Monday, February 2, 2015

The Global De-Dollarization Plan, The U.S. vs Israel

The Global De-Dollarization And The U.S. Policies

In its quest for world domination, which the White House has been pursuing for more than a century, it relied on two primary tools: the US dollar and military might. In order to prevent Washington from establishing complete global hegemony, certain countries have recently been revising their positions towards these two elements by developing alternative military alliances and by breaking with their dependence on the US dollar.

Until the mid-twentieth century, the gold standard was the dominant monetary system, based on a fixed quantity of gold reserves stocked in national banks, which limited lending. At that time, the United States managed to become the owner of 70% of world’s gold reserves (excluding the USSR), therefore it pushed its weakened competitor, the UK, aside resulting to the creation of the Bretton Woods financial system in 1944. That’s how the US dollar became the predominant currency for international payments.

But a quarter century later this system had proven ineffective due to its inability to contain the economic growth of Germany and Japan, along with the reluctance of the US to adjust its economic policies to maintain the dollar-gold balance. At that time, the dollar experienced a dramatic decline but it was saved by the support of rich oil exporters, especially once Saudi Arabia began to exchange its black gold for US weapons and support in talks with Richard Nixon. As a result, President Richard Nixon in 1971 unilaterally ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold, and instead he established the Jamaican currency system in which oil has become the foundation of the US dollar system. Therefore, it’s no coincidence that from that moment on the control over oil trade has become the number one priority of Washington’s foreign policy. In the aftermath of the so-called Nixon Shock the number of US military engagements in the Middle East and other oil producing regions saw a sharp increase. Once this system was supported by OPEC members, the global demand for US petrodollars hit an all time high. Petrodollars became the basis for America domination over the global financial system which resulted in countries being forced to buy dollars in order to get oil on the international market.

However, in recent years, despite Washington’s desire to use whatever means to sustain its position within the international arena, US policies are increasingly faced with opposition. As a result, a growing number of countries are trying to move from the US dollar along with its dependence on the United States, by pursuing a policy of de-dollarization. Three states that are particularly active in this domain are China, Russia and Iran. These countries are trying to achieve de-dollarization at a record pace, along with some European banks and energy companies that are operating within their borders

All across the world, the calls for the creation of a new international monetary system are getting louder with each passing day. In this context it should be noted that the UK government plans to release debts denominated in yuans while the European Central Bank is discussing the possibility of including the yuan in its official reserves.

Those trends are to be seen everywhere, but in the midst of anti-Russian propaganda, Western newsmakers prefer to keep quiet about these facts, in particular, when inflation is skyrocketing in the United States. In recent months, the proportion of US Treasury bonds in the Russian foreign exchange reserves has been shrinking rapidly, being sold at a record pace, while this same tactic has been used by a number of different states.

To make matters worse for the US, many countries seek to export their gold reserves from the United States, which are deposited in vaults at the Federal Reserve Bank. After a scandal of 2013, when the US Federal Reserve refused to return German gold reserves to its respective owner, the Netherlands have joined the list of countries that are trying to retrieve their gold from the US. Should it be successful the list of countries seeking the return of gold reserves will double which may result in a major crisis for Washington.

The above stated facts indicate that the world does not want to rely on US dollars anymore. In these circumstances, Washington relies on the policy of deepening regional destabilization, which, according to the White House strategy, must lead to a considerable weakening of any potential US rivals. But there’s little to no hope for the United States to survive its own wave of chaos it has unleashed across the world.

[Or, more specifically, as stated, 'Obama vs Netanyahu']

Well here we go again. It’s no secret that Obama harbors an extreme animus toward Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He no longer makes any pretense about his dislike for the leader of America’s closest and only democratic ally in the region.

It’s out in the open for the entire world, enemies and friends alike, to see.

The instant kerfuffle centers on House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to address a special joint session of congress. The White House’s reaction was predictably hostile. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that the invitation and Netanyahu’s acceptance of it breached established protocol. This was followed by announcements from the White House and the State Department that neither Obama nor Kerry would meet with Netanyahu during his visit. The visit’s proximity to the Israeli elections provided the necessary pretext for the snub.

Let’s make a few things crystal clear. Article 1 of the United States Constitution empowers the United States Congress to extend such an invitation without the need to consult with the White House. The White House may gripe about the unilateral nature of Speaker Boehner’s actions but let us not forget that just one day prior, in his State of the Union address, Obama stated unequivocally that he would veto any congressional effort to impose sanctions on Iran. There was no effort by the POTUS to act in the spirit of bilateralism or address legitimate congressional concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.

