theduran--2020-01-17--Soleimani fallout continues to produce diplomatic dividends for Russia

Ahead of this year ’ s Munich Security Conference , due to begin on February 14th , its chairman Wolfgang Ischinger praised what he called President Putin ’ s “ method ” concerning security-issues in the Middle East .
Talking to the ZDF television channel on January 13th , Ischinger said that managing ME-security required “ political power of persuasion , clever diplomacy and military support if necessary….This is the method that Putin is using to ensure his influence in Syria , Libya and certainly in the situation around Iran.
” Such remarks feature a highly practiced , polished level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ devoid of detail .
In that regard , of course , they are not supposed to be read as analytical remarks , but as diplomatic signals .
Primarily , the most loud and clear signal contained above is a dig at President Trump .
This quickly follows Angela Merkel ’ s highly fruitful meeting with President Putin on January 11th , after which both leaders confirmed that the Nord Stream 2 project would press ahead in spite of US sanctions .
Chancellor Merkel also said that she hoped Russian-Turkish attempts to broker peace-talks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Libyan ceasefire talks would soon take place in Berlin .
She also said that it was an “ important step ” that the Iranian government had admitted that the January 8th crash of Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752 had been the result of an “ unintentional human error ” on the part of Iranian military personnel .
2 more clear signals , delivered like knives to Dim Donnie ’ s heart .
With the fallout from the Soleimani-assassination not yet settled , the temptation for European political and diplomatic figures to signal disdain for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the moment .
It ’ s like watching a few 16 year-old kids setting jealousy-traps for each other in your garden-variety teenage love-triangle .
It ’ s quite amusing .
“ I think that Brandon ’ s new smartphone is cooler than Jimmy ’ s , ” says Ashley… .
Of course , we know it ’ ll all be different next week , but middle-aged dads still find the silliness of it all comedic .
It is almost impossible to overstate the seriousness of Trump ’ s miscalculation concerning the Soleimani assassination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward Iran has unfolded since then .
Even Benjamin Netanyahu took pains to publicly distance himself from that decision , stating that Israeli politicians should stay out of the discussion .
Given that the United Kingdom is the United States ’ most uncritically subservient ally , Boris Johnson ’ s public criticism of Trump ’ s threat to bomb Iranian historical and cultural sites was also noteworthy .
Was this another signal ?
Not exclusively .
While Johnson would not be in the least bit concerned about the prospect of a military skirmish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from its economic consequences , he is still proud of being a trained classicist – the prospect of bombing an ancient archaeological site probably offends his basic sense of human decency even more than the prospect of war itself .
Nonetheless , everyone is perfectly well aware that war with Iran could very well trigger a global economic depression , and that is the factor which principally determines the reactions of US-allies ’ to Trump ’ s hair-brained belligerence toward Iran .
And , regardless of the highly publicized personal antagonisms which have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the past , Nord Stream 2 is still a no-brainer , with or without US sanctions .
Liquefied natural gas exported from the US to the EU is 30 % more expensive than Russian gas .
It ’ s just not competitive .
It ’ s that simple .
The fact that the German government has decided to abandon nuclear energy , which currently accounts for 34 % of German domestic electricity-production , makes this point even more crucial .
In the long term , personal antagonisms are trivial – the bottom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In my younger days , I used to play chess in tournaments .
Most ordinary , club-level , tournament chess-players will insist on the wisdom of the maxim that you should play the board , not the opponent .
It doesn ’ t matter who your opponent is , or what kind of personality they have .
Chess is mathematics , not psychology .
Play the board-position on its strategic merits , and forget about absolutely everything else .
Play the board !
The Ukrainian crisis was deliberately engineered , among very many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas-transit through Ukraine .
Nord Stream 2 circumvents that point of rupture , so the US tries to shut it down with sanctions .
That doesn ’ t work either .
The 30 % price-differential is simply too wide for sanctions to disincentivize it .
Under the Obama administration , the US effectively lost geo-strategic control over Turkey and the Philippines .
Those losses of territory were made possible only by massive blunders .
Under the Trump administration , the US is in the process of gradually losing geo-strategic control over Germany , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will make it increasingly difficult to maintain any meaningful geo-strategic foothold in western Eurasia .
But then again , until 2016 , liberal universalism was the ideological glue which held the western alliance together .
Trump ’ s election meant that it was always on borrowed time .
With these factors considered , we might ask how much difference the assassination of General Soleimani really made to US-EU relations .
Yes , it was jaw-droppingly reckless and strategically pointless .
Yes , it severely alienated many US-allies .
However , from the perspective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies , we have to ask , was it merely an incidental moment of realization ?
We have to expect that the macro-economic fundamentals would have forced an epiphany sooner or later .
The Soleimani assassination , as fundamentally reckless as it was , essentially did nothing to change the positions of any on the pieces on the geo-strategic chessboard .
It merely acted as an incidental cognitive trigger , whereupon some of the players woke up to the board-position a little sooner .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Padraig McGrath, political analyst…
Ahead of this year’s Munich Security Conference, due to begin on February 14th, its chairman Wolfgang Ischinger praised what he called President Putin’s “method” concerning security-issues in the Middle East. Talking to the ZDF television channel on January 13th, Ischinger said that managing ME-security required “political power of persuasion, clever diplomacy and military support if necessary….This is the method that Putin is using to ensure his influence in Syria, Libya and certainly in the situation around Iran.”
Such remarks feature a highly practiced, polished level of banality. They are quite intentionally devoid of detail. In that regard, of course, they are not supposed to be read as analytical remarks, but as diplomatic signals.
Primarily, the most loud and clear signal contained above is a dig at President Trump.
This quickly follows Angela Merkel’s highly fruitful meeting with President Putin on January 11th, after which both leaders confirmed that the Nord Stream 2 project would press ahead in spite of US sanctions. Chancellor Merkel also said that she hoped Russian-Turkish attempts to broker peace-talks would be successful, and announced that Libyan ceasefire talks would soon take place in Berlin. She also said that it was an “important step” that the Iranian government had admitted that the January 8th crash of Ukrainian Airlines Flight 752 had been the result of an “unintentional human error” on the part of Iranian military personnel.
2 more clear signals, delivered like knives to Dim Donnie’s heart.
With the fallout from the Soleimani-assassination not yet settled, the temptation for European political and diplomatic figures to signal disdain for Trump by love-bombing Putin seems irresistible at the moment. It’s like watching a few 16 year-old kids setting jealousy-traps for each other in your garden-variety teenage love-triangle. It’s quite amusing.
“I think that Brandon’s new smartphone is cooler than Jimmy’s,” says Ashley….
Of course, we know it’ll all be different next week, but middle-aged dads still find the silliness of it all comedic.
It is almost impossible to overstate the seriousness of Trump’s miscalculation concerning the Soleimani assassination, and the manner that his stance toward Iran has unfolded since then. Even Benjamin Netanyahu took pains to publicly distance himself from that decision, stating that Israeli politicians should stay out of the discussion. Given that the United Kingdom is the United States’ most uncritically subservient ally, Boris Johnson’s public criticism of Trump’s threat to bomb Iranian historical and cultural sites was also noteworthy.
Was this another signal?
Not exclusively. While Johnson would not be in the least bit concerned about the prospect of a military skirmish around Hormuz resulting in fatalities, apart from its economic consequences, he is still proud of being a trained classicist – the prospect of bombing an ancient archaeological site probably offends his basic sense of human decency even more than the prospect of war itself.
Nonetheless, everyone is perfectly well aware that war with Iran could very well trigger a global economic depression, and that is the factor which principally determines the reactions of US-allies’ to Trump’s hair-brained belligerence toward Iran.
And, regardless of the highly publicized personal antagonisms which have characterized Merkel’s relationships with Putin in the past, Nord Stream 2 is still a no-brainer, with or without US sanctions. Liquefied natural gas exported from the US to the EU is 30% more expensive than Russian gas. It’s just not competitive. It’s that simple. The fact that the German government has decided to abandon nuclear energy, which currently accounts for 34% of German domestic electricity-production, makes this point even more crucial. In the long term, personal antagonisms are trivial – the bottom line will ultimately determine long-term policy.
In my younger days, I used to play chess in tournaments. Most ordinary, club-level, tournament chess-players will insist on the wisdom of the maxim that you should play the board, not the opponent. It doesn’t matter who your opponent is, or what kind of personality they have. Chess is mathematics, not psychology. Play the board-position on its strategic merits, and forget about absolutely everything else. Play the board!
