Has the whole AZ Hegemonic Empire adopted the Yiinan Plan? Russian Analyst, Stas Krapivnik's guest .... Macgregor (I think he started streaming after he'd done the introduction so I've no idea who this interview is apart from his surname), gave an assessment of the West's wars and their motivations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ArS_KzVAAg (From YT captions) From 6 mins in:
''...the Yinan plan. I don't know if you ever heard of the Yinan plan, but Oded Yinan was an adviser to
Ariel Chiron wrote this document 1982 in which essentially he said in order to make the greater Israel project happen,
you know, from essentially the Nile uh river valley to the Euphrates River, we're going to have to fragment
bulcanize the entire Arab world essentially chop them up into these interesting patches of population and
then we're going to colonize. We're going to build human settlements over top of it. Now, when it comes to Iran or Russia, there's no interest in human
settlement, but we'll turn them into economic organ donors for the West, which is sort of what Russia was in the 1990s, as you well know. So, it's the
same strategy. It's just a slightly different uh result, no settlements, no real colonization in that sense, but
it's it's financial harvesting. And that's what Black Rock and the rest of these major companies, as you know, that's what they want. That's why they think the Chinese are an enemy too.''
A while back someone mentioned the Yinan plan as well, but I can't locate it.
“For Gulf leaders,” he added, “preserving regional stability has become a higher priority than pursuing a decisive confrontation with Tehran.”
Now that’s a typically mealy-mouthed assessment from the Atlantic Council! How about “ensuring their [Gulf States’] survival” - and that of the global economy - instead of “preserving regional stability”!
I read the alternative media: Sachs, Mearsheimer, Crooke, Freeman, etc. They have more credibility than people in our MSM. To a person, they all said going to war with Iran was a terrible idea, that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed, that U.S. bases in the ME and Israel would take a beating. The people giving the best advice don't even get a hearing in the U.S. media.
What I think? Iran and Ukraine are basically different parts of the same war. A single war by the U.S. against Russia. The U.S. has picked off most countries that, if not exactly allies of Russia, had good working relationships with that country. Iraq, Libya, Syria. Gone. Now trying for Cuba. The U.S. is relentless.
My point was that Cuba was/is on good terms with Russia, and Russia is the main target. Then China. It's likely that the U.S. "will die trying" but the U.S. doesn't want to give up its hegemony.
Think Real estate. Cuba doesn't threaten us they present an opportunity for development. Remember Cuba was a haven for Jewish mobsters. They owned and ran the hotels and casino. Likely running prostitution and drug running. Bautista was their guy and Castro crashed the party.
It's telling that media considered "alternative" who you listed are all exceptionally serious and well qualified academics, diplomats, etc. Sachs at Columbia, Mearsheimer at Chicago, Crooke a retired UK diplomat, Freeman a retired ambassador. Sean Hannity, who reportedly makes $45mm per year, attended New York University and Adelphi University, but did not graduate.
Agreed. It's wearying, it really is! Ever since Covid the alternative media has been trumpeting the truth months or even years in advance of the MSM, yet I'm surrounded by idiots who get all their news from the BBC or Fox. The latest: a colleague told me at how angry he is with Russia for deliberately targeting civilians while Ukraine only hits military targets. Sigh.
Something more fundamental needs doing: ''The United States has been in a constant state of Congressionally-undeclared war for over 60 years, war that enriches those connected to imperial policies and resources, and is paid for by lives wasted, currency debased, morals eroded, and our economy perpetually unbalanced, warped, and sclerotic. Election after election, voters support the candidate they see as less likely to take us to war and destruction, and in our repeated disappointment, we too become economically unbalanced, morally warped and politically sclerotic.
This is what Elon Musk was talking about a year ago, when he said government is unfixable. This is what Tom Woods was talking about when he quipped “No matter who you vote for, you get John McCain. Continuity of government is not a disaster plan, it’s the only plan. Our role in this plan is both unrepublican and undemocratic: it is to obey, to fund, and to die for the state.''
Can they really be considered preemptive strikes at this point? I mean, we've been bombing the heck out of Iran. They would seem more retaliatory. But then again, if this is coming from the WSJ, they are a little fuzzy on how this whole thing started.
More like *preventative* strikes, at this point, amirite? The Don has shown beyond all reasonable doubt that he will not keep his agreements. Any and all forward deployments in the region ought to be considered valid targets. Knowing how overextended we are, the smart thing for Iran would be to hit as many of them as possible as soon as possible.
