Economic Dday 20260909

Can An Economic D-Day Win the War?

by with No Comment AssetsBehavioral SentimentEconomyExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsFinancial InstitutionsIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

Only Along with Military Might in Order to Avoid Stalemate

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 9th of September via The Angry Demagogue.

The main tool that the West has used against tyrants has been that of economic sanctions since they have not been willing to commit military assets to the fight. This has been going on with Iran for decades and with Russia in various forms for over ten years and yet both countries have managed to launch wars (on their own or via proxies) during times of minimum and maximum sanctions.

The signing of the MoU by the Trump administration was seen as a naïve undertaking at best and a surrender at worst. But like the Palestinians who never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity, so too have their friends the Iranian Islamists. Rather than “taking the win” as President Biden would have advised, the Islamist Republic decided to double down on their treachery, hitting shipping in the Straits of Hormuz as well as American allies in the Gulf and Jordan, with impunity. The tit for tat response that the U.S has been using, copying Israel’s pre-October 7 failures in Gaza and Lebanon, has brought no real gains.

Economic Dday 20260909

Can An Economic D-Day Win the War? 

President Trump’s turn to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his economic D-Day against Iran is supposed to change the nature of economic warfare in general and the war against Iran in particular. If the goal is getting them back to the negotiating table then there is a good chance it will work. However, if one thinks that once at the table the negotiations will go differently than it did before, one would be foolish. If the goal is, as it ought to be, to bring down the regime, that is a more difficult end.

However, we are seeing a few things taking place that are accompanying this economic D-Day. It is not clear if these actions are part of the U.S plan to bring down the Islamic Republic or if they are just coincidences but if the latter, they are the luckiest coincidences in U.S foreign policy in quite some time.

Hezbollah and the Houthis are two of the three main Iranian proxies left, the third being in Iraq. And while Hamas still lives, their military capabilities have been degraded enough as to make them a minor protector of Iran and an even less minor projector of Iranian power. People tend to downplay the importance of the “proxies” to the Islamic regime and what their collapse could mean to it. For nearly half a century the Islamic Republic has been concentrating on extending its power and prestige in the Middle East (and globally) at the expense of its own people. These proxies are a core part of the Islamic Republic. Hezbollah and the Houthis for example mean more to the Islamic Republic than do most of their own citizens. If their citizens revolt, they just kill them, if their proxies fall or leave their orbit, the regime itself is in danger

In Iraq the U.S government has been working diligently with the Iraqi government ot neutralize the Shiite militias. But the Iraqi militias are more a thorn in the side than a real power. The Saudis, however, have begun a major offensive against the Houthis and are closing in on the Houthi capital of Sanaa. True enough the Houthis are fighting back and hitting Saudi oil infrastructure (one wonders why Turkey and Pakistan are not living up to their obligations in the “Mecca Accords” – but that is for another day) but it seems that Saudi Arabia is finally taking the Iranian threat seriously and hundreds of Houthi fighters have surrendered to Saudi and other Sunni forces. There were reports that the U.S turned down a Saudi request to fight the Houthis, but that doesn’t mean they have not coordinated the fighting together. The civil war has been going on in Yemen since the early 1960’s or before and while this probably won’t end the war it might force whomever is the Shiite replacement for the Houthis to concentrate on internal fighting and to leave the Bab-el-Mandeb Straits untouched. This is a key Saudi goal as it needs multiple routes for its oil exports.

UAE Saudi 20260909

Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

In Lebanon, Israel has captured the main forward base of Hezbollah in the tunnels under the Al-Tahar ridge. This is a major tunnel system, cut into the mountains that contains full command and control centers as well as rocket and drone launching capabilities hidden from the Israeli air force. The Al-Tahar complex was unknown to Israel until rather recently with Reuters claiming that Iranian officers were or still are held up inside the tunnel network. Israel has followed this up with attacks on the town of Nabatiyeh which the al-Tahir ridge overlooks as well as other Shiite towns that are centers of Hezbollah activity. Nabatiyeh is not just another Shiite village but the largest city in the eastern part of southern Lebanon and serves as the administrative center of the area. It is, of course, a Hezbollah stronghold. While the MoU gave Iran a veto over what would happen in Lebanon, its disintegration has given Israel free reign to finally take care of the Hezbollah presence in the country.

Lebanon 20260909

Towns Along Lebanon and Israel Border

In a more surprising move, taking a page from Trump’s own playbook, Pakistan has issued exorbitant tariffs on commercial traffic going to and from Iran threatening a land route to China and what was a safe way to bring in needed goods from abroad.

According to reports, Iran has just two months of fuel left in the country. The currency has tumbled even more and, much like Weimar Germany, stores are changing their prices multiple times a day in order to keep up with the inflation.

Pakistan 20260909

Pakistan and Iranian Border Areas

Does this all mean that Iran can fall in the coming months? The people who could lead such a regime change are those who witnessed the January massacre of over 40,000 of their fellow citizens and who continue to witness daily executions of the protesters the regime has jailed. It is difficult to predict these things but hard to believe that they will put themselves in a position for another massacre so soon after the last one and to succeed. On the other hand, the economy is in such a shambles that at some point the army might get involved if they are getting paid after the Revolutionary Guards.

One thing we need to take into consideration is if the Gulf States will now be stricter in their dealings with Iran. The UAE, as much as it is one of the more Western oriented of the Gulf States still has been allowing Iranian funds to flow through that country (as it seems, it allows Russian funds to flow) and Qatar is always playing a double game. Will at least the UAE shut down all Iranian pipelines. As for Europe, they seem to be falling in behind the American effort and China is getting impatient with having to pay market prices for their oil. None of this means that in practice they will follow Scott Bessent’s D-Day, but at least in public they are supportive.

Much as the Israeli hostages were only released after massive military pressure led to Hamas seeing them as liabilities rather than assets, the military destruction of the main Iranian proxies, a total blockade of Iran itself combined with real sanctions that denies the IRGC the money and material it needs to continue its internal and external terror could lead to the regime’s downfall. Or, it could require more American military power – either an occupation of Kharg and other Iranian islands or, more likely, some massive B2 strikes on key IRGC and nuclear installations.

