controlled.
Returning to the Ukraine conflict, it is therefore essential that North Americans be made aware of the mythology they are being handed under the guise of "information" or "news":
As we witness the collapse of various mainstream narratives, especially those surrounding the U.S./NATO war with Russia in Ukraine, Americans should begin to reassess their understanding of U.S. national leadership. Most American citizens have no notion of the great disparity between what their government does overseas and the stories they hear from its mouthpieces. As a result, Americans unwittingly support all sorts of foreign operations with little or no understanding of what is actually going on. For years, they have been misled by a non-stop propaganda campaign that is only now beginning to crumble. We are experiencing the death throes of the United States’ unipolar hegemony over large parts of world. Until citizens begin to realize the magnitude of their government’s policy deceptions, it will become increasingly difficult to understand the United States’ changing global position and adjust to the effects of the growing negative perception of our country held by many people around the world.
...Go read the whole thing, especially if you are North American. Most of the rest of the world doesn't need such deprogramming since it is more or less innoculated against the West's mythical narrative.
While the above article from The American Conservative is much more extensive in its coverage (via the various valuable links included), one mustn't forget the particulars of the Ukraine conflict. Perhaps of greatest importance is to understand that the war didn't start in 2022; it started in 2014 with the Maidancoup. A succinct eleven minute summary is given by Jeffrey Sachs in the following brief video:
So where do things stand today and where are they headed? I was actually correct earlier this year when I contradicted many claims that Russia was preparing a massive military offensive in Ukraine's Donbass that could possibly even make its way to Kiev. Why should Russia change what it has been doing when it has been relatively successful so far?, I asked. Rather than explain my view, you cannot do better than listen to Brian Berletic:
Finally, it is essential to keep one thing in mind: This "war" extends beyond what is happening in Ukraine, Poland and Eastern Europe. Check out what is happening in the Middle East, re-baptized as Western Asia:
...the reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran is also a precursor to their induction as BRICS members in a near future. To be sure, there is a Russian-Chinese understanding already on this score. The BRICS membership for Saudi Arabia and Iran will radically reset the power dynamic in the international system.
Go read the whole thing. And while you're at it, read this, too.