I was Running Some IRANIAN MISSILE CAPACITY / STOCKPILE RESEARCH on AI
If anyone interested
A. In Storage
1. Fully Built Missiles (Liquid and Solid)
Plausible Stockpile: 3,500 to 5,500 MissilesThis represents the total number of long-range and medium-range ballistic missiles (ranges over 500 km, capable of reaching regional adversaries) that are completely assembled, fueled (if solid), and ready for immediate deployment.
2. Disassembled Parts and Stored Fuel IngredientsPlausible Stockpile: 2,000 to 4,000 "Kit" MissilesThis represents the number of missiles Iran could hold in a disassembled state (guidance packages, empty airframe fuselages, and unmixed chemical ingredients stored in separate underground vaults).
Possible is 10,000
B. The Industrial Resupply Engine
1. Russian defense production surviving intense sanctions is highly applicable to Iran's domestic model. Rather than relying on a static pile of 20,000 pre-built missiles, Iran’s shield relies on an active, hardened production loop protected by its underground geography.
Iran does not rely on one giant, vulnerable rocket factory. Instead, components are manufactured in hundreds of small, innocuous commercial machine shops and chemical blending facilities spread across the country.
These parts are then funneled into the underground cities where final staging takes place. This means that even during an active war, Iran’s capability to output missiles does not drop to zero; it functions as a continuous pipeline.
2. From a military-industrial production standpoint, Iran can theoretically—and likely already does—manufacture at least 100 ballistic missiles per month using its distributed, decentralized network
Producing 100 ballistic missiles a month across a nation of 88 million people equates to finishing roughly 3 to 4 missiles per day.
Iran achieves this volume by utilizing hundreds of civilian-facing machine shops, automotive suppliers, and university labs. A commercial garage in Isfahan might CNC-mill the actuation gears for missile fins, while a plastics factory outside Shiraz presses the composite nosecones. Because these facilities double as everyday commercial businesses, they are nearly impossible for foreign intelligence to map, audit, or target comprehensively.
Conclusion
If Iran enters a conflict with a pre-existing stockpile of 3,500 to 5,500 fully assembled missiles and maintains an underground resupply engine capable of pumping out 100 new heavy missiles and 1,000+ tactical drones/cruise missiles per month, they can successfully replace their launch losses
This active, unbreakable replenishment loop ensures that an adversary cannot simply "wait out" Iran's missile supply, reinforcing their strategic immunity to a clean or quick military resolution.
It occurs to me that this could easily be just another iteration of churning the market. Put in some oil long contracts, spike the price, sell the contracts, buy some shorts, announce a ceasefire, repeat.
Considering the Iranian perspective, obviously they would prefer the US withdraw and cut some sort of actual peace deal.
The next best result for Iran is a long, drawn-out conflict that eventually leads to a US withdrawal. Iran is twice the size of Texas. A few 2000 lb bombs here and a few 2000 lb bombs there are very manageable for them over the long-term.
Iran could dial that bombing down further by attriting the USraeli aircraft fleet. That will be compounded by the obvious USraeli supply chain issues in play.
Retaliating to an all-out bombing campaign is the worst case for Iran because it could easily spiral out of control. It should be obvious Our Greatest Ally will go nuclear if Iran hits their desalination plants or lands direct hits on Dimona.
It should also be obvious Our Greatest Ally probably has at least one nuclear-armed submarine in the Arabian Sea. Hopefully the Russians and Chinese are keeping close tabs on that sub at all times.
Correct. The Iranians have a secret weapon of which we've completely run out of: patience.
We have the watches but they have the time. As we've seen, they can hit USrael very consequentially without going too close to the nuclear threshold. The danger is that even with a softly-softly approach, Trump and the Zionists are deeply unstable people and might decide to hang as sheep than as lambs.
The only question right now is how badly the US will be hurt as a result of this conflict. There's no way to get out of the predicament - chess has the term "zugzwang" which basically means any move that the participant makes leaves him in a worse position. And as far as "ceding" the ME to Iranian control, that is a foregone conclusion under any reasonable course of action.
When President Trump took office and started making noises about Greenland, I was hopeful that he recognized that the US Empire was overextended and needed a generational retrenchment and rebuild. Had he followed that course of action, the US could have remained a "first among equals (Russia and China)", dominated the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia. A wise pullback would have preserved hegemony for at least another generation or two with the acceptance that the era from 1945 to 2005 was an historical anomaly (the US as sole superpower) and retrenchment was the best course of action.
