postN88

Iran, Oil and The Crumbling of a Criminal Dictatorial Wall

Iran, Oil and The Crumbling of a Criminal Dictatorial Wall

Step aside for a moment from the conspiracy theorists and let’s consider that the U.S did not take out Maduro of Venezuela in order to facilitate more supply of oil. Let’s consider the possibility that Maduro was removed because he did not facilitate free enterprise and ran a criminal enterprise that did not favor the U.S.

WTI Crude Oil One Year Chart as of 9th January 2026

Venezuela has the largest demonstrated oil reserves in the world, but the U.S has done rather well without it for years. The Trump administration’s move to take over Venezuela deters China and Russia’s influence in the Americas, while also putting another nail in the coffin of the Cuban regime. The word regime is used implicitly to point out that Venezuela, Russia, China and Cuba are all regimes of one sort via their one party ruling systems. Yes, you can argue the United State has returned to an imperialist philosophy, but that doesn’t mean it has dictatorial rule. Some will argue that point, I understand. But let’s step away from the complexity of political biases – including my own – and insights and discuss oil for a moment.

The takeover of the Venezuelan oil infrastructure, which has not happened in full yet via the U.S military action, does not mean U.S oil companies will make trillions of dollars from the adventure immediately. In fact a glut of oil is one of the potential consequences if Venezuela were to return to an open market system with its energy supply. Yes, the price of oil would in theory likely get cheaper. While it can be argued that this will help the U.S consumers, however many U.S producers of the shale oil industry would be put in a difficult spot. Producing oil from shale deposits requires hydraulic fracturing – known as fracking – and is an expensive endeavor. Cheaper oil from Venezuela in other words could put small and medium producers in the U.S out of business if supply becomes too ample

Now let’s turn our attention to Iran and the attempted revolution that is fomenting a reaction from the regime of that nation. Oil supply is certainly at stake for the world, but there is the overwhelmingly important possibility of allowing 90 million plus people to live in a system without repression. As of last night internet and telephone lines have been shuttered by the dictatorial government. There is a legitimate fear that many people protesting for their rights to be free now face the risk of violence and some have already begun to pay with their lives. Freedom is more important than oil for the people of Iran and Venezuela. It should also be pointed out that Venezuela and Iran are members of OPEC and this is likely not going to change.

The Trump administration is threatening military action against the Iranian rulers, but it is questionable how the regime of Iran could be overthrown by outside forces if there are not active combat boots the ground. While it may be possible to attempt a Venezuela like mission in Iran, that would be difficult at best considering the regime is already paranoid and on high alert. The civilians of Iran will have to do a lot of the work by themselves. Which means the populace of Iran will need to be able to organize and collectively topple a dictatorship, and this is unlikely to be done by handing out flowers. The regular army of Iran must disobey orders and the police must decide not to participate in violence against the protesters, allowing a seizure of power by the people.

At this juncture it remains difficult to say what will happen in Iran, except to say that there is likely going to be blood spilled. The Berlin Wall fell after decades of Cold War between the West and East. The wall of the Islamic Republic of Iran which was declared in the first week of April 1979 has nearly been running its dictatorship as long as the communists controlled Eastern Europe.

If and it is a big if, the Iranian people are able to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran it would be a game changer the world over. The complexity of the mafia style state that the current dictatorship has controlled not only in the Middle East, but throughout South America and elsewhere via influence with its proxies like Hezbollah is enormous. The dismantling of this network would take longer than the toppling of the Iranian regime. The world is unlikely to ever know in full detail the criminal activity of the current Iranian government and its proxies worldwide.

This is not about oil, it is about freedom. However, if the oil of Iran suddenly came under the control of a Western looking Iran that was unshackled, yes it would add to a vast amount of energy that the world already enjoys, but OPEC would find a way to manage the supply.

If Iran were to join the ranks of free nations and castoff its current leadership the world would benefit greatly. Only nations and proxies that gain from the exploitation of the Iranian dictatorship would worry. If the Iranian dictatorship falls there will not be paradise, but the event would be significant and transform the current state of global affairs.

Copy and paste the text from AMT that you want to share

postN19

Preventing WWIII: Part 2 – Reviving Western Deterrence

Preventing WWIII: Part 2 - Reviving Western Deterrence

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author.

Aggressive Western Action Can over-extend China and Revive Needed Deterrence.

Some cliches are just correct, in spite of their being cliches – “if you want peace, prepare for war” is one. But really it should be “if you want to avoid war, deter war”.

Therefore, it is not clear to me why there is opposition by some in the Republican party to fighting Russian aggression in Ukraine. For some, I guess it is a knee jerk reaction against Biden administration policy while for others it seems to be a general loathing of American involvement in the world. 

Each is understandable on its own but does not take into effect the appeasement of Russia will have on Western deterrence around the world – including in the Western hemisphere and the Indo-Pacific. While most Americans understand that Russian control of Ukraine threatens the main Western European countries, the key to Russian imperialism really is in the south. Historically, Russia has always tried to find a warm water port to call its own. For nearly four centuries Czarist Russia fought Ottoman Turkey so that Russia could expand its territory southward and have a warm water presence in the Mediterranean. Currently, a Ukrainian presence in the Black Sea denies Russia even the opportunity to pressure modern Turkey to abide its wishes.