There are two other forces that might interdict an American victory in the Gulf and that is the Turkey-Qatar alliance and Saudi cowardice. Erdogan’s Turkey has no interest in a collapse of an already weakened Iran as they look to be hegemon over the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean and need some residual threat from Iran to Israel. If they press the United States to stop the Israeli destruction of Hezbollah or if they further their military presence in Syria, forcing Israel’s hand, America will lose. Qatar too, needs friction so that its money (it has nothing else) is still of value.

A non-Islamist Iran could surprise the world and grow into a regional economic, industrial and military power that, in alliance with the UAE and Israel would challenge the Turkish-Qatari-Moslem Brotherhood alliance. Tukey-Qatar need a weakened Iran.

These are the four steps that could lead to an American victory:

– The destruction of Iran’s economy via the economic D-Day

– The destruction of the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

– The end of the Houthis regime in Yemen.

– A renewed American air campaign against key IRGC targets.

Taking any of these four off the table or taking advice from Turkey or Qatar will lead either to an American defeat or, in a best case scenario, a stalemate.

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.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

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

Share:
Wars Against America 20260903a

The Wars Against America

by with No Comment EconomyExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsInvestingIra SlomowitzRisk ManagementUncategorizedWorld

Kicking the Can Down the Road is a Public Policy Alternative

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 2nd of September via The Angry Demagogue.

We recently met a young Russian citizen and when asked when the war with Ukraine will end, the response was “Ukraine is just a place, the war is against America”. This Russian citizen was from a city in Siberia, a “regular” Russian with no official contacts that we know of but who, it seems is a proud Russian who “understands” that her leader, Vladimir Putin, is at war with America, who wants to harm and destroy Russia and Russian religion and culture. This war of the West, now the United States, against Russia goes back centuries in the Russian mind.

Wars Against America 20260903a

The Wars Against America: Kicking the Can Down the Road is a Public Policy Alternative

For nearly five decades the Islamic Republic of Iran has planned and prepared to fight the Great Satan, the United States, with the Little Satan, Israel, just a place, a small one bomb country to destroy en-route to the greater, the greatest enemy. This is not speculation but is written into the DNA of the Islamic Republic of Iran in all their announcements and policies over the last, nearly, 50 years.

Way back in my college years in the late 1970’s in one of my first political science courses we learned of China’s desire for “hegemony” in their neighborhood. It was the first time I heard the word hegemony and have always associated it with the Chinese Communist Party and their desire to control the land masses and sea lanes that are near it – what we now call the Indo-Pacific. China to this day not only claims Taiwan as part of its rightful territory but of course Tibet, border areas with India and the entirety of the South China Sea including major U.S allies like Philippines. The CCP has also never given up its desire for revenge against Japanese atrocities of WWII and control of the Korean peninsula – or eastern Russia, for that matter.

And yet, irrespective of all the evidence gathered over the centuries and especially over the last decades since the cold war ended, there are still those in the American establishment, left and right, who feel that the United States can avoid what are naively called “foreign entanglements”. However, if America does not go “there”, the world will come to its shores. Even the Monroe Doctrine at its height did not keep non-Western hemisphere militaries away from the United States.

With the advent of drone warfare, hypersonic missiles, hacking of infrastructure and the battle over AI, there is no avoiding American involvement in global affairs unless it wants to be a nation subservient to China, Russia and Iran – and even then, subservient states rarely live in peace. Another lesson we learned in Political Science 101 was that “power abhors a vacuum”. An American retrenchment will not mean a world at peace. Much as Israel learned it cannot just “separate” from the Gazans, America will learn it can’t just ignore the world around it.

American governments have decided on a “kick the can down the road” organizing principle for nearly all domestic and foreign policy. There seems to be an assumption amongst American politicians and policy makers that American ingenuity can always solve the problem, no matter how late it gets. Social Security is in trouble, the deficit has reached a point where just the interest is $1 trillion, North Korea has multiple nuclear weapons, Iran is as close as it could get, Russia is waging (indirect) war in western Europe and the United States (see: Russian hacking), China is waging a propaganda campaign against American AI that AI executives seem overeager to support by their sci-fi fear mongering and there is no sense of urgency amongst American politicians.

The Vice President wonders aloud about the “harm” to America that the US Dollar as the reserve currency recieves, not thinking beyond the simplistic price of exports. The lower cost of energy and minerals due to their being priced in Dollars does not seem to be a net gain for the US in his eyes. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) of course wants to bankrupt America and the Democratic party does not have the will to oppose them. The Michigan AG wants Jews to sacrifice themselves because otherwise the planet will be uninhabitable and the State of California can’t seem to build houses anymore.

The Vance-Kushner-Qatar cabal control American policy in the Persian Gulf up to the point where President Trump gets too annoyed at Iranian duplicity and he sicks American airpower on them. Then it returns as the deals that this group want to do with Qatar (and Turkey) are too much for them to resist as they lead American deeper into subservient status. They don’t seem to realize that the Qatari-Turkish attempt to break the American-Israeli relationship is being done to weaken the American presence in the Middle East by making it dependent upon Qatar. 

Syria’s Islamist leader is still building his Islamist army while Turkey presents him to the world as the moderate who just wants to build a nice country. What is happening though, is that Qatar and Turkey are having America sponsor the Moslem Brotherhood. It is not the American war against Iran that has caused strategic overreach but the potential deals that have left the world’s greatest free power at the behest of a dessert kingdom with no people but lots of ready cash. Deals for pipelines and railways through the Middle Eastern desert are apparently more important for American success than the technology coming out of Israel.

America cannot avoid the world since the world will not avoid America. America is the main target of all revisionist States, whether it likes it or not.

Everyone is waiting until after the mid-terms for something to happen, but then the 2028 presidential campaign starts. The waiting needs to stop regarding Iran, Russia, China, defense manufacturing and the fiscal situation. As Yogi Berra brilliantly stated – “it gets late early out there”.