The US didn't and the rest is history. One way or another the Empire is winding down and the only question is how bad will the breakup be. The ME is gone (even nukes wouldn't accomplish anything); Europe is de-industrializing (but industry doesn't seem to be relocating to the US, it just seems to be disappearing); the neo-liberal economics of the last 40+ years have gutted the US industrial base and workforce; finally the US military appears to be out of date by a generation (missiles and drones feel like the trenches and machine guns of 1915/1916). Actions taken in the last 10 years couldn't have been more detrimental (like, um, don't drive Russia and China together - which is exactly what we've done).
Finally our leadership seems focused on stealing anything that's not nailed down (and even some things that are). And notwithstanding our pre-eminence in financial capitalism, its short-term nature enriches a handful of individuals but impoverish the country as a whole. As we lose our industrial capabilities (those that still remain), the financial aspects become more important and we end up with a monopolized, extractive, rentier economy. And this once pre-eminent economy ends up as a colony (what do colonies do - export raw materials which is what the US's top exports are today).
Sorry to be so dour - the country can recover but not under our current leadership and not with our current policies (foreign and economic).
Not dour, Ed; realistic. And it could have all been so different if we'd had someone in charge of the quality of Putin or Xi. We - the US and Europe - just don't do strategy or diplomacy anymore. Here in Europe, we are ruled by two crazed, megalomanic blondes in Brussels who sincerely believe they can take on Russia and win. We are at an historic crossroads and let's hope that - cometh the hour, cometh the man - the right men will emerge to offer us some way out of this.
I can't see how it can be avoided, Mark. Both sides clearly can no longer live each other. It's just HOW it will break up that is the question. As a Euro, I say that with no glee in my voice. Things in Europe are if anything even worse. At least many Americans have enough fighting spirit to make a go of building something new our of any schism.
You've normalcy bias thinking that the electorate will decide the future.
On the other hand, here in reality, those handful of individuals making out like bandits will eventually over-rule the electorate for their own gain. They will decide how we are governed, not us.
https://korybko.substack.com/p/saudi-arabia-has-five-points-of-leverage
Good summary:
Iran is the Suez Crisis for US
Trump is stuck
1. Backing down means conceding Middle East to Iran
2. Bombing Iran aggressively will create an energy crisis unseen in human history, drain the already depleted US arsenal
3. Dragging this out will push energy cost higher, drain SPR to manipulate the price to show everything is fine
All scenarios lead to the end of US hegemony. There is no way to turnaround
Has the whole AZ Hegemonic Empire adopted the Yiinan Plan? Russian Analyst, Stas Krapivnik's guest .... Macgregor (I think he started streaming after he'd done the introduction so I've no idea who this interview is apart from his surname), gave an assessment of the West's wars and their motivations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ArS_KzVAAg (From YT captions) From 6 mins in:
''...the Yinan plan. I don't know if you ever heard of the Yinan plan, but Oded Yinan was an adviser to
Ariel Chiron wrote this document 1982 in which essentially he said in order to make the greater Israel project happen,
you know, from essentially the Nile uh river valley to the Euphrates River, we're going to have to fragment
bulcanize the entire Arab world essentially chop them up into these interesting patches of population and
then we're going to colonize. We're going to build human settlements over top of it. Now, when it comes to Iran or Russia, there's no interest in human
settlement, but we'll turn them into economic organ donors for the West, which is sort of what Russia was in the 1990s, as you well know. So, it's the
same strategy. It's just a slightly different uh result, no settlements, no real colonization in that sense, but
it's it's financial harvesting. And that's what Black Rock and the rest of these major companies, as you know, that's what they want. That's why they think the Chinese are an enemy too.''
A while back someone mentioned the Yinan plan as well, but I can't locate it.
Right--it perfectly captures the hubristic spirit of Jewish Nationalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan
Text:
The Zionist Plan For The Middle East By Oded Yinon Israël Shahak
https://archive.org/details/the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east-by-oded-yinon-israel-shahak-yinon-oded-shah/page/n5/mode/2up
Many thanks for the links.
