© Alex Krainer's Substack
According to The Washington Post, US intelligence produced a classified assessment of the situation shortly before the US and Israel launched their military operations against Iran. They concluded that even a massive military assault on Iran is unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran and its state system. For some reason however, their assessment was ignored.
It gets worse: only two days before launching the war against Iran, Trump fired the Director of the Joint Staff Vice Admiral Fred Kacher. Apparently, Vice Admiral Kacher tried to warn Trump against attacking Iran on the account of risks, insufficient munitions stockpiles and likely casualties. As U.S. military's senior operations officer supporting the Joint Chiefs, Kacher was the best placed officer to give the President a much needed reality check.
Trump apparently didn't like what he was hearing so he sacked Kacher after less than three months on the job. Kacher's boss, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dan Caine apparently also expressed caution about Iran but did ultimately accept to carry out his orders.
The greatest military force like nobody's ever seen...
American leaders invariably like to talk up U.S. military power as unlimited and all-powerful. To Donald Trump, this obviously comes as second nature, but he is not alone in that: not so long ago his predecessor, Joe Biden was asked if the U.S. could wage war on three fronts [Ukraine, Middle East and China]. His answer was that yes, "of course we can do it. We're the United States of America, for god's sake."
Certainly, many are eager to believe this, but U.S. military officers have long been aware of their army's limitations. On 7 February 1990 - 36 years ago - the New York Times published a report based on the "Defense Planning Guidance," a biannual document that frames the strategic thinking and identifies defence priorities of the top US military chiefs.
Emergence of regional threats
They directed General Norman Schwarzkopf, who was the head of US Central Command at that time, to concentrate on securing the Arabian Peninsula's oil fields from "regional threats." That objective was clearly outlined as the U.S. military's strategic priority as the military brass understood that U.S. hegemony in the Middle East couldn't be taken for granted.
In 1988 the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) published a study titled, "Meeting the Mavericks: Regional Challenges for the Next President." It asserted that, "our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region." That same year, President Bush 41 addressed the same challenge in a speech to the coast guard academy: "The emergence of regional powers is rapidly changing the strategic landscape... We must check the aggressive ambitions of renegade regimes."
The widening credibility gap
That was exactly in line with the CSIS study, which stated that, "... the ability to cope with regional challengers must become a central objective of US foreign policy." Its authors noted, however, that "At issue is the viability of military power as a general instrument of diplomacy... The gap between US capabilities and credibility may widen further as the world becomes increasingly multipolar."
That prose, foreshadowing multipolarity and the waning of U.S. military power, was indeed written in 1988 - 38 years ago! Even back then, military strategists recognized that the hegemon's ability to control the Middle East militarily was limited and depended on regional proxies allies:
"The U.S. will be unable to perform any major contingency operation without a substantial degree of assistance from other nations. All foreign and defense policy decisions must be made with this realization."U.S. regional hegemony also largely relied on 'credibility' and projection of power, not on its actual power. Former CIA and Pentagon chief James Schlesinger was candid:
"... individual force elements may not add up to the aggregate necessary to sustain America's position as the leading world power. American policymakers should be quite clear in their own minds that the basis for determining US force structure and military expenditures in the future should not simply be the response to individual threats, but rather that which is needed to maintain the overall aura of American power."Two pillars, both collapsing
Stated otherwise, U.S. hegemony over the Middle East depended on two key pillars:
- The ability to mobilize proxy forces (i.e. Israel, al Qaeda, ISIS, al Nusra, etc.), and
- The ability to project power and intimidate any "regional threats" into submission.
Strategic defeat was discernible long ago
In his book, Time to Start Thinking, Edward Luce discussed a 2011 strategy session held at the National Defense University by 16 high-ranking US military officers. They concluded as follows:
"The window on America's hegemony is closing. We are at a point right now where we still have choices. By 2021, we will no longer have choices. ... The US is way too dependent on its military and should sharply reduce its 'global footprint' by winding up all wars, notably in Afghanistan, and by closing peacetime military bases in Germany, South Korea, the UK and elsewhere... All this is a means to an end, which is to restore America's economic vitality. ...It is utterly dismaying that Donald Trump, whose administration clearly understood and heeded these warnings suddenly turned on a dime and launched what must be the most reckless and ill-advised geopolitical gamble in the living memory. Opinions and caution from true experts were jetisoned and Trump seemingly went with the advice from "Steve [Wytkoff] and Jared [Kushner] and Pete [Hegseth] and others, Marco [Rubio]..." Truly hard to believe, but that, apparently, is what happened.