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.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

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

Share:
Western Leaders 20260814

Standing on the Precipice: Western Leaders Continue to Fiddle

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentExclusive ContentFeatured HighlightsIra SlomowitzUncategorizedWorld

Will The West Stay Awake and Become Alert?

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of August via The Angry Demagogue.

In February 2022 the Russian member of the Axis invaded Ukraine. In October 2023, less than two years later, the Iranian proxy Hamas invaded Israel and their proxy Hezbollah joined the fight the next day. North Korea and China the other members of the axis did not, probably, coordinate either attack, but nor did they discourage it or help to end it. In the period of less than two years, the free countries of the world were given a wake-up call to what historians may end up writing was the start of a new world war.

Sweden and Finland were spooked enough to take a bold move and join NATO and the existing European members of NATO seem to realize that they need to start worrying about their own defense – at least against Russia, if not the rest of the Axis. In Ukraine, they put together a bold defense and created a drone force that is, if not winning, at least is not losing the war of attrition that the conflict has “settled” into. Ukraine may have convinced itself that it can win this war on the battlefield and Russia is counting on its Axis allies to help it overcome their own military incompetence. North Korean troops are dying in Ukraine and there are rumors that 50,000 more North Korean troops are on the way. Iran and China are supplying weapons. The Axis is not only keeping the war going for Russia, it is arguably, along with its nuclear weapons, a path to victory.

Western Leaders 20260814

Standing on the Precipice: Western Leaders Continue to Fiddle

Europe and parts of the United States did not take the hint that in October 2023 that the Putin’s Russia is not the only country threatening their security. The Iranian piece of the Axis also aims to dismantle Western freedoms and religion via direct military threats, terrorism and unchecked immigration.

Has the Middle East changed after the Ukraine invasion and more specifically, October 7? Asking different people will get you different answers. For Israeli PM Netanyahu it has been a strategic victory for Israel as both Hezbollah and Hamas are on their heals and Iran’s nuclear and missile forces have been severely damaged. For Israel’s opposition, the last three years have brought no positive change for Israel in the Middle East since Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran still exist.

For Iranian Islamists it has changed by showing that they can stand up to their own people and to the United States so that any attempt to topple them will end in failure. For the Islamic Republic, a non-total-defeat shows the world that they can continue their quest for regional and global control despite the hiccups caused by Israel and the United States. The same holds for Hamas and Hezbollah who believe that Israel has been isolated in the world and that the UN, the Hague and the EU – along with America’s DSA – will make being Jewish and Israeli so illegitimate that they will soon be able to chose their apartments in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

According to Erdogan’s Turkey, the Middle East is their playground as they have managed to maintain positive relations with both Hamas and the United States. They have troops in Qatar, a new alignment with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and have so many forces in northern and sub-Saharan Africa that an expanded Ottoman Empire lies in the not too distant future. Greece will be overcome and where Iran failed to destroy Israel, they will succeed.

President Trump believes, or states, that the United States has scored a decisive victory over Iran, is bringing peace to Lebanon and Gaza via Israeli concessions and the disarmament of Hamas and Hezbollah and the future in the middle east goes through Washington. The President also states that the Abraham Accords will be expanded and that Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia are all strong and reliable allies of the United States and that all these countries are moving towards a more peaceful and economically vibrant Middle East.

Back in the 1960’s and 1970’s when there were two regional Moslem states that were friendly to Israel, Turkey and Iran. During that cold war period, the only Gulf state that counted was Saudi Arabia. Syria and Egypt were Israel’s existential enemies and the Hashemites of Jordan were more concerned with survival than fighting (at least after 1967). Lebanon was a non-threat to Israel (as a matter of fact Israel supplied arms to the Shiite villagers in the south during the civil war of the late 1970’s at the request of the Shah of Iran).

Currently Iran is Israel’s main enemy, although Turkey is pushing to move ahead of them as the main existential threat to Israel. Israel faces a “Sunni Vise” that includes Turkey and Syria in the north and Egypt in the South. We can add to that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan although that alliance (which now includes Turkey) seems to be more a showpiece than a defense treaty. Or, in the words of Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, “In the Middle East, the vocabulary of collective defense is often detached from the activity of defending. The announcement is the whole of the content”.

Regarding the United States presence in the Middle East, only the details have changed. The Cold War is over but the U.S still has the challenge of controlling oil flow out of the region as its new main enemy, China, depends on it. As for the United States and Israel, that relationship has moved from dependent to almost partner on defense and technology but Israel is still the same steady, reliable, democratic presence it has been for the past few decades. The U.S is certainly closer to the other Gulf states, notably Qatar, but their money has simply replaced (or actually supplemented) Saudi money, although they are much more cynical and effective with it.

The Arab world has barely changed even though the UAE and others have jointed the Abaraham Accords and have a relatively strong relationship with Israel. However, the real issue in the middle east has never been Israel-Palestine but has been and still is the intra-Arab and intra-Moslem rivalry and mistrust. Even when ostensibly on the same side, like the Saudis and UAE are in Yemen, there are separate armies fighting and last month the Saudis bombed the UAE forces – even though both were fighting the Houthis.

Egypt and Turkey, the two largest Sunni states in the region by population and military force are at opposite ends of the Moslem Brotherhood fight. Egypt is more suspicious of Turkey’s support for the Brotherhood, arch enemies of the Al-Sisi government, than they are of Israel’s moves in Gaza. Syria too, while pretending to act as a unified country is at war with the Kurd citizens in the north, Druze in the south and Alawites in the northwest. Their inclusion of ISIS and al-Qaeda fighters in their army – even foreign fighters – means that even within the Sunni majority, there is distrust and fighting.

And Libya is a proxy war if there ever was one with Turkey, Egypt, Iran and Russia involved.

So where do we stand in Europe and the Middle East today?

On the one hand, everyone is correct – Israel is in a better spot strategically, yet has not finished the job. The United States has, with Israel, set back Iran’s plans for regional domination but that gain is one “agreement” away from being overturned. Turkey is extending its influence but does not have the wherewithal to create a new Ottoman Empire as not only Israel stands in the way but so too does Egypt and the rest of the Sunni-Arab world as they do not have fond memories of Ottoman control of Arab lands. The Arab countries, large and small, are fighting the same tribal wars they have fought for the past decades and even centuries. Israel has strong internal unity and morale while its leaders re-arrange their parliamentary chairs.