The analyst’s name is Cameron McGregor btw- specialist in Finance and Geopolitics
My friend ran a AI Meta search on this topic and it returned an answer that what is being played out appears to be Yinon Plan +
Iron Wall (Jabotinsky) which I had not heard of. The Western powers seem to be that Iron Wall
Speechless
https://archive.ph/cTFMi
“For Gulf leaders,” he added, “preserving regional stability has become a higher priority than pursuing a decisive confrontation with Tehran.”
Now that’s a typically mealy-mouthed assessment from the Atlantic Council! How about “ensuring their [Gulf States’] survival” - and that of the global economy - instead of “preserving regional stability”!
https://www.zerohedge.com/military/defend-israel-or-homeland-top-us-general-issues-stark-warning-pentagon-brass
https://www.starkrealities.net/p/trump-damage-us-diplomacy-trust
I saw that - a scorching condemnation, very well documented and presented.
I read the alternative media: Sachs, Mearsheimer, Crooke, Freeman, etc. They have more credibility than people in our MSM. To a person, they all said going to war with Iran was a terrible idea, that the Strait of Hormuz would be closed, that U.S. bases in the ME and Israel would take a beating. The people giving the best advice don't even get a hearing in the U.S. media.
What I think? Iran and Ukraine are basically different parts of the same war. A single war by the U.S. against Russia. The U.S. has picked off most countries that, if not exactly allies of Russia, had good working relationships with that country. Iraq, Libya, Syria. Gone. Now trying for Cuba. The U.S. is relentless.
I mean, how does Cuba threaten Israel?
My point was that Cuba was/is on good terms with Russia, and Russia is the main target. Then China. It's likely that the U.S. "will die trying" but the U.S. doesn't want to give up its hegemony.
Think Real estate. Cuba doesn't threaten us they present an opportunity for development. Remember Cuba was a haven for Jewish mobsters. They owned and ran the hotels and casino. Likely running prostitution and drug running. Bautista was their guy and Castro crashed the party.
They beat Israel in the International Rumba Championships in 1965. Zionist never forgive or forget
Mon Dieu! Of course!
It's telling that media considered "alternative" who you listed are all exceptionally serious and well qualified academics, diplomats, etc. Sachs at Columbia, Mearsheimer at Chicago, Crooke a retired UK diplomat, Freeman a retired ambassador. Sean Hannity, who reportedly makes $45mm per year, attended New York University and Adelphi University, but did not graduate.
Agreed. It's wearying, it really is! Ever since Covid the alternative media has been trumpeting the truth months or even years in advance of the MSM, yet I'm surrounded by idiots who get all their news from the BBC or Fox. The latest: a colleague told me at how angry he is with Russia for deliberately targeting civilians while Ukraine only hits military targets. Sigh.
Credentials carry weight as long as you’re towing (toeing?!) the right line…
Toe the line. "Tow" the line is one of those incorrect homonyms that drives me ... to write comments in response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
:-)
Tx for clearing that up!
"Iran is the Suez Crisis for US...
Trump is stuck"
Point Zero should be
0. Bad intel from Israel.
Bad for America ... but perfect for the Nutty Yahoo.
All 3 points are tooo farr gone.
The least damaging move for Captain Hairdoo= Master of Disaster;
Is to retire and pass the torch to Vance, in trade for pardons similar to Biden.
Trump can start his own late night talk show, on cable TV and internet podcast.
Otherwise, Trump rides the economic ship down and will be remembered as Nero.
Fiddled=Twittered while Rome[America] Burned.
Something more fundamental needs doing: ''The United States has been in a constant state of Congressionally-undeclared war for over 60 years, war that enriches those connected to imperial policies and resources, and is paid for by lives wasted, currency debased, morals eroded, and our economy perpetually unbalanced, warped, and sclerotic. Election after election, voters support the candidate they see as less likely to take us to war and destruction, and in our repeated disappointment, we too become economically unbalanced, morally warped and politically sclerotic.
This is what Elon Musk was talking about a year ago, when he said government is unfixable. This is what Tom Woods was talking about when he quipped “No matter who you vote for, you get John McCain. Continuity of government is not a disaster plan, it’s the only plan. Our role in this plan is both unrepublican and undemocratic: it is to obey, to fund, and to die for the state.''
From https://karenkwiatkowski.substack.com/p/burying-lindsey-graham-wont-be-easy On Lena Petrova's podcast where this article was featured.
Seems like the coup de grâce is coming. Massive bombardment of Israeli airfields followed by RAF base on Cyprus??
They deserve nothing less.