The Ukrainian crisis was deliberately engineered, among very many other factors, in order to disrupt gas-transit through Ukraine. Nord Stream 2 circumvents that point of rupture, so the US tries to shut it down with sanctions. That doesn’t work either. The 30% price-differential is simply too wide for sanctions to disincentivize it.
Under the Obama administration, the US effectively lost geo-strategic control over Turkey and the Philippines. Those losses of territory were made possible only by massive blunders. Under the Trump administration, the US is in the process of gradually losing geo-strategic control over Germany, having already decisively alienated France, which will make it increasingly difficult to maintain any meaningful geo-strategic foothold in western Eurasia.
Who’s left? Poland? Banderastan?
But then again, until 2016, liberal universalism was the ideological glue which held the western alliance together. Trump’s election meant that it was always on borrowed time.
With these factors considered, we might ask how much difference the assassination of General Soleimani really made to US-EU relations. Yes, it was jaw-droppingly reckless and strategically pointless. Yes, it severely alienated many US-allies. However, from the perspective of the United States’ continental European allies, we have to ask, was it merely an incidental moment of realization? We have to expect that the macro-economic fundamentals would have forced an epiphany sooner or later. The Soleimani assassination, as fundamentally reckless as it was, essentially did nothing to change the positions of any on the pieces on the geo-strategic chessboard. It merely acted as an incidental cognitive trigger, whereupon some of the players woke up to the board-position a little sooner.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-17--Iraq may defy Washington to buy the Russian S-400 missile defense system

Submitted by InfoBrics , authored by Paul Antonopoulos , Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies… With tensions mounting between Iran and the United States after the latter assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq , Baghdad has now been pushing to free itself from American domination by calling for foreign troops to leave the country and announcing its intensions in buying the Russian S-400 missile defense system .
The complete destruction of the U.S. military base in Anbar province earlier this month demonstrated to Iraqi leaders that it certainly needs to strengthen its air defences since not even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base from the barrage of Iranian missiles .
The Iraqi government ’ s intention to buy the S-400 air defense systems from Russia has been talked about since May last year , when the country ’ s ambassador to Moscow said Baghdad had decided to buy the systems .
However , no roadmap to purchase the systems have been made yet .
Karim Elaiwi , an Iraqi member of parliament who sits on the security and defense committee , said last week that “ We are talking to Russia about the S-400 missiles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We need to get these missiles , especially after Americans have disappointed us many times by not helping us in getting proper weapons.
” It appears the Iraqis will no longer tolerate U.S. occupation and demands in its country , with parliamentarian and security and defense committee member Abdul Khaleq Al Azzawi , defiantly saying “ We authorized the prime minister to get air defense weapons from any country he wants and we authorized him to spend the money for it , from any country .
From Russia or anyone.
” This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. increase , with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to cut Baghdad ’ s access to its key account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York if they follow through with the Iraqi Parliament ’ s decision to expel the U.S. military from their country .
Not only has there been a threat to cut Iraq from its own money based in the U.S. , but there are now threats of $ 250 million in military aid to Iraq being cut .
Although these are tactics to force Baghdad into maintaining ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain in Iraq , the clearest sign that this is an American occupation of the West Asian country was with White House National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien comments last week that the U.S. will leave Iraq on its “ own terms.
” The U.S. are not even trying to hide the fact that they are occupying Iraq and rebelling against the government .
Despite the clear occupation , Iraq continues to defy the U.S. , and the willingness to purchase the S-400 system is a clear indication of this .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the U.S. State Department ’ s principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs , said on Tuesday in an appearance at the Middle East Institute , an extremely influential Washington think tank , that “ A purchase [ of the S-400 ] would probably trigger sanctions , so we advise our partners not to make such purchases.
” This was an expected response considering the continued threats of sanctions the U.S. has put against Turkey for its own acquisition of the S-400 .
Iraq wants to strengthen its air defense and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world .
It must also be remembered that Iraq is already buying modern weapons from Russia , such as the Mi-28 fighter helicopters and T-90 tanks .
However , it is likely that Washington considers the purchase of the S-400 from Russia as an indication that the U.S. is losing political and military support in the country – but this was already consolidated by the assassination of Soleimani , an extremely popular figure in Iraq .
Baghdad is already in negotiations for the S-300 , the older generation of the S-400 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the newest model available for foreign markets , that will provoke resistance in Washington , especially as the U.S.-made Patriot missile defense system has proven to be a failure by not being able to defend U.S. bases in Iraq or Saudi oil facilities , if we remember the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement ’ s attack on the ARAMCO site in September last year .
The question then becomes how will Iraq will pay for Russian weapons if their accounts in the U.S. are frozen .
Delivery is not so much of an issue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more a matter of how payments will be made .
Although Iraqi parliamentarians are boldly declaring their intentions for the S-400 to be purchased , there are significant problems that Baghdad must first be able to overcome , including the extremely strong pressure being applied by the U.S. against Iraq not to buy them .
If Baghdad did successfully defy Washington and purchase the systems , it will certainly weaken the U.S. ’ image in the region , something the North American country will unlikely want to risk .
Will Iraq boldly defy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen now .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies…
With tensions mounting between Iran and the United States after the latter assassinated Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, Baghdad has now been pushing to free itself from American domination by calling for foreign troops to leave the country and announcing its intensions in buying the Russian S-400 missile defense system. The complete destruction of the U.S. military base in Anbar province earlier this month demonstrated to Iraqi leaders that it certainly needs to strengthen its air defences since not even American air defense systems could protect their base from the barrage of Iranian missiles. The Iraqi government’s intention to buy the S-400 air defense systems from Russia has been talked about since May last year, when the country’s ambassador to Moscow said Baghdad had decided to buy the systems. However, no roadmap to purchase the systems have been made yet.
Karim Elaiwi, an Iraqi member of parliament who sits on the security and defense committee, said last week that “We are talking to Russia about the S-400 missiles but no contracts have been signed yet. We need to get these missiles, especially after Americans have disappointed us many times by not helping us in getting proper weapons.”
It appears the Iraqis will no longer tolerate U.S. occupation and demands in its country, with parliamentarian and security and defense committee member Abdul Khaleq Al Azzawi, defiantly saying “We authorized the prime minister to get air defense weapons from any country he wants and we authorized him to spend the money for it, from any country. From Russia or anyone.”
This comes as hostilities between Iraq and the U.S. increase, with U.S. President Donald Trump threatening to cut Baghdad’s access to its key account at the Federal Reserve Bank in New York if they follow through with the Iraqi Parliament’s decision to expel the U.S. military from their country. Not only has there been a threat to cut Iraq from its own money based in the U.S., but there are now threats of $250 million in military aid to Iraq being cut.
Although these are tactics to force Baghdad into maintaining ‘permission’ for the U.S. military to remain in Iraq, the clearest sign that this is an American occupation of the West Asian country was with White House National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien comments last week that the U.S. will leave Iraq on its “own terms.” The U.S. are not even trying to hide the fact that they are occupying Iraq and rebelling against the government.
Despite the clear occupation, Iraq continues to defy the U.S., and the willingness to purchase the S-400 system is a clear indication of this. It is for this reason that Joey Hood, the U.S. State Department’s principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, said on Tuesday in an appearance at the Middle East Institute, an extremely influential Washington think tank, that “A purchase [of the S-400] would probably trigger sanctions, so we advise our partners not to make such purchases.”
This was an expected response considering the continued threats of sanctions the U.S. has put against Turkey for its own acquisition of the S-400. Iraq wants to strengthen its air defense and the S-400 systems are considered the best in the world. It must also be remembered that Iraq is already buying modern weapons from Russia, such as the Mi-28 fighter helicopters and T-90 tanks. However, it is likely that Washington considers the purchase of the S-400 from Russia as an indication that the U.S. is losing political and military support in the country – but this was already consolidated by the assassination of Soleimani, an extremely popular figure in Iraq.
Baghdad is already in negotiations for the S-300, the older generation of the S-400. However, it is the S-400, the newest model available for foreign markets, that will provoke resistance in Washington, especially as the U.S.-made Patriot missile defense system has proven to be a failure by not being able to defend U.S. bases in Iraq or Saudi oil facilities, if we remember the Houthi-led Ansarullah Movement’s attack on the ARAMCO site in September last year.
The question then becomes how will Iraq will pay for Russian weapons if their accounts in the U.S. are frozen. Delivery is not so much of an issue despite the U.S. occupation, it is more a matter of how payments will be made. Although Iraqi parliamentarians are boldly declaring their intentions for the S-400 to be purchased, there are significant problems that Baghdad must first be able to overcome, including the extremely strong pressure being applied by the U.S. against Iraq not to buy them. If Baghdad did successfully defy Washington and purchase the systems, it will certainly weaken the U.S.’ image in the region, something the North American country will unlikely want to risk.
Will Iraq boldly defy the U.S.? This remains to be seen now.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-17--Dems pin impeachment hopes on Lev “Leo Getz” Parnas

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the latest and greatest smoking gun now being trotted out before Congress , and their mainstream media shills , Lev Parnas and Robert F. Hyde…the two men supposedly tasked by Trump ’ s lawyer , Rudy Giuliani , to surveil the former US Ambassador to Ukraine , Marie Yovanovitch .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Much ado has been made by MSNBC and The New York Times and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , newest , glitziest , golden boy hoped-for impeachment witness , former Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas .
But this guy is a dud like all the rest .
First off , he was arrested just a few weeks back for campaign finance violations aimed at enriching his own pockets , as well as those of Ukrainian politicians .
So he ’ s tainted .
And he ’ s all the more tainted because after his arrest , he agreed to cooperate with investigators looking to dig up impeachment dirt on President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how the whole Russia collusion investigation under special counsel Robert Mueller ’ s control went , didn ’ t it ?
Go after those tied to Trump : check .
Find some questionable behaviors among those tied to Trump : Check , check .
Exploit those questionable behaviors so the media can then draw links back to Trump : Check , check , check .
Roger Stone .
Paul Manafort .
Jerome Corsi .
And finally , the last strategic step : Use those highly publicized investigations into Trump-tied individuals as wedges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more dirt on Trump .
Anything to distract from the fact that Russia collusion was a waste of taxpayer dime , right ?
Well , here we are again , the next Clue game move : Parnas , on Ukraine , with the documents , in the cloak room .
“ The House Intelligence Committee quietly released a new batch of impeachment inquiry evidence Tuesday evening : documents provided by Rudy Giuliani ’ s fixer for Ukraine , Lev Parnas .
And boy , are they ugly , ” Vox wrote .
Meanwhile @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Parnas Says Trump Knew About Campaign to Pressure Ukraine.
” From The New York Times : “ In an interview , [ Parnas ] said the president knew everything about the effort to push Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election.
” And then , from MSNBC Rachel Maddow ’ s widely reported interview with Parnas , clips like this : “ Lev Parnas : ‘ President Trump knew exactly what was going on.
’ ” And this : “ Lev Parnas : ‘ Attorney General Barr was basically on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Parnas : Pence tasked with getting Ukraine to announce Biden probe.
” But cut through all the wild headlines and sensationalized media clips , and what you get is this : A guy with a presumption .
Just like all the House witnesses — another guy guessing at Trump ’ s motivations .
Those “ ugly ” documents to which Vox referred ?
“ The documents , ” Vox wrote , “ which include Parnas ’ s handwritten notes , copies of text messages and other correspondence , reveal some new information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting with President Trump ’ s ‘ knowledge and consent ’ in his communications with the Ukrainian government .
One handwritten note of Parnas ’ s , scribbled on Ritz-Carlton hotel stationary , clearly states his main objective in his dealings with Ukraine : to get Ukraine ’ s president to announce ‘ the Biden case will be investigated.
’ “ In other words : Parnas wrote some stuff down and that ’ s impeachment-worthy evidence .
That ’ s less admissible as evidence as a James Comey memo .
You remember — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Comey wrote about his conversations with Trump that was supposed to be seen as irrefutable evidence of the president ’ s crimes ?
But Parnas is about as trustworthy as Comey .
And the House Democrats know it — else they wouldn ’ t have saved Parnas as a distracting buzz to their walk of bogus impeachment articles to the Senate .
They would ’ ve exploited him already in the House .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the latest and greatest smoking gun now being trotted out before Congress, and their mainstream media shills, Lev Parnas and Robert F. Hyde…the two men supposedly tasked by Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, to surveil the former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via The Washington Times…
Much ado has been made by MSNBC and The New York Times and the left and the Democrats about the latest, newest, glitziest, golden boy hoped-for impeachment witness, former Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas.
But this guy is a dud like all the rest.
First off, he was arrested just a few weeks back for campaign finance violations aimed at enriching his own pockets, as well as those of Ukrainian politicians. So he’s tainted. And he’s all the more tainted because after his arrest, he agreed to cooperate with investigators looking to dig up impeachment dirt on President Donald Trump.
That’s kind of how the whole Russia collusion investigation under special counsel Robert Mueller’s control went, didn’t it? Go after those tied to Trump: check. Find some questionable behaviors among those tied to Trump: Check, check. Exploit those questionable behaviors so the media can then draw links back to Trump: Check, check, check. Roger Stone. Paul Manafort. Jerome Corsi. And finally, the last strategic step: Use those highly publicized investigations into Trump-tied individuals as wedges and tools of bargaining to dig up more dirt on Trump.
Check.
Anything to distract from the fact that Russia collusion was a waste of taxpayer dime, right?
Well, here we are again, the next Clue game move: Parnas, on Ukraine, with the documents, in the cloak room.
“The House Intelligence Committee quietly released a new batch of impeachment inquiry evidence Tuesday evening: documents provided by Rudy Giuliani’s fixer for Ukraine, Lev Parnas. And boy, are they ugly,” Vox wrote.
Meanwhile, from Time, this headline: “Parnas Says Trump Knew About Campaign to Pressure Ukraine.”
From The New York Times: “In an interview, [Parnas] said the president knew everything about the effort to push Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election.”
And then, from MSNBC Rachel Maddow’s widely reported interview with Parnas, clips like this: “Lev Parnas: ‘President Trump knew exactly what was going on.’ ” And this: “Lev Parnas: ‘Attorney General Barr was basically on the team.’ ” And this: “Parnas: Pence tasked with getting Ukraine to announce Biden probe.”
But cut through all the wild headlines and sensationalized media clips, and what you get is this: A guy with a presumption.
Just like all the House witnesses — another guy guessing at Trump’s motivations.
Those “ugly” documents to which Vox referred?
“The documents,” Vox wrote, “which include Parnas’s handwritten notes, copies of text messages and other correspondence, reveal some new information — including that Giuliani claimed to be acting with President Trump’s ‘knowledge and consent’ in his communications with the Ukrainian government. One handwritten note of Parnas’s, scribbled on Ritz-Carlton hotel stationary, clearly states his main objective in his dealings with Ukraine: to get Ukraine’s president to announce ‘the Biden case will be investigated.’ “
In other words: Parnas wrote some stuff down and that’s impeachment-worthy evidence.
That’s less admissible as evidence as a James Comey memo. You remember — the memos former FBI Director and Trump-hating Comey wrote about his conversations with Trump that was supposed to be seen as irrefutable evidence of the president’s crimes?
We laugh now.
But Parnas is about as trustworthy as Comey.
And the House Democrats know it — else they wouldn’t have saved Parnas as a distracting buzz to their walk of bogus impeachment articles to the Senate. They would’ve exploited him already in the House.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-17--Russia’s Big Gamble in Libya

Russia’s Big Gamble in Libya

First , the background .
When the United States abandoned the Iran agreement , that left Turkey ’ s oil imports adrift due to newly imposed US Treasury sanctions on Iranian oil exports .
By December 2018 , Turkey was forced to look elsewhere for its oil imports with Libya being the most logical choice by price and proximity , despite the violence there .
Misrata rebels allied with Libya Dawn in charge of Libya ’ s largest free trade port , arranged oil exports from Zawiya and Sirte to Italy* and Turkey , at favorable prices .
Recall that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ east ) are at war , and Cyrenaica has its own oil production and storage terminals in the east while most proceeds ( for both belligerents ) in the Libyan conflict are settled by Libya ’ s National Oil Company .
But little of that mattered to Turkey ’ s oil import market and Turkey signed an energy corridor agreement with Libya .
Then in April of 2019 , the Libyan National Army ’ s offensive versus Tripolitania ’ s Government of National Accord ( GNA ) began , resulting in the fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s foray into Libyan oil ran into trouble by June of 2018 .
Turkey objected to LNA rogue oil deals free of NOC oversight , where the NOC ’ s mandate was to enforce the UN arms embargo by disbursing funds only for civilian government use .
Then the LNA ’ s April offensive resulted in air strikes on Misrata and the west , impacting Turkey ’ s oil imports .
The fall of Sirte and LNA strikes on NOC offices and the Zawiya oil terminal late in 2019 dealt serious blows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Warlord Haftar ’ s LNA advance was assisted by the United Arab Emirates , Egypt , and France .
Then , Algeria experienced a change in leadership and joined the fray .
Algeria aligned with the GNA versus Haftar ’ s LNA ( recall that Haftar is backed by France ) while Algeria publicly condemned the Turk troop deployment .
Algeria is an oil power and has oil interests in west Libya too and wields more influence in the Mena than commonly perceived , usually in the background .
Now , after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaching Tripoli .
The LNA had taken most of Tripolitania with only GNA pockets remaining .
So the GNA ’ s situation was precarious by November .
It seemed as if LNA victory was assured and civil war in Tripolitania would be the grim result .
Then with some urgency , Turkey promised to deploy troops to support the GNA .
Rumors held that Algeria ’ s troops would secure its border and its oil interests in Libya , too .
By January the extreme gravity of the situation was apparent .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tripolitania anticipated destruction at Haftar ’ s hands , while Europe , Turkey , and Greece would face a new wave of Libyan migrants .
Algeria must foresee the necessity to close its extended border by further force of arms , and to assist Tunisia , thus exacerbating tensions with Morocco .
Only a respected power with authority and regional influence could salvage Libya from impending doom .
The power to save Libya from more violence was not the United States — which caused Libya ’ s catastrophe in the first place — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for a cease-fire .
At first Haftar resisted that call since he could smell victory .
But Haftar eventually relented and agreed to the cease-fire at Russia and Germany ’ s insistence , although he has not yet signed it .
Several unknowns arise .
How the various fractured groups and militias populating Misrata and Tripolitania might align is unclear .
In Misrata and Bani Walid , a militia may take one allegiance or another… or no side at all .
Some groups are well-armed and may engage in rogue attacks simply to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how a political settlement between the LNA and GNA may be achieved .
The possibility for a peaceful political settlement in Libya seems remote , when so much oil wealth is at stake , and the composition of Libya ’ s population is so fractious .
Next consideration is Turkey which seems to be removing itself evermore from Washington ’ s orbit .
A defacto removal of Turkey from NATO will call into question the credibility of an already questionable alliance .
Perhaps Washington will retaliate with more sanctions versus a perceived NATO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turkey abide by the ceasefire too ?
Finally , Russia .
Russia now courts Turkey while alienating Egypt , Greece , Cyprus , France , and Israel… and for that matter , Warlord Haftar .
That ’ s because Russia ’ s agreement with Turkey implicitly recognizes the controversial Libya-Turk energy pact while Egypt , Greece , Israel , Cyprus , and France find their own energy ambitions in the east Med now marginalized .
Russia courting Turkey and Russia ’ s virtual switch to the GNA side is bound to anger Washington @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this ceasefire will hold while a political settlement is sought .
Washington would love nothing more than to cajole Russia for arranging a peaceful political settlement… anywhere .
And US covert services may even attempt to destabilize Libya again for that reason .
Meanwhile let ’ s hope for the sake of the people of Libya that does not occur and a political settlement is achieved .
Steve Brown is the author of “ Iraq : the Road to War ” ( Sourcewatch ) editor of “ Bush Administration War Crimes in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Limited Hangout ” and “ Federal Reserve : Out-sourcing the Monetary System to the Money Trust Oligarchs Since 1913 ” ; Steve is an antiwar activist , a published scholar on the US monetary system , and has appeared as guest contributor to The Duran , Fort Russ News , Herland Report , Lew Rockwell Report , The Ron Paul Institute , and Strategika51 .
Twitter : @ newsypaperz

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Submitted by Steve Brown…
First, the background. When the United States abandoned the Iran agreement, that left Turkey’s oil imports adrift due to newly imposed US Treasury sanctions on Iranian oil exports. By December 2018, Turkey was forced to look elsewhere for its oil imports with Libya being the most logical choice by price and proximity, despite the violence there. Misrata rebels allied with Libya Dawn in charge of Libya’s largest free trade port, arranged oil exports from Zawiya and Sirte to Italy* and Turkey, at favorable prices.
Recall that Tripolitania (west) and Cyrenaica (east) are at war, and Cyrenaica has its own oil production and storage terminals in the east while most proceeds (for both belligerents) in the Libyan conflict are settled by Libya’s National Oil Company. But little of that mattered to Turkey’s oil import market and Turkey signed an energy corridor agreement with Libya. Then in April of 2019, the Libyan National Army’s offensive versus Tripolitania’s Government of National Accord (GNA) began, resulting in the fall of Sirte early this year.
Turkey’s foray into Libyan oil ran into trouble by June of 2018. Turkey objected to LNA rogue oil deals free of NOC oversight, where the NOC’s mandate was to enforce the UN arms embargo by disbursing funds only for civilian government use. Then the LNA’s April offensive resulted in air strikes on Misrata and the west, impacting Turkey’s oil imports. The fall of Sirte and LNA strikes on NOC offices and the Zawiya oil terminal late in 2019 dealt serious blows to Turkeys’ oil ambitions in Libya.
Warlord Haftar’s LNA advance was assisted by the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and France. Then, Algeria experienced a change in leadership and joined the fray. Algeria aligned with the GNA versus Haftar’s LNA (recall that Haftar is backed by France) while Algeria publicly condemned the Turk troop deployment. Algeria is an oil power and has oil interests in west Libya too and wields more influence in the Mena than commonly perceived, usually in the background.
Now, after the fall of Sirte LNA forces were approaching Tripoli. The LNA had taken most of Tripolitania with only GNA pockets remaining. So the GNA’s situation was precarious by November. It seemed as if LNA victory was assured and civil war in Tripolitania would be the grim result. Then with some urgency, Turkey promised to deploy troops to support the GNA. Rumors held that Algeria’s troops would secure its border and its oil interests in Libya, too.
By January the extreme gravity of the situation was apparent. The threat verged on a humanitarian disaster. Tripolitania anticipated destruction at Haftar’s hands, while Europe, Turkey, and Greece would face a new wave of Libyan migrants. Algeria must foresee the necessity to close its extended border by further force of arms, and to assist Tunisia, thus exacerbating tensions with Morocco. Only a respected power with authority and regional influence could salvage Libya from impending doom.
The power to save Libya from more violence was not the United States — which caused Libya’s catastrophe in the first place — but Russia. Russia and Turkey called for a cease-fire. At first Haftar resisted that call since he could smell victory. But Haftar eventually relented and agreed to the cease-fire at Russia and Germany’s insistence, although he has not yet signed it. Several unknowns arise.
How the various fractured groups and militias populating Misrata and Tripolitania might align is unclear. In Misrata and Bani Walid, a militia may take one allegiance or another… or no side at all. Some groups are well-armed and may engage in rogue attacks simply to disrupt the cease-fire.
The question is how a political settlement between the LNA and GNA may be achieved. The possibility for a peaceful political settlement in Libya seems remote, when so much oil wealth is at stake, and the composition of Libya’s population is so fractious.
Next consideration is Turkey which seems to be removing itself evermore from Washington’s orbit. A defacto removal of Turkey from NATO will call into question the credibility of an already questionable alliance. Perhaps Washington will retaliate with more sanctions versus a perceived NATO ‘rogue’ member? And will Turkey abide by the ceasefire too?
Finally, Russia. Russia now courts Turkey while alienating Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, France, and Israel… and for that matter, Warlord Haftar. That’s because Russia’s agreement with Turkey implicitly recognizes the controversial Libya-Turk energy pact while Egypt, Greece, Israel, Cyprus, and France find their own energy ambitions in the east Med now marginalized.
Russia courting Turkey and Russia’s virtual switch to the GNA side is bound to anger Washington. Russia is taking a huge gamble that this ceasefire will hold while a political settlement is sought. Washington would love nothing more than to cajole Russia for arranging a peaceful political settlement… anywhere. And US covert services may even attempt to destabilize Libya again for that reason. Meanwhile let’s hope for the sake of the people of Libya that does not occur and a political settlement is achieved.
*Italy’s ENI petroleum company operates in Tripolitania
Steve Brown is the author of “Iraq: the Road to War” (Sourcewatch) editor of “Bush Administration War Crimes in Iraq” (Sourcewatch) “Trump’s Limited Hangout” and “Federal Reserve: Out-sourcing the Monetary System to the Money Trust Oligarchs Since 1913”; Steve is an antiwar activist, a published scholar on the US monetary system, and has appeared as guest contributor to The Duran, Fort Russ News, Herland Report, Lew Rockwell Report, The Ron Paul Institute, and Strategika51. Twitter: @newsypaperz
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-17--Reuters ‘News’ Tries to Boost Warren at Sanders’s Expense

On January 17th , Reuters editors chose to publish and headline an alleged ‘ news ’ -report “ Flap with Warren knocks Sanders ’ strategy off course ” , indicating that Sanders was ‘ knocked off course ’ , and that Warren gained at his expense , when the January 14th final pre-primaries debate in Des Moines included Elizabeth Warren saying that Bernie Sanders had told her that a woman can ’ t win the Presidency in the United States and Sanders responded by saying that he had never said to anyone anything of the sort because he never believed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citing that “ Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes ” as a clear evidence of that clear fact .