In Europe, Ukraine has stopped an army three times its size while Russia, against most predictions is able to absorb massive casualties and economic sanctions due to the help of its allies .

Before the invasions of Ukraine and Israel by members of the Axis in 2022 and 2023 the geopolitical situation consisted of four revisionist powers united only in their opposition to the international status quo and the free countries united in their wish to maintain the status quo and to concentrate on comfort to the neglect of all else -including freedom. The Western European powers had no real military power to speak of (with the possible exception of France) as even the UK’s glorious navy was reduced to the minimum number of ships necessary to still call it an ocean going Navy. Ukraine ignored Russian threats and Israel was convinced it could outsmart, deter and bribe its sworn enemies to give up all for a life of comfort.

In the United States, the military was organized as a Walmart or Target warehouse with “just in time inventory”, no long term armaments contracts and with nothing much done to create what won WWII and the Cold War – a strong economic and industrial base. Looking for cheap labor and products and piling debt upon debt, the America;s industrial and fiscal situations mirrored its military un-readiness into a game of catch up – which it is doing neither fiscally nor militarily. Although the current administration is pushing to increase its manufacturing might, the fact that the American shipbuilding industry is able to produce only 3 military ships a year means, one, two or three administrations won’t be enough to complete the task. It requires a seriousness of purpose lacking in a Democratic party fearful of the DSA and a Republican party not serious enough to create a national consensus that will require some sacrifice from citizens.

Although there is a lot of talk, the current leadership in all free countries are the same leaders that led us down this path where they are not ready to meet and defeat middling powers let alone powerful ones.

Just four years ago the late Henry Kissinger published a book called “Leadership” which focused on six leaders he thought were consequential to their countries and the world. You might disagree with his choice but one thing running through each of these leaders (Germany’s Adenauer, France’s de Gaulle, Sadat of Egypt, UK’s Thatcher, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew and Richard Nixon) is that they were patriots and they were willing to take risks to push their countries forward. We don’t seem to see Western leaders who are dedicated first and foremost to their country and its citizens and who recognize the ongoing (the never ending!) threat from tyrants.

Putin, Xi, Khamenei (or whomever is in charge) and Kim are tyrants who don’t need to concern themselves with their citizens and that is the one thing our uncreative and cowardly leaders do not seem to understand. The obsession of today’s western leaders with negotiations and deals and false human rights claims just feeds the tyrannical rule of its enemies and pushes their defeat further and further away. Eisenhauer famously refused to shake hands with the Nazi general who surrendered to him in spite of military custom because he realized that this was not a war of one country against another but a war by his country and their allies against evil.

This is not a call for war against all evil or perpetual conflict of power against power but rather a recognition that if one is not ready to face what tyrants want – your destruction – eventually they will defeat you. America was not prepared to fight WWII but it had an industrial and managerial base that could be transformed into a wartime asset no one has ever had. It also had the luxury of two oceans protecting their manufacturing plants from enemy attack. Finally, it had, admittedly only after Pearl Harbor, the understanding that the moral imperative was defeating the evil that was Nazism as well as Japanese militaristic barbarism and not in coming to some rapprochement with it.

The geopolitical situation has not changed even if there are small tactical advantages that one side has over the other in localized theatres. We are still in the same position where the Axis of revisionist states is using all its force and all the weaknesses of the western world to its advantage and a western world that is continuing to ignore that reality. The internal and external threats in free countries are now at crisis levels.

When it comes down to it, as much as we like to blame our leaders (and we certainly do), it is up to the citizens to demand and to choose brave, creative leaders who are not locked into what has brought us to the precipice of defeat. The leadership since the end of the Cold War has been lacking any sense of urgency no matter what happens. The disaster that was Afghanistan should have been a wake up call – instead it was ignored. The invasion of Ukraine should have put free countries on a war footing for the manufacture and supply of military hardware but instead of was treated as if no other wars would be fought until this one was over. October 7 and the subsequent fighting in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Syria, the entire Persian Gulf should have told the west that terrorism and the immigration of real and potential terrorists into its borders will destroy what it loves best.

So far, the Axis leaders have not waited for the west to wake up, re-arm, control its borders and stop shooting itself in the foot and there is no reason to think it will wait before its next adventure.

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.

Follow Ira Slomowitz via The Angry Demagogue on Substack https://iraslomowitz.substack.com/

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

Share:
postN75

U.S National Security, Part 3: Don’t Underemphasize Freedom

by with No Comment AMT MarketsBehavioral SentimentFeatured Highlights

U.S National Security, Part 3: Don't Underemphasize Freedom

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 30th of December via The Angry Demagogue.

 
postN75

Conclusion

The post-Cold War world that the Strategy Paper tries to figure out is much more than the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of China. One of the main goals of the Trump administration is to turn the clock back on “globalization”, be it via tariffs, other economic ways or even, military means.

While the world is panicking over AI’s destruction of good white collar jobs, it has, paradoxically, created a world where the auto industry can’t find enough qualified mechanics at nice six figure salaries. Not even ten years ago the journalists were haranguing out of work blue collar workers with “go learn to code”, the beer guzzling crew can now tell the tearful journalists and Hollywood “writers” who can’t write better than AI to “go learn how to weld” (or at least handle a screwdriver). But the strategic issues we are facing go beyond manufacturing jobs.

The challenge to the United States and to other free countries is how to handle a new reality where massive debt threatens the diminution, if not the destruction, of the life style we have all come to take for granted and where revanchist regimes don’t quite understand that their power and “prestige” is a result of what has been built in those free countries they want to replace. China, like Russia, Iran, Turkey, Qatar and the non-state actors like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Moslem Brotherhood and others don’t quite understand that while they can use, and even sometimes improve on what freedom has provided them, they will stagnate once they attain their goal of defeating and destroying the free world.