A Russian victory in Ukraine would mean dominance of the Black Sea by the Russian Navy and directly challenge Turkey to appease Russian power by giving them free passage through the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean. That in itself would not be worth much to the Russians without a port in the Mediterranean, which they currently have. That they have one goes back to the disastrous decision by the Obama administration to invite Russia back into the Mideast in order to take care of Syrian chemical weapons. This came, we all remember, when the Syrians laughed at Obama and crossed his “red line” about using chemical weapons against its own people. We might also remember when then Secretary of State John Kerry (the one who was never right on a single foreign policy issue ever) who, first demanded that Syria turn over all chemical weapons in a week, then reassured them that even if we attack it will be “unbelievably small”.

In 1973-4, Henry Kissinger brilliantly took advantage of the Israeli-Arab War’s outcome with Israel’s surrounding the Egyptian 3rd Army in the south and controlling the road to Damascus in the north, by brokering a cease fire on both fronts. This led directly to the expulsion of Russia/Soviet Union from the Middle East. While Russia continued friendly ties with the murderous Assad family – first Hafez and then his son, Bashar, they did not have a military, air or naval presence there. Due to this longstanding relationship with Assad’s Syria, Obama and Kerry thought it a brilliant idea to have them come in and do the dirty work that they didn’t want to do – prevent Assad from gassing his own people. 

As Russia came in and established air and sea bases in Syria and introduced the infamous Wagner group to carry out its brutal ground operations, Russia slowly started to strengthen its position in the region. While slyly allowing Israel to attack Iranian arms shipments meant for Hezbollah while pretending to be its ally, Russia formed a close  relationship with Iran. Wagner, which fought hand in hand with Hezbollah in order to prop up the Assad regime (and attack American forces fighting ISIS) is now rumored to be training Hezbollah in the use of Russian anti-aircraft systems. 

In addition, reports last week that an Iranian Ilyushin 76 cargo jet has now landed in one of the Russian air-bases they established after Obama’s kind invitation to return to the Mideast. This plane, filled with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah has been unable to land in regular Syrian airports or bases because Israel continuously puts them out of service. Knowing that Israel would never attack a Russian base – this is a safe haven that Russia gladly supplies. 

When free countries unite in warfare there is usually one joint goal  – that they are all united to defend freedom – that is why they fight together.  While autocratic and totalitarian regimes fight together it is usually a combination of a negative goal – disturbing or destroying the current world or regional order – as well as the goal for each power in itself. Currently, the joint goal in the Mideast (of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea) is to hurt the main ally of the US in the region – Israel, in order to weaken and embarrass the US. For Iranians, they also want Israel destroyed. For Russia, they want Israel weakened so they can replace the US as the power broker in the Mideast. For China, it is to dismantle America’s control of the flow of oil and, eventually, the replacement of the USD in the global economy with the Yuan.

Ukraine is important in this calculus because, as we said above it gives Russia complete control of the Black Sea and will pressure Turkey – whose NATO membership is uses only to its own advantage – to break permanently with the West. While the Chinese theory is that the two fronts the US is supplying arms to, Ukraine and the Mideast, are tying it down and expending its resources it would otherwise use in the Pacific, in truth, an aggressive strategy on both fronts would be to over-extend Russian and Chinese resources in order to keep China from moving on Tiawan. A credible threat of destruction or even marginalization of the Axis allies in the Mideast – including (besides the soon to be gone Hamas) Hezbollah, Shiite-Iranian proxies in Iraq and Syria, as well as Iran itself combined with a major offensive in Ukraine will tie down Axis resources and possibly prevent a Chinese blockade or attack on Taiwan.   If its two main allies need full supply and full readiness to be able to respond to credible and massive attacks by Ukraine, Israel and the US, China itself might have to expend resources to prop up its own allies. 

Add to that a major show of naval force in the Indo-Pacific by Japan, India, Australia and South Korea combined with US forces will give China the choice of destroying their own wavering economy by attacking or blockading Taiwan or in maintaining peaceful Pacific trade routes while trying to prevent the collapse of its Axis allies. 

An immediate and radical change in policy can restore Western deterrence quickly.   Re-arming Ukraine and leaving Israel to do its job without pressure to stop in Gaza and to respond forcefully in Lebanon will send a strong message. Biden brought two carrier groups to the Mideast and told Hezbollah, “don’t”. But they did.  

In spite  of that  US Secretary of Defense Austin told Israel that its response to Hezbollah aggression in the north is “provoking” them.  

And the US hesitates even against Iranian proxies. Just now, the NY Times has reported that Biden-Blinken have turned down a Pentagon plan to be more aggressive in response to Iranian attacks against US forces in Syria and Iraq for fear of “provoking Iran” (this seems to tell us that the Austin complaint from Austin to Israel is really from Blinken).  

Iran never seems to fear provoking the US.   

Israel fooled itself by thinking Hamas was deterred by its destruction of an arms factory or two (as the US is doing now in Iraq/Syria) when proper deterrence would have meant them knowing we can and will go into Gaza and destroy their underground city as Israel is doing now. Instead, media fear mongers, backed by Israeli ex-Generals on the payroll of the US progressive left (via cushy think-thank jobs) combined with policy directives by successive governments have told us and Hamas time and time again that Israel cannot destroy Hamas as the cost is too high. I don’t want to speak too early, but that seems to have been as wrong as their assurance that Hamas is deterred since they want to drink white wine in the evening overlooking the Mediterranean while watching their children play innocent video games.

It is time to stop calling for cease fires and repeating UN hypocrisy and to start being aggressive and provocative in the defense of freedom. 

Disclaimer: the views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of the author, and not necessarily the opinions reflected by angrymetatraders.com or its associated parties.

You can follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/