Our #1 goal should be to restore America's prosperity. As such, we recommend the Pentagon shrink its budget by at least 20% ... most of the savings would be spent on civilian priorities such as the infrastructure, education and foreign aid. ... Nobody here thinks the politics in this town are going to change overnight; all we're saying is that we're in trouble if they don't. This isn't about ideology; it is about understanding where we are as a country."
Iran's power and the costs of Trump's own goal
In addition to being truly exhausted and war-fatigued, the empire's forces have also been demoralized. That is the effect of scoring spectacular own goals. At the same the power and resilience of Iran only surprised those who allowed themselves to be dazzled by the "overall aura of American power." Those who paid attention were not surprised. Here is what I wrote about this situation in a December 2023 TrendCompass newsletter:
The ultimate result will be the hegemon's expulsion from the resource (and collateral) rich region to a massive detriment of western financial institutions. The only magic wand left for them to use will be the printing press and inflation.We have turned that corner now. When an empire's military muscle atrophies, it loses political power over its vassals who'll need to look elsewhere for protection. They will no longer borrow from your financial institutions and might not award lucrative government contracts to your corporations.
Ultimately, the biggest impact from the loss of hegemony will be felt in imperial power's economy and financial markets. If the empire is unable to reassert control over regional powers, their natural resource wealth will no longer be turned into your bank's collateral. It's like yanking the foundation from underneath the whole edifice.
To avert a collapse, Western central banks will have no other recourse but to print money in massive quantities. All that does is buy time. The system's collapse is a mathematical certainty and only a matter of time. That is the big shift happening in the world today, as 500-year old foundations of the old world's colonialism comes tumbling down like an avalanche.
As hegemony wanes, multipolarity rises
President Xi Jinping was quite right, at the end of his visit to Moscow, in stating that, "Right now there are changes - the likes of which we haven't seen for 100 years - and we are the ones driving these changes together." Russia and China together have clearly set out to dismantle the West's hegemony. Trump's attack on Iran has only accelerated that. But neither Russia nor China regard the American people as the enemy. Rather, they have set the imperial oligarchy - the owners of collateral - in their crosshairs.
Russian government's foreign policy doctrine, unveiled by Vladimir Putin at the recent Valdai club meeting on 31 March 2023, read as follows: "The Russian Federation is interested in maintaining strategic parity, peaceful coexistence with the United States and the establishment of a balance of interests between Russia and the United States."
Thankfully, Mr. Putin's government continues to cultivate a constructive engagement with their American counterparts. That bilateral relationship is more important than any other for the future of peace in the world. Over the long run, I believe it will help guide international relations toward truly peaceful coexistence and productive cooperation.
Even if things look dismal today, we should keep the Confucian counsel in mind: that when a large tree falls, it creates great noise and destruction. But seeds grow in silence. Today we have the privilege of nourishing those seeds, because they are us.
Reader Comments
renegadeindependent regimes.''They are not renegades, they just do their own thing and try to mind their own business.
-''...most deadly force in history of the Milky Way galaxy...''
I love humor. This is good.
-''...it loses political power over its vassals who'll need to look elsewhere for protection.''
The old ways die hard. The only protection these vassals need is from their own ''masters''. In my imaginary world equals benefit from each other. By the way, isn't it what the Brics+ is trying to do?
-''If the empire is unable to reassert control over regional powers...''
Here it is again. Does it have to be this way? Says who? Are we going to reach some maturity at last on this rock?
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE OIL
The Shah is expected to remain actively in power over the next ten years. —US Defense Intelligence Agency, October 1978, three months before the Shah left Iran
We ask, why does one group of people have to live in such poverty while another group spends $5 million just for decorating their villas?….They take this nation’s oil and its other sources of wealth, they plunder this nation so that they can live like this while others live in poverty. We are shouting that we won’t be plundered in this way… —Ayatollah Khomeini, Speech # 38, Paris, October 1978
The problem is the future.The tribes don’t want to form part of a unified state; the towns can’t do without it. How are we going to support and pro tect the elements of stability and at the same time conform to the just demand for economy from home? . . .
It’s very significant that there are so few “wise” people in Baghdad—i.e., people who want a British mandate. No one knows exactly what they do want,least of all themselves,except that they don’t want us. —Gertrude Bell, British agent, describing the situation in Iraq under British occupation, September 5, 1920
As Khomeini said in Paris on October 20, 1978, three months before the Shah’s ouster:
Wherever you look, you see there is something wrong.The economy is in ruins.According to experts, agricultural production in Iran now is only suf ficient to meet the needs of the nation for thirty-three days a year. . . .The result of the gentleman’s “Land Reform Program” was to turn Iran into a consumer market for America....They are taking our oil now in such a way that in thirty years’ time, the reserves will run dry. . . . In return, the Ameri cans sell us the arms that they want for their military bases that they have set up in Iran to confront the Soviet Union. . . .They take our oil and in return they sell us planes worth $350 million [each]....The Soviet Union,too,must announce its support, because they are taking the country’s gas. . . . . . . If we had an honest government which sold the oil in a proper way and spent the revenues from it on the people, then this nation would not be in the state it is today. That is why we are shouting.We ask, why does one group of people have to live in such poverty while another group spends $5 million just for decorating their villas? . . .Their wealth comes from the people....They take this nation’s oil and its other sources of wealth, they plunder this nation so that they can live like this while others live in poverty.We are shouting that we won’t be plundered in this way, that this regime must be replaced . . . .37 Despite such criticisms, the Shah made no significant changes in his strategy. One key reason was that so many insiders were profiting from the system. In particular, foreign banks like Chase and Citibank benefitted immensely from the simultaneous surge in oil payments, deposits, and foreign debts.
Chase Manhattan became the Shah’s largest single creditor, lending more than $2.7 billion in l977–79, right before his collapse.38 As of 1979, Chase also managed more than $6 billion of Iranian government deposits and substantial private banking assets for the Shah and his family. Henry Kissinger, David Rocke feller’s close friend and the chairman of Chase’s International Advisory Com mittee, supported the sharp increase in US arms sales while he was US sec retary of state from l973–76. A close relationship with the Shah was also promoted by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Secu rity advisor from 1977 to 1981,who was appointed the first director of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Indeed, in the early 1970s, Carter first caught David Rockefeller’s eye by way of Brzezinski, who intro duced him as the thoughtful governor of Georgia who had opened trade mis sions for his state in Brussels and Tokyo. In 1973, David Rockefeller and Brzezinski recruited Carter to serve on the Trilateral Commission, providing him valuable name recognition.39 Such relationships were also cemented by a strong network of private banking transactions. In the waning days of the Shah’s regime, Chase Man hattan became involved in several highly questionable loans to Iran. In late l978 it loaned $90 million to a subsidiary of the Iranian National Oil Com pany (INOC).According to an Iranian insider who was involved in the trans action, on instructions from the Shah’s oil minister, Chase transferred the funds provided by this loan to a company that was owned by the Shah’s sis ter, ostensibly for “services” to INOC. Actually, the money never left New York. Since his sister had private accounts at Chase, everything was accom plished with a few offsetting bookkeeping entries at the bank’s headquarters in lower Manhattan. In November 1979, during the hostage crisis, the US government froze $12 billion of Iran’s deposits at US banks. Chase, Citibank, and MHT—the main US beneficiaries of the Shah’s government accounts and his family’s personal accounts—controlled more than eighty percent of these deposits, and also accounted for the lion’s share of his foreign loans.Acting unilaterally, they immediately seized all Iranian government deposits at their disposal and used them to pay off outstanding loans.This was done, despite the fact that the loans were not yet due, that Iran’s new government had been servicing them scrupulously, and that the seizure violated conventional banking prac tices, in which all possible steps are usually taken to avoid defaults. This seizure outraged Iranians—especially moderates who were just then struggling against religious zealots. It also outraged many foreign banks and smaller US banks that also had loans outstanding to Iran, but few Iranian de posits to grab. Interestingly, no other country followed the US banks’ lead of seizing Iranian government assets, or the trade embargo that the US tried to impose on Iran.Several European banks continued to lend money to Khome ini’s regime.While the asset freeze and the resulting boycott may have gener ated surplus profits for Chase and Citibank,it probably hurt the US trade bal ance, smaller US banks, and the overall US-Iran relationship.40 In Chase’s case, the egregious opportunism went even further.The $90 million “loaned” to the Shah and diverted to his sister was one of the loans that Chase paid off with the deposits that it seized. So in the end, Chase was paid back its $90 million, the Shah’s sister was $90 million richer, and the Iranian government was stuck with a $90 million reduction in its liquid assets.41 This kind of sharp practice was not likely to win much of a follow ing for the US in Iran.
Page 299 of book
james-s-henry-the-blood-bankers_-tales-from-the-global-underground-economy-four-walls-eight-windows-2003.pdf
C ontact with the underworld. They'll let us know when that happens, I'm sure.