As advanced as China becomes and even if it flies to the moon, overtakes the United States in AI and quantum computing and manages to make the United States into only the breadbasket of the world, they will stagnate as only free markets and free people can move the world to the next step. Growth can only be accomplished by free people. True enough, the economy often grows in ways that we don’t always like, the alternative is stagnation and a return to the pre-scientific age. For all the talk of “new man” and “progress” and everything else that the Soviet Union strived to create, they produced no medicines, no medical devices and no medical treatments.

Therefore, the defeat of the revanchist world and the preservation of freedom needs to be the paramount goal of American foreign policy. This does not mean the creation of democracies where none have ever existed and it does not mean sending troops in every time a political prisoner is arrested or even a plan to militarily defeat the CCP, but it does mean always supporting free countries against the unfree even when the United States is also “friends” with the unfree one.

This means that it will also give free countries leeway when their interests do not align perfectly with America’s (non-core) interests. America as sole protector of the free world has leverage that America as midwife to a set of regional alliances does not. This is a choice that America can make and a correct reading of the Strategy Paper tells us that the United States no longer wants to or can be the main power in every region in the world. This means that there needs to be a change in attitude in America so that it cannot force its will on its allies just because there is another contract to be had or another “cause” that has caught the eye of the country’s establishment.

Encouraging regional alliances of free countries such as the new Eastern-Med Alliance that has already been established between Greece, Cyprus and Israel is a prime example. In addition to the economic cooperation there has been joint defense training and there are agreements that will lead to a defense cooperation pact if not a NATO-like security treaty. Turkey is the common competitor, or enemy, of these three countries. Turkey claims certain Greek islands, occupies parts of Cyprus and has designs on Israel as it strives to be the Islamic “liberator” of Jerusalem. There are gas exploration agreements and cooperation and there would have been a pipeline to Europe if the Biden administration had not stopped it (while they approved the Russian-German pipeline).

Italy ought to be a natural member of the East-Med Alliance and maybe the dissolution of NATO will make them realize that they have more in common with Israel and Greece than they think they do. If Italy were to join then that would create a powerful naval and air deterrence of free countries against aggressors in the eastern Mediterranean. The addition of Malta, a small but strategically important country south of Sicily would provide naval bases that could control the sea lanes between north Africa and Europe helping to stem illegal migration and Turkish attempts to control those same lanes. Malta also brings with it a history of defeating Suleiman the Magnificent in a four month siege when the Ottomans tried to conquer this important island. As we stated before, the United States as a “midwife” to alliances cannot instruct countries on their own national interests. That means that allies of the United States will clash but America must always come down on the side of the free countries and not the revanchist power – in this case, Turkey.

There are of course other regional alliances that can come into being and a remake of the post-WWII world is in order. The end of the cold war created economic booms across the globe raising hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but recent decades have seen an increase in terror and tyranny and that itself needs to be dealt with. If not by the United States alone then by the US along with the regional alliances that the Strategy Paper has highlighted and we have demarcated (partially) here. But concepts like “territorial integrity” (see Syria, Somalia and the rest of Africa) and “sovereignty” have lost their moral imperative as they are used as excuses by tyrants (and their enablers at the UN) to further their cruelty. One of the faults of the old “liberal international order” has been allowing tyrannies the same rights and respect as free countries. During the Cold War, when nuclear war loomed, this might have made sense but after the fall of the Soviet Union these “principles” have created more harm than good.

In the National Security Strategy of the administration, the words “free” and “freedom” appear twenty times, but never in the context of an alliance of free countries. While it speaks of freedom of religion and speech and free markets it never speaks of the need to put allies that are free ahead of friends that are not free. Allies are those countries that share values and will come to your aid because of that. Friends, in international affairs, are those that look to short-term gain and have no desire to further your values or interests. There is no reason that the United States, in its current fiscal condition needs to fight the fight of freedom around the world alone, but neither can it abandon that fight in the pursuit of short-term contracts or frivolous causes.

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/ 

postN73

U.S National Security, Part 2: Regional Alliances – Europe

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentFeatured HighlightsIndia

U.S National Security, Part 2: Regional Alliances - Europe

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 25th of December via The Angry Demagogue.

postN73

As we continue our tour of the administration’s National Security Strategy we will stay with “part III: What Are America’s Available Means to Get What We Want?” and move to the sixth bullet point: “A broad network of alliances, with treaty allies and partners in the world’s most strategically important regions” and work through the important regions that the strategy documents – Asia, Europe, the Mideast and Africa. For good or for bad we will need to split these regions up since the key point is forming coalitions that can handle their actual region. Sweden can’t be part of a coalition to protect Italy’s interests in the Mediterranean and Japan won’t be protecting Singapore.

Some U.S allied countries, like Australia, Israel and India will be involved in multiple regions helping lead alliances in all areas important to them. With that in mind we will point out the first mistake of the discussion on regions and that is Europe. We will suggest something here that would not usually come from the mouth of a hawk and pessimist and that is that NATO has no real mission and needs to be replaced by a series of alliances that make more sense. While the fear during the Cold War was a Warsaw Pact ground invasion into Germany and beyond which would have required the totality of American and European forces, Europe now is facing a Russia that could not conquer Ukraine in nearly four years of war. That is not to say that Russia is not to be feared only that each part of Europe needs to ally to face a Russian onslaught in its own theatre.

Italy is not going to send troops to Sweden to prevent an attack and Norway won’t be helping Greece in any fight. Turkey is a country that other NATO countries fear more than trust, especially regarding Russia.

In short, NATO needs to be broken up into different alliances where each country will be allied with countries whose fall would affect its national security. The United States can either be a signatory to these alliances or it can decide how involved it wants to get in any conflagration depending on its own interests at that time. It can decide to position ground troops in the countries, supply air cover or, as in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran, help with missile defense and in providing the final blow with weapons only America has. Or – it can decide that it will never participate. One hopes that that won’t happen, but each alliance will need to be ready to fight on its own.

We can include France and the U.K as large countries with advanced armed forces as allies to all of these alliances. France certainly can contribute air power to each of the alliances that are faced against Russia. As for the U.K, it is difficult to know where that country is going but its navy and air force are still powerful.

Today we will deal with north, central and western Europe.

The Baltic Alliance

This would be an alliance that includes Poland, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and would provide cover for land, air and naval battles. Each of these countries, with the exception of Germany, has a border with Russia and all are on the Baltic Sea – a key waterway for them and for Russia.

An alliance of these countries would force them to concentrate on those areas necessary for their defense. An incursion, for example into Finland would force Poland to mass forces on its border with Russia and Belarus (Poland borders Russia in Kaliningrad which is separated from Russia proper by Lithuania) and Germany to move forces to Poland. All countries could also contribute ground forces to Finland as well as naval and air power.

The only thing missing is the lack of a nuclear umbrella. That is no small issue but can be dealt with by support or threats from France or the U.K.

The Atlantic Alliance

Aside from helping the Baltic Alliance, France and the U.K will have major responsibility along with the Netherlands for patrolling the North Atlantic and, with help from Portugal, and Spain the South Atlantic. As the Atlantic Ocean can be considered one of America’s seas, this alliance will need to have the close cooperation if not outright membership of the United States. Canada too, will need to be part of this alliance. We can include the increasingly important Arctic Ocean into this alliance’s responsibilities.

As we move towards the south Atlantic countries such as Morocco, can be included as well as other western African allies of the west. An alliance like that could encourage western African countries to abandon close security and economic ties with China and Russia. The “border” of this alliance would be that squiggly line in the middle of the Atlantic that separates the Eastern and Western hemispheres.

The Central European Alliance

We can look at the smaller central European countries that formed the heart of what was the Hapsburg Empire but are not front line countries bordering Russia – Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Austria, Serbia and Bulgaria – and we have an alliance that, backed by Germany, Poland and the United States, would create a further deterrence to Russian encroachment into Europe proper.

Where, do you ask does Ukraine fall in this European alliance structure? That answer will have to come from the major European powers in concert with the United States. Adding Ukraine to the Baltic alliance might be viewed as another attempt to NATO-ize them by the Russians. However, attaching them to the less threatening Central European Alliance of smaller countries might be the excuse and “victory” that Putin would need to end the war. But we are getting ahead of ourselves here. Ukraine is a problem that can only be solved if the West decides to actively join the fight against Russia (unlikely) or when Putin and Russia get tired of the fight and look for a way out that could allow them to claim victory (more likely than the former, but sadly, a long way off).

The Administration’s concentration on regions and how certain countries can become leaders in support of western and American interests is correct – but the breakdown of the regions has to go beyond the post WWII world. The place of America in the post-cold war world, with a China that wants to challenge America’s economic and military interests and leadership needs to break down old alliances into more manageable and logical pieces.

The wild card in all of this is, of course, the will of the European powers to take their own defense seriously. The Baltic Alliance we spoke about seems to be filled with countries that understand the threat from Russia, but do they recognize the threat to them from the alignment, the Axis if you will, of Russia, Iran, North Korea and China? And of more importance have they yet come to understand the threat to their countries, as they know them, from open immigration and from their own abhorrence of families? The former is something only the governments can handle, the latter though, must come from the people themselves.

A whole generation (or two in many instances) of Europeans have grown up not only as “only children” but in families that have no aunts and no uncles, no cousins and only very elderly grandparents, if that. They have grown up in other words without families. Will the young generation see the importance of families to themselves and their countries or will they continue the nihilistic lives that they parents have “sanctified”? Religious institutions, too will have a major role in this challenge. No amount of “parental leave” and childcare subsidies will convince the young to marry and have children – will only come from a change in the culture. Is Europe up to it?

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/ 

post234

New Alternatives for Regional Alliances & Global Effects?

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentBusinessFeatured Highlights

New Alternatives for Regional Alliances & Global Effects?

post234

Opinion: The following article is commentary and its views are solely those of the author. This article was first published the 14th of March, 2025 via The Angry Demagogue.

There is so much going on that it really is difficult to keep up. Israel is at the center of many of the regional developments, as would be expected. But it is not just Israel as Israel, but Israel as an ally of the United States that is interesting. The Syria problem we have written about and it is still not clear what the Trump administration’s policy is there as they look skeptically but hopefully at Al-Julani’s Syria. In our opinion that decision will be made for them, since the chances that Al-Julani has changed his stripes to a Western democrat is small and even if we are wrong there – the armed Jihadist groups that he needs to control seem more interested in ridding Syria of ‘heretics’ than stabilizing the country.

Lebanon has changed enough for the United States and Israel to take chances. While it is too bad that Israel did not do more in ridding the country of Hezbollah, the fact that Syria is no longer part of the Shiite crescent means that they are isolated and not able to get funding and arms from Iran with the same ease. What is important about the current Lebanese government is that Hezbollah is not a part of it. That does not leave them powerless, but it allows the government to act more independently. The Lebanese Shiites, under Hezbollah and the less but still militant Amal, will have to rethink their loyalty to these two organizations. At the least, it should move Amal away from their stronger partner.

Iran now has no land route to Hezbollah and will have a harder time arming the Houthis, too. But it is in Iraq that they are facing problems which could cause as much damage to their projection of power as did the loss of Syria. Due to US pressure, Iraq has stopped buying Iranian electricity although they can still buy gas. It seems that the US is giving Iraq some time to find alternatives to Iranian gas and the Iraqi government is moving away from Iran on other issues too and are trying to get rid of Iran’s Shiite militias.

But the most interesting thing to happen is Israel’s attempt to strengthen America’s relationship with Azerbaijan, a country that Israel is in close contact with regarding Iran. Israel has always been rumored to plan to use Azeri air force bases in a possible attack on Iran. The Azeri official responsible for regional development was in Israel last month and is trying to bridge differences between Israel and Turkey. The Azeri’s next stop after Israel was to Turkey. Steve Witkoff is reported to have stopped in Baku after his visit to Moscow.

An Azeri company has also bought rights to Israel’s Tamar gas field. Israel currently gets oil from Azerbaijan via a pipeline that goes through Turkey so the energy relationship is strong and longstanding between Israel and Azerbaijan. It seems that Turkey’s relationship with Azerbaijan is more important to them than their animosity towards Israel – probably because the Azeris and Armenians are enemies. It seems that sometimes not only friendships have to be ranked but enemies, too.

Trump’s game with Ukraine is not necessarily to my taste but it could be that there is something much bigger going on here and that is connecting Israel, Russia, Central Asia and Turkey to a grand alliance with the United States. I don’t think that Trump will succeed in pulling Russia away from Iran and China and that Erdogan’s Turkey will not give up their dream of destroying Israel. But what if the Iranian regime falls after a combination of harsh sanctions, economic collapse and Israeli military attacks? What if Iran is pulled away from the alliance leaving Russia with just China? What if a Russian base in Syria is dependent upon their moving away from China?

Last year the Axis held a near continuous land bridge from the Pacific to the Mediterranean. China was moving into Russia’s “sphere of influence” in the “Stans” of Central Asia with their economic bear hugs. This was something that the Biden administration ignored, but could be a bigger headache for Putin than a well armed but non-NATO Ukraine with American businessmen instead of soldiers as a tripwire.

Are we giving too much credit to Trump and his foreign policy team and to Israel’s influence in the expanded region that reaches beyond Syria? Is there more going on than we know or less?

On October 7 and the days that followed, the Biden Administration was sure that Israel was in such a panic that it would agree to anything, and they could force the Obama Middle East of a hegemonic Iran and a Palestinian state down Israel’s throats – and overthrow Netanyahu as an extra. None of those things happened.

Only a fool would predict what will be in a year, but what we have discussed above is one scenario no one would have considered even six months ago. The post WWII world looked nothing like the world of 1937, and the post WWIII world (the one we wrote about a year ago and may or may not have happened!) will look nothing like September 2023 – no matter how hard the UN yells and screams.

Could Israel and Azerbaijan be the keys to a realigned world?

It is against my nature to be optimistic, especially since Israel is still not done with Gaza, the hostages are not yet home and the internal politics are reaching levels that border on a soft coup.

However, while we don’t know where the aces are, we know that the Obama-Biden jokers are no longer in the deck.

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/ 

postN99

Regional War Spreads: Will Blinken Wake Up to the Reality?

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisRisk Management

Regional War Spreads: Will Blinken Wake Up to the Reality?

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

Despite the denial of reality by the Blinken State Department the Middle East war gets hotter and spreads eastward (even without) Israel’s intervention. After spending years appeasing the Iranians the world is now faced with the results of that policy. 

Iran has trained and funded terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank where the high intensity battles continue. In Lebanon-Israel there are close to 100,000 Israelis displaced, and it seems more Lebanese have left the area south of the Litani as heavy rocket, tank, artillery and air attacks continue from both sides of the border. Attacks have intensified against Israel from Syria and Yemen, and Iranians and their militias are attacking U.S forces in Iraq and Syria. Turkey, Russia and Syrian forces continue bombing areas of northern Syria and now both Iran and Turkey are bombing Kurdish lands.  

We know what is going on in Yemen and the surrounding seas with global shipping coming to a standstill there, and diminishing Suez Canal traffic is slowly crippling an already disastrous Egyptian economy. The U.S and the U.K have been forced to bomb Houthi areas, but this of course is after the total failure of the Blinken foreign policy of ‘ending’ the war in Yemen by cutting arms sales to the side that was pro-West while encouraging Iran to continue funding, arming and training of their Houthi allies.

A new front has now opened between Pakistan and Iran. We spoke earlier of the Sunni-Shiite war heating up, but it has spread faster and more violently than we expected. 

Over the last few days fighting on the Iran-Pakistan border has heated up. It started with heavy fire between the Pakistani group Jaish ul-Adl and Iranian border guards in the Sistan-Baluchestan border area, and included the assassination of Iranian Hussain Gwadanfur on the Khash-Saravan road.

In other clashes between Iranian and Pakistani forces at least two Iranian Revolutionary Guard (IRG) soldiers were killed, and the IRG has shot rockets into Pakistan hitting Turbat and surrounding areas near the coast.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement claiming that they “undertook a series of highly coordinated …. precision military strikes against terrorist hideouts in Siestan-o-Baluchistan province of Iran”. At the end of the press release they speak of Iran being a “brotherly country” with “great respect and admiration for the Iranian people”. It seems that Pakistan does not want to publicly admit that official Iranian forces were involved in the attacks.

postN99

What is incredible about Iran is that they have now attacked three nuclear armed states – the U.S, Pakistan and Israel – without fear of retaliation. We can only imagine what the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran will do once they too have a nuclear weapon.

We are in a regional war with fighting going on daily from Pakistan to Libya. Iran, not Israel, is at the center and is the cause of nearly all the fighting and tough statements and tough actions need to be taken against Iran – not Israel. Senate majority leader Schumer has been quoted as saying that he wants to put extra conditions upon the sale of arms to Israel, but where was he when Obama sent planeloads of cash to Iran and Biden-Blinken released further billions in November of 2023? Where are the conditions placed on a terrorist state?  

The Biden-Blinken foreign policy of appeasing enemies and threatening allies that is at the core of its operation continues apace. First with the cutoff of arms to Saudi Arabia and their Yemeni allies in order to “end the war” and then to “advice” the Ukrainians not to provoke the Russians, and next heavy pressure on Israel to ‘surrender’ to Hamas by leaving them in power.  

One can make deals with countries that are interested in their people. One cannot make deals with terrorist groups or revolutionary states that are looking to upend the global order. That is Iran in a nutshell. 

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/

postN19

Preventing WWIII: Part 2 – Reviving Western Deterrence

by with No Comment Behavioral SentimentFeatured HighlightsRisk Analysis

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. 

postN19

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/ 

postN19

Broader Alliances: Sustaining Economic and Political Power

by with No Comment Featured HighlightsRisk AnalysisRisk Management

Broader Alliances: Sustaining Economic and Political Power

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

If the United States decides to abandon its role as the premier global superpower and shall only be a Pacific and Atlantic power, withdrawing as defender of free seas, free trade and freedom in general, its democratic allies will have to start looking elsewhere for broader military alliances. This large group of nations would have to defend their interests against a revanchist China tied to Iran, Russia, North Korea and many of the Latin American countries – possibly including Brazil, and South Africa who have questionable politics and outlooks.