The assumption in the headline of this ‘ news ’ -report ( it was not presented as being an opinion-piece ) was that voters switch from Sanders to Warren because Warren alleged that he said what he alleged he had never said and never believed .
No evidence was provided in the accompanying ‘ news ’ -report , that Sanders voters had switched to Warren voters after that very shocking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the headline was entirely unsupported by its alleged ‘ news ’ -story .
In fact , if anything , the ‘ news ’ -story provided one bit of actual evidence which related to the matter , and that evidence exactly contradicted what the headline said , so that , actually , the headline that would have been at least relevant to such a news-report would instead have been : “ Flap with Sanders knocks Warren ’ s strategy off course ” — which , of course , is the exact opposite of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opening of that Reuters ‘ news ’ -report : Flap with Warren knocks Sanders ’ strategy off course WASHINGTON ( Reuters ) – The best-laid plans of Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders were upended this week – and his campaign is struggling to get back on track .
Sanders went into the week looking to draw a sharper contrast between his progressive agenda and that of former Vice President Joe Biden , a moderate and his top rival for the Democratic nomination .
Instead , his flap with fellow senator , friend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and electability has dominated the news , an unwelcome twist for a campaign that pulled into the top of the race in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks before the first voting begins .
The U.S. senator from Vermont has found himself on the defensive after Warren accused him of telling her during a 2018 meeting that a woman could not beat Republican President Donald Trump in the November election .
Sanders has denied saying that .
The disagreement between the two liberals grew more inflamed after a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made her out to be a liar at Tuesday ’ s debate in Iowa .
The back-and-forth has had their supporters at odds on social media , distressing progressives who want to present a unified front against a “ corporate Democrat ” going into the 2020 nominating contests , which kick off on Feb. 3 in Iowa .
So far , the dispute does not appear to have hurt Sanders , who saw his support among independents and Democrats rise by 2 points to 20 % – ahead of Biden ’ s 19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday .
Warren was at 12 percent in the poll .
Her momentum has stalled since November .
… Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
On January 17th, Reuters editors chose to publish and headline an alleged ‘news’-report “Flap with Warren knocks Sanders’ strategy off course”, indicating that Sanders was ‘knocked off course’, and that Warren gained at his expense, when the January 14th final pre-primaries debate in Des Moines included Elizabeth Warren saying that Bernie Sanders had told her that a woman can’t win the Presidency in the United States and Sanders responded by saying that he had never said to anyone anything of the sort because he never believed anything of the sort, and his citing that “Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes” as a clear evidence of that clear fact. The assumption in the headline of this ‘news’-report (it was not presented as being an opinion-piece) was that voters switch from Sanders to Warren because Warren alleged that he said what he alleged he had never said and never believed.
No evidence was provided in the accompanying ‘news’-report, that Sanders voters had switched to Warren voters after that very shocking public disagreement; and, so, the headline was entirely unsupported by its alleged ‘news’-story.
In fact, if anything, the ‘news’-story provided one bit of actual evidence which related to the matter, and that evidence exactly contradicted what the headline said, so that, actually, the headline that would have been at least relevant to such a news-report would instead have been: “Flap with Sanders knocks Warren’s strategy off course” — which, of course, is the exact opposite of what the headline did say.
Here is the opening of that Reuters ‘news’-report:
—
Flap with Warren knocks Sanders’ strategy off course
JANUARY 17, 2020 / 6:13 AM, Simon Lewis, James Oliphant
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The best-laid plans of Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders were upended this week – and his campaign is struggling to get back on track.
Sanders went into the week looking to draw a sharper contrast between his progressive agenda and that of former Vice President Joe Biden, a moderate and his top rival for the Democratic nomination.
Instead, his flap with fellow senator, friend and progressive ally Elizabeth Warren over gender and electability has dominated the news, an unwelcome twist for a campaign that pulled into the top of the race in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks before the first voting begins.
The U.S. senator from Vermont has found himself on the defensive after Warren accused him of telling her during a 2018 meeting that a woman could not beat Republican President Donald Trump in the November election. Sanders has denied saying that.
The disagreement between the two liberals grew more inflamed after a CNN microphone caught Warren telling Sanders he made her out to be a liar at Tuesday’s debate in Iowa.
The back-and-forth has had their supporters at odds on social media, distressing progressives who want to present a unified front against a “corporate Democrat” going into the 2020 nominating contests, which kick off on Feb. 3 in Iowa.
So far, the dispute does not appear to have hurt Sanders, who saw his support among independents and Democrats rise by 2 points to 20% – ahead of Biden’s 19% – in the past week, according to a Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday.
Warren was at 12 percent in the poll. Her momentum has stalled since November. …
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-18--Global Warming and the Future of Investing

On January 14th , the world ’ s largest investor , BlackRock , sent two historic letters , one addressed to “ Clients ” ( basically the world ’ s wealthiest individuals and their financial advisors ) and the other to “ CEOs ” ( the heads of the firms in which the world ’ s largest investor invests ) , and they both announced the now inevitable earthquake that ’ s coming to global capitalism .
The letter didn ’ t say precisely when it will hit , but did say , “ In the near future – and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be a significant reallocation of capital.
” Here ’ s more from the two letters : As an asset manager , BlackRock invests on behalf of others , and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients .
… I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance .
The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance .
… Investors are increasingly reckoning with these questions and recognizing that climate risk is investment risk .
… In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital .
… As a fiduciary , our responsibility is to help clients navigate this transition .
… Over the next few years , one of the most important questions we will face is the scale and scope of government action on climate change , which will generally define the speed with which we move to a low-carbon economy .
… We don ’ t yet know which predictions about the climate will be most accurate , nor what effects we have failed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denying the direction we are heading .
Every government , company , and shareholder must confront climate change .
… Sustainability as BlackRock ’ s New Standard for Investing Since BlackRock ’ s founding in 1988 , we have worked to anticipate our clients ’ needs to help you manage risk and achieve your investment goals .
As those needs have evolved , so too has our approach , but it has always been grounded in our fiduciary commitment to you .
… The most significant of these factors today relates to climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures , but also transition risk – namely , how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company ’ s long-term profitability .
… As your fiduciary , BlackRock is committed to helping you navigate this transition and build more resilient portfolios .
… These models will use environmental , social , and governance ( ESG ) -optimized index exposures in place of traditional market cap-weighted index exposures .
… • Reducing ESG Risk in Active Strategies – In heightening our scrutiny on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Analysis at the Heart of Aladdin – We have developed proprietary measurement tools to deepen our understanding of material ESG risks .
For example , our Carbon Beta tool allows us to stress-test issuers and portfolios for different carbon pricing scenarios .
… • Working with Index Providers to Expand and Improve the Universe of Sustainable Indexes .
… Our role as a fiduciary is the foundation of BlackRock ’ s culture .
… We invest on your behalf , not our own .
… While the low-carbon transition is well underway , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transition will take decades .
Global economic development , particularly in emerging markets , will continue to rely on hydrocarbons for a number of years .
As a result , the portfolios we manage will continue to hold exposures to the hydrocarbon economy as the transition advances .
A successful low-carbon transition will require a coordinated , international response from governments aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement , including the adoption of carbon pricing globally , which we continue to endorse .
… The steps we are taking today will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a fiduciary .
Sustainability is becoming increasingly material to investment outcomes .
… Basically , the world ’ s largest investor , BlackRock ( manager of about $ 7 trillion in funds ) , is predicting that as the 90 % + consensus of climate scientists increasingly impacts the relative prices of renewable as compared to non-renewable energy-sources , the “ ESG ” premium on the renewable ( such as solar , wind , etc . )
will inevitably cause the non-renewable ( coal , oil , and gas ) energy-sources to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remain competitive — and this will drive down the values of stocks in the non-renewable category , and drive up the values of stocks in the renewable category .
These two letters are saying that this will be evident “ In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate , ” but “ the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades.
” There is an obvious tension between those two assertions .
The “ In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate , ” is addressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades ” is addressed to “ Clients ” — BlackRock ’ s customers , mainly the world ’ s billionaires and centi-millionaires , but also the investment-managers for large organizations .
The “ Clients ” naturally have a preference for low perceived risk in their investments ; and BlackRock is , in that letter , providing its clients the sense that there will be no earthquake to their investments .