Congress has reason to worry. Israel’s Channel 10 reported that the United States has already caved in to 80 percent of Iran’s demands allowing the mullahs to retain some 7,000 centrifuges which would enable them to enrich sufficient quantities of uranium to produce several nuclear bombs within a few months. US official were of course dismissive of the report calling it “nonsense” but the Obama administration has developed a knack for lying. Who among us can forget Obama’s now infamous and blatant deception, “If you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan”? But whereas the damage wreaked by Obamacare can be reversed through legislation, the same cannot be said for a nuclear-armed Iran and it appears that Obama’s approach to thwarting that frightening prospect can best be described as lackadaisical.

Indeed, the Islamic Republic has already been caught violating provisions of the interim agreement, feeding UF6 gas into the more advanced IR-5 centrifuges. This serious transgression was allowed to pass without consequence. The negotiations have already dragged on far longer than promised with unwarranted White House extensions and it appears that the White House is prepared to offer the mullahs yet more extensions all while the Iranians continue their nuclear experiments in Parchin and move full speed ahead on ballistic missile development.

In a sign of yet more trouble, an Israeli spy satellite displayed imagery of a new Iranian Inter-continental ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe and beyond. Moreover, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is maintaining an aggressive posture throughout the region fomenting instability in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain and Afghanistan. Yemen has become the Islamic Republic’s most recent victim with an Iranian inspired coup by Shiite Houthi rebels. And the Islamic Republic has now been forced to publicly acknowledge that a ranking general and ballistic missile expert  liquidated in an Israeli targeted strike, was operating right on Israel’s border on the Golan Heights.

With Iran engaged in so much regional and international mischief, congressional leaders of both parties have expressed concern that the administration is adopting a position reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain’s dealings with Hitler, circa 1938. Notably, ranking Democratic Senator Bob Menendez dryly stated that the Obama administration’s positions on Iran sound “like talking points that come straight out of Tehran;” biting words from an Obama ally.
It is hard to fathom why Obama maintains such a visceral dislike for Netanyahu. Putting aside the fact that Israel is the only democratic nation in the region and is a critical US ally, Netanyahu has bent over backward to placate an overbearing Obama. Since 2009, Netanyahu, at Obama’s request, initiated an unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze, apologized to Turkey’s fascist leader Erdogan over the flotilla incident, released terrorists with blood-stained hands to Abbas and agreed to a unilateral cease-fire with Hamas that ended up costing the lives of three Israeli soldiers. Still, despite Netanyahu’s efforts to mend fences, Obama’s hatred appears to grow in scope and intensity with each passing day.
It is time for Israeli leaders to recognize that nothing they will do or say will alter Obama’s negative views of the Jewish State. Moreover, the president will continue to appease the mullahs by granting further sanctions relief and more extensions providing them with the delay time necessary to perfect their nefarious plans.
From his actions on Cuba to his immigration policies, Obama has demonstrated a penchant for acting unilaterally and contempt for congress. John Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu sends a strong signal to the White House that on a national security issue of such critical importance, the president will not be permitted to trample on the Constitution and act unilaterally.

With Russian-backed separatists pressing their attacks in Ukraine, NATO's military commander, General Philip M. Breedlove, now supports providing defensive weapons and equipment to Kiev's beleaguered forces, and an array of administration and military officials appear to be edging toward that position, US officials said on Sunday.
Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday, is open to new discussions about providing lethal aid, as is General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.
In recent months, Susan Rice, Mr Obama's national security adviser, has resisted proposals to provide lethal assistance, several officials said. But one official said that she was now prepared to reconsider the issue.

Fearing that the provision of defensive weapons might tempt President Vladimir Putin of Russia to raise the stakes, the White House has limited US aid to "nonlethal" items, including body armor, night-vision goggles, first aid kits and engineering equipment.
Fuelling the broader debate over policy is an independent report to be issued on Monday by eight former senior US officials, who are to urge the United States to send $US3 billion in defensive arms and equipment to Ukraine, including anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.
But the failure of economic sanctions to dissuade Russia from sending heavy weapons and military personnel to eastern Ukraine is pushing the issue of defensive weapons back into discussion.
"The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive," according to the report. "That requires providing direct military assistance - in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms."

Also see:

No comments: