The West Has Picked A Fight With Iran That It Cannot Win: Simon Jenkins discusses the US-led belligerence against Iran. A number of things strike me about this: first, a US or Israeli attack against Iran seems unlikely, it could not achieve anything except stir up a hornets nest; US belligerence and arrogance is undiminished by the Iraq debacle, their posturing is a virtual re-run of the lead up to the Iraq war; Europe still does not dare to openly oppose US belligerence and hegemonic ambition; Russia and China can have no interest at all in a successful transformation of Iran to a US client state and yet at the same time they also diplomatically refrain from open criticism of US posturing. I suppose everyone is just waiting, as politely as possible, for the American empire to play itself out on the world stage. An alternative vision or leadership, however, would not be a bad thing. One could (and should) return to the beginnings of International law in the form of the UN charter and various treaties such as the Geneva conventions and the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. There is not anything wrong with them in principle, except that they have not been implemented or respected.

Meanwhile, as Jeff Vail has pointed out, "the Federal Reserve ... will cease reporting M3 as of March 23, 2006", about the same time as the Iranian Oil Bourse is to open with the trading of oil for Euros. And the Chinese are reducing their exposure to the dollar by diversifying into other currencies, as the US budget, trade and current account deficits climb, and as the housing bubble pops amid a huge derivatives market that are financial weapons of mass destruction. The the cost of the Iraq war is stunning at between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 2000 percent above estimates. The war is an almost total failure, with the almost total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in 2006 whether the deluded President and his dwindling band of deluded neocon supporters like it or not.

Al Gore makes a valiant rearguard effort to save the Republic, but much of the rest of the US leadership and the world commmunity adopts a curiously passive attitude to these historic events.

The West Has Picked A Fight With Iran That It Cannot Win: Simon Jenkins discusses the US-led belligerence against Iran. A number of things strike me about this: first, a US or Israeli attack against Iran seems unlikely, it could not achieve anything except stir up a hornets nest; US belligerence and arrogance is undiminished by the Iraq debacle, their posturing is a virtual re-run of the lead up to the Iraq war; Europe still does not dare to openly oppose US belligerence and hegemonic ambition; Russia and China can have no interest at all in a successful transformation of Iran to a US client state and yet at the same time they also diplomatically refrain from open criticism of US posturing. I suppose everyone is just waiting, as politely as possible, for the American empire to play itself out on the world stage. An alternative vision or leadership, however, would not be a bad thing. One could (and should) return to the beginnings of International law in the form of the UN charter and various treaties such as the Geneva conventions and the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty. There is not anything wrong with them in principle, except that they have not been implemented or respected.

Meanwhile, as Jeff Vail has pointed out, "the Federal Reserve ... will cease reporting M3 as of March 23, 2006", about the same time as the Iranian Oil Bourse is to open with the trading of oil for Euros. And the Chinese are reducing their exposure to the dollar by diversifying into other currencies, as the US budget, trade and current account deficits climb, and as the housing bubble pops amid a huge derivatives market that are financial weapons of mass destruction. The the cost of the Iraq war is stunning at between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, up to 2000 percent above estimates. The war is an almost total failure, with the almost total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq in 2006 whether the deluded President and his dwindling band of deluded neocon supporters like it or not.

Al Gore makes a valiant rearguard effort to save the Republic, but much of the rest of the US leadership and the world commmunity adopts a curiously passive attitude to these historic events.