If one happens , BlackRock will be able to say to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that this is coming , but it came faster than we and our competitors expected , ” and they ’ ll be right about that .
As regards the letter to “ CEOs , ” it ’ s telling them to transition as fast as is reasonably possible out of fossil-fuel investments and into renewable-fuel ones , in order to become less vulnerable to the shock , when it does hit .
This makes good sense : keeping the clients comfortable , while telling the CEOs : “ Make major moves on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .
On January 14th , the world ’ s largest investor , BlackRock , sent two historic letters , one addressed to “ Clients ” ( basically the world ’ s wealthiest individuals and their financial advisors ) and the other to “ CEOs ” ( the heads of the firms in which the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both announced the now inevitable earthquake that ’ s coming to global capitalism .
The letter didn ’ t say precisely when it will hit , but did say , “ In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.
” Here ’ s more from the two letters : As an asset manager , BlackRock invests on behalf of others , and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients .
… I believe we are on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finance .
The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance .
… Investors are increasingly reckoning with these questions and recognizing that climate risk is investment risk .
… In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital .
… As a fiduciary , our responsibility is to help clients navigate this transition .
… Over the next few years , one of the most important questions we will face is the scale and scope of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will generally define the speed with which we move to a low-carbon economy .
… We don ’ t yet know which predictions about the climate will be most accurate , nor what effects we have failed to consider .
But there is no denying the direction we are heading .
Every government , company , and shareholder must confront climate change .
… Sustainability as BlackRock ’ s New Standard for Investing Since BlackRock ’ s founding in 1988 , we have worked to anticipate our clients ’ needs to help you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As those needs have evolved , so too has our approach , but it has always been grounded in our fiduciary commitment to you .
… The most significant of these factors today relates to climate change , not only in terms of the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures , but also transition risk – namely , how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company ’ s long-term profitability .
… As your fiduciary , BlackRock is committed to helping you navigate this transition and build @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will use environmental , social , and governance ( ESG ) -optimized index exposures in place of traditional market cap-weighted index exposures .
… • Reducing ESG Risk in Active Strategies – In heightening our scrutiny on ESG issues .
… • Putting ESG Analysis at the Heart of Aladdin – We have developed proprietary measurement tools to deepen our understanding of material ESG risks .
For example , our Carbon Beta tool allows us to stress-test issuers and portfolios for different carbon pricing scenarios .
… • Working with Index Providers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indexes .
… Our role as a fiduciary is the foundation of BlackRock ’ s culture .
… We invest on your behalf , not our own .
… While the low-carbon transition is well underway , the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades .
Global economic development , particularly in emerging markets , will continue to rely on hydrocarbons for a number of years .
As a result , the portfolios we manage will continue to hold exposures to the hydrocarbon economy as the transition advances .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ coordinated , international response from governments aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement , including the adoption of carbon pricing globally , which we continue to endorse .
… The steps we are taking today will help strengthen our ability to serve you as a fiduciary .
Sustainability is becoming increasingly material to investment outcomes .
… Basically , the world ’ s largest investor , BlackRock ( manager of about $ 7 trillion in funds ) , is predicting that as the 90 % + consensus of climate scientists increasingly impacts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to non-renewable energy-sources , the “ ESG ” premium on the renewable ( such as solar , wind , etc . )
will inevitably cause the non-renewable ( coal , oil , and gas ) energy-sources to need to become ever-cheaper in order to remain competitive — and this will drive down the values of stocks in the non-renewable category , and drive up the values of stocks in the renewable category .
These two letters are saying that this will be evident “ In the near future – and sooner than most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades.
” There is an obvious tension between those two assertions .
The “ In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate , ” is addressed to “ CEOs , ” but the “ the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades ” is addressed to “ Clients ” — BlackRock ’ s customers , mainly the world ’ s billionaires and centi-millionaires , but also the investment-managers for large organizations .
The “ Clients ” naturally have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their investments ; and BlackRock is , in that letter , providing its clients the sense that there will be no earthquake to their investments .
If one happens , BlackRock will be able to say to its clients , “ We told you that this is coming , but it came faster than we and our competitors expected , ” and they ’ ll be right about that .
As regards the letter to “ CEOs , ” it ’ s telling them to transition as fast as is reasonably possible out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in order to become less vulnerable to the shock , when it does hit .
This makes good sense : keeping the clients comfortable , while telling the CEOs : “ Make major moves on this ASAP !
” Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author , most recently , of They ’ re Not Even Close : The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records , 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST ’ S VENTRILOQUISTS : The Event that Created Christianity .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
Eric Zuesse
On January 14th, the world’s largest investor, BlackRock, sent two historic letters, one addressed to “Clients” (basically the world’s wealthiest individuals and their financial advisors) and the other to “CEOs” (the heads of the firms in which the world’s largest investor invests), and they both announced the now inevitable earthquake that’s coming to global capitalism. The letter didn’t say precisely when it will hit, but did say, “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.” Here’s more from the two letters:
—
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/larry-fink-ceo-letter
A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance
Dear CEO,
As an asset manager, BlackRock invests on behalf of others, and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients. …
I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.
The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance. …
Investors are increasingly reckoning with these questions and recognizing that climate risk is investment risk. …
In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital. …
As a fiduciary, our responsibility is to help clients navigate this transition. …
Over the next few years, one of the most important questions we will face is the scale and scope of government action on climate change, which will generally define the speed with which we move to a low-carbon economy. …
We don’t yet know which predictions about the climate will be most accurate, nor what effects we have failed to consider. But there is no denying the direction we are heading. Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change. …
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/blackrock-client-letter
Sustainability as BlackRock’s New Standard for Investing
Dear Client,
Since BlackRock’s founding in 1988, we have worked to anticipate our clients’ needs to help you manage risk and achieve your investment goals. As those needs have evolved, so too has our approach, but it has always been grounded in our fiduciary commitment to you. …
The most significant of these factors today relates to climate change, not only in terms of the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures, but also transition risk – namely, how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company’s long-term profitability. …
As your fiduciary, BlackRock is committed to helping you navigate this transition and build more resilient portfolios. …
These models will use environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-optimized index exposures in place of traditional market cap-weighted index exposures. …
• Reducing ESG Risk in Active Strategies – In heightening our scrutiny on ESG issues. …
• Putting ESG Analysis at the Heart of Aladdin – We have developed proprietary measurement tools to deepen our understanding of material ESG risks. For example, our Carbon Beta tool allows us to stress-test issuers and portfolios for different carbon pricing scenarios. …
• Doubling Our Offerings of ESG ETFs. …
• Working with Index Providers to Expand and Improve the Universe of Sustainable Indexes. …
• Expanding Sustainable Active Investment Strategies. …
Our Commitment
Our role as a fiduciary is the foundation of BlackRock’s culture. …
We invest on your behalf, not our own. …
While the low-carbon transition is well underway, the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades. Global economic development, particularly in emerging markets, will continue to rely on hydrocarbons for a number of years. As a result, the portfolios we manage will continue to hold exposures to the hydrocarbon economy as the transition advances.
A successful low-carbon transition will require a coordinated, international response from governments aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including the adoption of carbon pricing globally, which we continue to endorse. …
The steps we are taking today will help strengthen our ability to serve you as a fiduciary. Sustainability is becoming increasingly material to investment outcomes. …
—
Basically, the world’s largest investor, BlackRock (manager of about $7 trillion in funds), is predicting that as the 90%+ consensus of climate scientists increasingly impacts the relative prices of renewable as compared to non-renewable energy-sources, the “ESG” premium on the renewable (such as solar, wind, etc.) will inevitably cause the non-renewable (coal, oil, and gas) energy-sources to need to become ever-cheaper in order to remain competitive — and this will drive down the values of stocks in the non-renewable category, and drive up the values of stocks in the renewable category.
These two letters are saying that this will be evident “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate,” but “the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades.” There is an obvious tension between those two assertions. The “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate,” is addressed to “CEOs,” but the “the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades” is addressed to “Clients” — BlackRock’s customers, mainly the world’s billionaires and centi-millionaires, but also the investment-managers for large organizations. The “Clients” naturally have a preference for low perceived risk in their investments; and BlackRock is, in that letter, providing its clients the sense that there will be no earthquake to their investments. If one happens, BlackRock will be able to say to its clients, “We told you that this is coming, but it came faster than we and our competitors expected,” and they’ll be right about that. As regards the letter to “CEOs,” it’s telling them to transition as fast as is reasonably possible out of fossil-fuel investments and into renewable-fuel ones, in order to become less vulnerable to the shock, when it does hit. This makes good sense: keeping the clients comfortable, while telling the CEOs: “Make major moves on this ASAP!”