Eastern Mediterranean Alliance: A Strong Sea Power

Here is a speculative, yet reasonable look at the future of the free world. Let’s start with the Eastern Mediterranean where the two major powers are Israel and Turkey. One cannot deny that both these countries outclass all others regarding military might in the region. Israel’s air force is second to none and its navy is becoming a strategic necessity as it needs to defend its natural gas fields miles offshore. It now has six submarines that are capable of projecting power anywhere in the Mediterranean and even into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf. Turkey is currently a NATO member, but it is not clear that this will outlast the first half of the 21st century.

There is currently an informal alliance among Israel, Greece and Cyprus (both NATO countries) via joint military exercises and intelligence sharing. The Israeli navy and air force train regularly with Greece and its special forces train in the Cyprian mountains with its army. It would be in all three countries interests to formalize a treaty – if not of mutual defense, at least of mutual aid during times of war. All three of these countries are democracies and all three have mutual economic interests.

postN19

A formalization of this alliance makes sense now and if there is a NATO collapse it turns into a necessity for Greece and Cyprus. Adding Egypt (although it would be the only non-democracy) to this group would only strengthen the alliance and keep Turkey at bay. A post-Erdogan Turkey that is comfortable with its Islamic character and its modern society could even join this grouping with Israel as a potential peacemaker between the historic Greek-Turkish rivalry.

This alliance without Turkey is a powerful force in the eastern Mediterranean, and this alliance with Turkey could neutralize a nuclear Iran. A Post-Hezbollah Lebanon which is in the interests of all of these alliance members (including Turkey and Egypt), could become a reality and another member.

A New Alignment: The United Border Nations

What about Eastern and Central Europe? Poland is rapidly becoming the major non-nuclear European military power. Within the next few years it will outshine Germany and the U.K and rival France. It is quite clear, nuclear weapons aside, Poland would probably defeat Russia in a number of weeks, if not days if a conflict were to ignite.

Whether the Russian-Ukrainian war ends in a Russian defeat or in some sort of face saving armistice, Russia will not lose its aggressive nature or nuclear capabilities and it will inevitably become aligned more closely with China and Iran because of its current political nature.

The important new alignment will be categorization of ‘countries bordering Russia’. A new alliance of Poland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and the Baltic states – Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia together would have the land, sea and air power necessary to deter and defeat, if necessary, any Russian imperialist expansion. Even with closer ties to China it would be difficult to imagine that, over the next 50 years, Russia would be a threat to this alliance. Adding Ukraine to this grouping would make a powerful force. Its joint population of over 100 million people, while not quite Russia’s 150 million – would be a formidable adversary, especially as the technological skills of these countries is first world and continuing to improve. Adding the other former Warsaw Pact countries like Czech, Slovakia, Romania, Moldova and Bulgaria can only increase its potency.

Unlike the Eastern Mediterranean alliance mentioned above, this would have to be based on a mutual defense treaty in order to properly deter any Russian-Chinese-Iranian attack. Linking up, informally with the ‘new’ Eastern Mediterranean Alliance would create a powerful grouping of free countries against any attempt by authoritarian adversaries. Adding an economic aspect to these border nations and an alliance with the Eastern Med group with free trade zones would create a strong challenge to any attempted Chinese hegemony.

Asian Border Nations Group: Potential Look Ahead at Potential

If we were to unite the Eastern Mediterranean and Border Alliances to an admittedly non-democratic Asian ‘stans nations, including Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan with a joint population of around 80 million, we are beginning to see the creation of a multi-cultural alliance that extends from the Arctic Ocean through Central Europe, Northern Africa and into Asia.

The Crucial Partner in Order to Balance Power: India

Which leads us to the Indian Ocean; a dominant India can help control the sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the Bay of Bengal and down to Australia. An Indian-Australian alliance, along with Israel would create a democratic economic and military force that would keep China and Iran from dominating the region. This would require an Indian navy that is not only large, but effective also because it would hold a main responsibility for patrolling the seas from the Persian Gulf up to Australia strongholds.

As India also reaches its potential as a global manufacturing giant, it will be a force to be reckoned with. Including into this potent mix of nations, is the possibility of adding authoritarian countries like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states; along with Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia who have strong ‘western’ economic interests and would create a formidable bulwark against China’s imperialist Belt and Road project.

Without the need to project naval power worldwide the Unites States could use it massive naval, air and ground forces to take better control of the Pacific Ocean along with Japan, South Korea and Australia.

If we add countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, then China would be deterred from further aggression. The only other region that would fall under American responsibility would be the Atlantic Ocean – the shipping lanes to Europe, West Africa and the Mediterranean. Along with the UK and France there would be no challenger to the control of the Atlantic. This could also lead to a revival of the old Monroe Doctrine and maybe free South America from the destructive influences of Iran, China and Russia.

The Global Economy and Free Trade Zones with a Stable USD as Reserve Currency

What does all this mean for the global economy? The free world along with its less than free allies who fear China, Russia and Iran could still maintain a U.S dollar based world. Free trade zones amongst and between the various alliances along with a revival of manufacturing led by a technology revolution using AI, quantum computing, renewable energy and space exploration could lead to a global resurgence of free countries that could stop the authoritarian appetites of Russia, China and Iran in its tracks. This can only happen with a stable reserve currency the ‘West’ can rely upon which is the USD.

Potentially a U.S freed from being the sole defender of freedom in the world, would help get America’s fiscal house in order and allow it to focus on being a dominant economic power. Is there a future for the ‘free world’ without a United States that projects power globally? Currently, a U.S withdrawal from global military assertion would certainly cause the end of freedom (economic and political) in the world for many nations. However, with the new alliances described above and a fiscally responsible United States, freedom could yet make a comeback.

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