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Eric Zuesse
On January 14th, the world’s largest investor, BlackRock, sent two historic letters, one addressed to “Clients” (basically the world’s wealthiest individuals and their financial advisors) and the other to “CEOs” (the heads of the firms in which the world’s largest investor invests), and they both announced the now inevitable earthquake that’s coming to global capitalism. The letter didn’t say precisely when it will hit, but did say, “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital.” Here’s more from the two letters:
—
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/larry-fink-ceo-letter
A Fundamental Reshaping of Finance
Dear CEO,
As an asset manager, BlackRock invests on behalf of others, and I am writing to you as an advisor and fiduciary to these clients. …
I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.
The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance. …
Investors are increasingly reckoning with these questions and recognizing that climate risk is investment risk. …
In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate – there will be a significant reallocation of capital. …
As a fiduciary, our responsibility is to help clients navigate this transition. …
Over the next few years, one of the most important questions we will face is the scale and scope of government action on climate change, which will generally define the speed with which we move to a low-carbon economy. …
We don’t yet know which predictions about the climate will be most accurate, nor what effects we have failed to consider. But there is no denying the direction we are heading. Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change. …
https://www.blackrock.com/us/individual/blackrock-client-letter
Sustainability as BlackRock’s New Standard for Investing
Dear Client,
Since BlackRock’s founding in 1988, we have worked to anticipate our clients’ needs to help you manage risk and achieve your investment goals. As those needs have evolved, so too has our approach, but it has always been grounded in our fiduciary commitment to you. …
The most significant of these factors today relates to climate change, not only in terms of the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures, but also transition risk – namely, how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company’s long-term profitability. …
As your fiduciary, BlackRock is committed to helping you navigate this transition and build more resilient portfolios. …
These models will use environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-optimized index exposures in place of traditional market cap-weighted index exposures. …
• Reducing ESG Risk in Active Strategies – In heightening our scrutiny on ESG issues. …
• Putting ESG Analysis at the Heart of Aladdin – We have developed proprietary measurement tools to deepen our understanding of material ESG risks. For example, our Carbon Beta tool allows us to stress-test issuers and portfolios for different carbon pricing scenarios. …
• Doubling Our Offerings of ESG ETFs. …
• Working with Index Providers to Expand and Improve the Universe of Sustainable Indexes. …
• Expanding Sustainable Active Investment Strategies. …
Our Commitment
Our role as a fiduciary is the foundation of BlackRock’s culture. …
We invest on your behalf, not our own. …
While the low-carbon transition is well underway, the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades. Global economic development, particularly in emerging markets, will continue to rely on hydrocarbons for a number of years. As a result, the portfolios we manage will continue to hold exposures to the hydrocarbon economy as the transition advances.
A successful low-carbon transition will require a coordinated, international response from governments aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement, including the adoption of carbon pricing globally, which we continue to endorse. …
The steps we are taking today will help strengthen our ability to serve you as a fiduciary. Sustainability is becoming increasingly material to investment outcomes. …
—
Basically, the world’s largest investor, BlackRock (manager of about $7 trillion in funds), is predicting that as the 90%+ consensus of climate scientists increasingly impacts the relative prices of renewable as compared to non-renewable energy-sources, the “ESG” premium on the renewable (such as solar, wind, etc.) will inevitably cause the non-renewable (coal, oil, and gas) energy-sources to need to become ever-cheaper in order to remain competitive — and this will drive down the values of stocks in the non-renewable category, and drive up the values of stocks in the renewable category.
These two letters are saying that this will be evident “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate,” but “the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades.” There is an obvious tension between those two assertions. The “In the near future – and sooner than most anticipate,” is addressed to “CEOs,” but the “the technological and economic realities mean that the transition will take decades” is addressed to “Clients” — BlackRock’s customers, mainly the world’s billionaires and centi-millionaires, but also the investment-managers for large organizations. The “Clients” naturally have a preference for low perceived risk in their investments; and BlackRock is, in that letter, providing its clients the sense that there will be no earthquake to their investments. If one happens, BlackRock will be able to say to its clients, “We told you that this is coming, but it came faster than we and our competitors expected,” and they’ll be right about that. As regards the letter to “CEOs,” it’s telling them to transition as fast as is reasonably possible out of fossil-fuel investments and into renewable-fuel ones, in order to become less vulnerable to the shock, when it does hit. This makes good sense: keeping the clients comfortable, while telling the CEOs: “Make major moves on this ASAP!”
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report


theduran--2020-01-18--EU bails on JCPOA. UN sanctions set to snapback on Iran (Video)

The Duran ’ s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the decision by the EU to trigger the DRM ( dispute resolution mechanism ) and essentially pull out of the JCPOA .
UN sanction will inevitably snapback on Iran in a matter of weeks .
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute .
The Duran Audio Podcast : Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes .
Via The Duran , reposted from May 11 , 2018 : Ever since Donald Trump ’ s announcement that the US would pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Iran and would unilaterally impose across-the-board sanctions on that country , a procession of European leaders including the leaders of the US ’ s most powerful European allies – Britain , France and Germany – have publicly declared their intention to stand by the JCPOA .
There is also brave talk of the EU creating safeguards for European companies which in defiance of the US continue to trade or do business with Iran .
President Rouhani of Iran – who has a big personal stake in the JCPOA , which he personally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Iran will for the time being abide by the terms of the JCPOA whilst it waits to see how Europe will react .
In the meantime the talk of the EU standing up to the US over the JCPOA has increased talk – or hope – that a corner in US-EU relations has been turned , and that the EU will henceforth increasingly defy the US , making Donald Trump ’ s decision to pull out of the JCPOA a further step in the decline of US power .
These words of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a good example We are yet to see the detail , but by all precedent Trump ’ s Iran sanctions will also sanction third country companies which trade with Iran , at the least through attacking their transactions through US financial institutions and by sanctioning their US affiliates .
But at a time when US share of the world economy and world trade is steadily shrinking , this encouragement to European and Asian companies to firewall and minimise contact with the US is most unlikely to be long term beneficial to the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where it is already obvious that the years of the US dollar ’ s undisputed dominance as the world currency of reference are drawing to a close , the incentive to employ non-US linked means of financial transaction will add to an already highly significant global trend .
In short , if the US fails to prevent Europe and Asia ’ s burgeoning trade with Iran – and I think they will fail – this moment will be seen by historians as a key marker in US decline as a world power .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ these hopes .
Whilst there is no doubt European leaders are deeply shocked by Donald Trump ’ s announcement of a pullout from an international agreement in negotiating which the EU played a large part , I strongly doubt that they will find the courage or the willpower to defy the US by in effect encouraging their companies to continue to do business with Iran .
It should be said that even with such active encouragement it is unlikely in my opinion that big European companies like Daimler or Airbus will risk US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran .
Even if European governments were to guarantee them against any losses caused by such fines , they would worry about losing access to the US market , which utterly dwarfs Iran ’ s .
Given the head of steam that has built up inside the Trump administration against Iran , only if the EU were to threaten publicly to impose reciprocal sanctions on US businesses doing business in the European Single Market might there be a real possibility of the US being deterred from imposing penalties on European companies which continue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think there is no prospect of that happening because there is no unanimity within the EU behind it ( Poland and the Baltic States would certainly oppose it ) whilst I am sure that even the big EU states – Britain , Germany , France , and Italy – would in the end be unwilling to risk an all out rupture with the US on such an issue .
Quite simply , though the Europeans are anxious to trade with Iran and to do business with Iran , Iran is not big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not important enough , to make the risk of an all-out rupture with the US worthwhile .
I am sure that the Europeans – angry though they certainly are – will therefore in the end knuckle down , and do as the US tells them to do .
That almost certainly means that the JCPOA is doomed .
The Iranians have made clear that they will not stick with it if there are no economic benefits to them from doing so .
I expect within a few weeks – as it becomes increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to defy the US – that the Iranian nuclear programme will resume with a vengeance .
At that point the danger of a US , Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran will grow .
In fact this episode has been a profoundly humiliating one for Europe , exposing the extent of its powerlessness .
Not only did Donald Trump ignore pleas to stand by the JCPOA from the US ’ s closest European allies – Merkel , Macron and May – but he apparently did not even inform them in advance of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decided to impose .
The European leader who has come out worst from this affair is France ’ s vain and foolish President Emmanuel Macron .
Macron appears to have genuinely believed that he had forged some sort of personal relationship with Trump , and that France ’ s contribution to the US ’ s recent strike on Syria had made this bond even stronger .
In reality what Macron ’ s recent trip to Washington has done is simply expose the extent to which Donald Trump and the US take neither him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were ignored , whilst his fawning behaviour towards Trump apparently went down badly back home .
As for Angela Merkel , she at least avoided in her trip to Washington the disastrous optics of Macron ’ s visit .
She is far too skilled and experienced a politician to be caught out in that way .
However no-one should be in any doubt that it is Merkel ’ s disastrous leadership of Germany and of Europe which has brought Europe to this pass .
Ever since she became German Chancellor she has repeatedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to avoid rocking the boat with the US .
In July 2014 she took the fateful step of supporting the US ’ s demand for sectoral sanctions against Russia even though these were contrary to German economic interests , in effect legitimising the US practice of imposing unilateral sanctions without the agreement of the UN Security Council .
That makes it all but impossible to see how she can realistically oppose such sanctions now .
The contrast with Margaret Thatcher – who in the 1980s vigorously opposed unilateral US sanctions intended to block @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact European behaviour over the JCPOA has been a textbook case of appeasement .
Instead of telling Donald Trump that a unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA would be contrary to international law – which it is – and that Europe would strongly oppose US withdrawal from an international agreement which was not only working but with which Iran is abiding , European leaders like Merkel , Macron and May instead told Trump that they agreed with him that the JCPOA was in some way “ imperfect ” and would have to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that not only failed to persuade Donald Trump to stick with the JCPOA ; it almost certainly emboldened him , convincing him that he is right to pull out of it .
Donald Trump ’ s decision to pull out of the JCPOA and to impose sweeping unilateral sanctions on Iran will undoubtedly embitter European opinion against the US .
It is also likely to make Europe more resistant to any further US pressure to ramp up sanctions against Russia .
Unlike trade with Iran , European and especially German trade with Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economies , which explains why constant US pressure on Germany to pull out of the Nord Stream 2 project has been resisted .
In the longer term this episode probably will harden further the anti-US trend in voting on the part of European electorates , though it is worth pointing out that some of the right wing ‘ populist ’ European politicians who have benefitted from this process are not friends of Iran ’ s .
However in the immediate term Iran ’ s economic salvation as it finds itself under renewed sanctions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Russia and China and the other Eurasian states .

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.
The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the decision by the EU to trigger the DRM (dispute resolution mechanism) and essentially pull out of the JCPOA. UN sanction will inevitably snapback on Iran in a matter of weeks.
Support Free Speech:
Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.
The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.
Via The Duran, reposted from May 11, 2018:
Ever since Donald Trump’s announcement that the US would pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) with Iran and would unilaterally impose across-the-board sanctions on that country, a procession of European leaders including the leaders of the US’s most powerful European allies – Britain, France and Germany – have publicly declared their intention to stand by the JCPOA.
There is also brave talk of the EU creating safeguards for European companies which in defiance of the US continue to trade or do business with Iran.
President Rouhani of Iran – who has a big personal stake in the JCPOA, which he personally negotiated – has for his part said that Iran will for the time being abide by the terms of the JCPOA whilst it waits to see how Europe will react.
In the meantime the talk of the EU standing up to the US over the JCPOA has increased talk – or hope – that a corner in US-EU relations has been turned, and that the EU will henceforth increasingly defy the US, making Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the JCPOA a further step in the decline of US power. These words of Craig Murray’s may stand as a good example
We are yet to see the detail, but by all precedent Trump’s Iran sanctions will also sanction third country companies which trade with Iran, at the least through attacking their transactions through US financial institutions and by sanctioning their US affiliates. But at a time when US share of the world economy and world trade is steadily shrinking, this encouragement to European and Asian companies to firewall and minimise contact with the US is most unlikely to be long term beneficial to the US. In particular, in a period where it is already obvious that the years of the US dollar’s undisputed dominance as the world currency of reference are drawing to a close, the incentive to employ non-US linked means of financial transaction will add to an already highly significant global trend. In short, if the US fails to prevent Europe and Asia’s burgeoning trade with Iran – and I think they will fail – this moment will be seen by historians as a key marker in US decline as a world power.
I do not share these expectations or these hopes.
Whilst there is no doubt European leaders are deeply shocked by Donald Trump’s announcement of a pullout from an international agreement in negotiating which the EU played a large part, I strongly doubt that they will find the courage or the willpower to defy the US by in effect encouraging their companies to continue to do business with Iran.
It should be said that even with such active encouragement it is unlikely in my opinion that big European companies like Daimler or Airbus will risk US fines by continuing to do business with Iran. Even if European governments were to guarantee them against any losses caused by such fines, they would worry about losing access to the US market, which utterly dwarfs Iran’s.
Given the head of steam that has built up inside the Trump administration against Iran, only if the EU were to threaten publicly to impose reciprocal sanctions on US businesses doing business in the European Single Market might there be a real possibility of the US being deterred from imposing penalties on European companies which continue to do business with Iran.
Frankly I think there is no prospect of that happening because there is no unanimity within the EU behind it (Poland and the Baltic States would certainly oppose it) whilst I am sure that even the big EU states – Britain, Germany, France, and Italy – would in the end be unwilling to risk an all out rupture with the US on such an issue.
Quite simply, though the Europeans are anxious to trade with Iran and to do business with Iran, Iran is not big enough, and trade with Iran is not important enough, to make the risk of an all-out rupture with the US worthwhile.
I am sure that the Europeans – angry though they certainly are – will therefore in the end knuckle down, and do as the US tells them to do.
That almost certainly means that the JCPOA is doomed. The Iranians have made clear that they will not stick with it if there are no economic benefits to them from doing so. I expect within a few weeks – as it becomes increasingly clear that the EU is not prepared to defy the US – that the Iranian nuclear programme will resume with a vengeance.
At that point the danger of a US, Israeli and Saudi attack on Iran will grow.
In fact this episode has been a profoundly humiliating one for Europe, exposing the extent of its powerlessness.
Not only did Donald Trump ignore pleas to stand by the JCPOA from the US’s closest European allies – Merkel, Macron and May – but he apparently did not even inform them in advance of the sweeping sanctions on Iran which he had decided to impose.
The European leader who has come out worst from this affair is France’s vain and foolish President Emmanuel Macron.
Macron appears to have genuinely believed that he had forged some sort of personal relationship with Trump, and that France’s contribution to the US’s recent strike on Syria had made this bond even stronger.
In reality what Macron’s recent trip to Washington has done is simply expose the extent to which Donald Trump and the US take neither him nor France seriously. All his pleas were ignored, whilst his fawning behaviour towards Trump apparently went down badly back home.
As for Angela Merkel, she at least avoided in her trip to Washington the disastrous optics of Macron’s visit. She is far too skilled and experienced a politician to be caught out in that way.
However no-one should be in any doubt that it is Merkel’s disastrous leadership of Germany and of Europe which has brought Europe to this pass.
Ever since she became German Chancellor she has repeatedly sacrificed European and German interests in order to avoid rocking the boat with the US.
In July 2014 she took the fateful step of supporting the US’s demand for sectoral sanctions against Russia even though these were contrary to German economic interests, in effect legitimising the US practice of imposing unilateral sanctions without the agreement of the UN Security Council. That makes it all but impossible to see how she can realistically oppose such sanctions now.
The contrast with Margaret Thatcher – who in the 1980s vigorously opposed unilateral US sanctions intended to block Russian pipeline projects – is instructive.
In fact European behaviour over the JCPOA has been a textbook case of appeasement.
Instead of telling Donald Trump that a unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA would be contrary to international law – which it is – and that Europe would strongly oppose US withdrawal from an international agreement which was not only working but with which Iran is abiding, European leaders like Merkel, Macron and May instead told Trump that they agreed with him that the JCPOA was in some way “imperfect” and would have to be “improved”.
Needless to say that not only failed to persuade Donald Trump to stick with the JCPOA; it almost certainly emboldened him, convincing him that he is right to pull out of it.
Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the JCPOA and to impose sweeping unilateral sanctions on Iran will undoubtedly embitter European opinion against the US. It is also likely to make Europe more resistant to any further US pressure to ramp up sanctions against Russia. Unlike trade with Iran, European and especially German trade with Russia is indispensable for the European and German economies, which explains why constant US pressure on Germany to pull out of the Nord Stream 2 project has been resisted.
In the longer term this episode probably will harden further the anti-US trend in voting on the part of European electorates, though it is worth pointing out that some of the right wing ‘populist’ European politicians who have benefitted from this process are not friends of Iran’s.
However in the immediate term Iran’s economic salvation as it finds itself under renewed sanctions pressure will come not from Europe but from Russia and China and the other Eurasian states.
Read Later Add to Favourites Add to Collection Report