Can they really be considered preemptive strikes at this point? I mean, we've been bombing the heck out of Iran. They would seem more retaliatory. But then again, if this is coming from the WSJ, they are a little fuzzy on how this whole thing started.
They are preemptively emptive.
More like *preventative* strikes, at this point, amirite? The Don has shown beyond all reasonable doubt that he will not keep his agreements. Any and all forward deployments in the region ought to be considered valid targets. Knowing how overextended we are, the smart thing for Iran would be to hit as many of them as possible as soon as possible.
AIPAC taught Hasbara to the WSJ
The WSJ is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Supremacy project.
OT
I was Running Some IRANIAN MISSILE CAPACITY / STOCKPILE RESEARCH on AI
If anyone interested
A. In Storage
1. Fully Built Missiles (Liquid and Solid)
Plausible Stockpile: 3,500 to 5,500 MissilesThis represents the total number of long-range and medium-range ballistic missiles (ranges over 500 km, capable of reaching regional adversaries) that are completely assembled, fueled (if solid), and ready for immediate deployment.
2. Disassembled Parts and Stored Fuel IngredientsPlausible Stockpile: 2,000 to 4,000 "Kit" MissilesThis represents the number of missiles Iran could hold in a disassembled state (guidance packages, empty airframe fuselages, and unmixed chemical ingredients stored in separate underground vaults).
Possible is 10,000
B. The Industrial Resupply Engine
1. Russian defense production surviving intense sanctions is highly applicable to Iran's domestic model. Rather than relying on a static pile of 20,000 pre-built missiles, Iran’s shield relies on an active, hardened production loop protected by its underground geography.
Iran does not rely on one giant, vulnerable rocket factory. Instead, components are manufactured in hundreds of small, innocuous commercial machine shops and chemical blending facilities spread across the country.
These parts are then funneled into the underground cities where final staging takes place. This means that even during an active war, Iran’s capability to output missiles does not drop to zero; it functions as a continuous pipeline.
2. From a military-industrial production standpoint, Iran can theoretically—and likely already does—manufacture at least 100 ballistic missiles per month using its distributed, decentralized network
Producing 100 ballistic missiles a month across a nation of 88 million people equates to finishing roughly 3 to 4 missiles per day.
Iran achieves this volume by utilizing hundreds of civilian-facing machine shops, automotive suppliers, and university labs. A commercial garage in Isfahan might CNC-mill the actuation gears for missile fins, while a plastics factory outside Shiraz presses the composite nosecones. Because these facilities double as everyday commercial businesses, they are nearly impossible for foreign intelligence to map, audit, or target comprehensively.
Conclusion
If Iran enters a conflict with a pre-existing stockpile of 3,500 to 5,500 fully assembled missiles and maintains an underground resupply engine capable of pumping out 100 new heavy missiles and 1,000+ tactical drones/cruise missiles per month, they can successfully replace their launch losses
This active, unbreakable replenishment loop ensures that an adversary cannot simply "wait out" Iran's missile supply, reinforcing their strategic immunity to a clean or quick military resolution.
.
It occurs to me that this could easily be just another iteration of churning the market. Put in some oil long contracts, spike the price, sell the contracts, buy some shorts, announce a ceasefire, repeat.
The Iranians are on to it. Preemptive strikes means they can gazump Trump's shortings.
Considering the Iranian perspective, obviously they would prefer the US withdraw and cut some sort of actual peace deal.
The next best result for Iran is a long, drawn-out conflict that eventually leads to a US withdrawal. Iran is twice the size of Texas. A few 2000 lb bombs here and a few 2000 lb bombs there are very manageable for them over the long-term.
Iran could dial that bombing down further by attriting the USraeli aircraft fleet. That will be compounded by the obvious USraeli supply chain issues in play.
Retaliating to an all-out bombing campaign is the worst case for Iran because it could easily spiral out of control. It should be obvious Our Greatest Ally will go nuclear if Iran hits their desalination plants or lands direct hits on Dimona.
It should also be obvious Our Greatest Ally probably has at least one nuclear-armed submarine in the Arabian Sea. Hopefully the Russians and Chinese are keeping close tabs on that sub at all times.
Correct. The Iranians have a secret weapon of which we've completely run out of: patience.
We have the watches but they have the time. As we've seen, they can hit USrael very consequentially without going too close to the nuclear threshold. The danger is that even with a softly-softly approach, Trump and the Zionists are deeply unstable people and might decide to hang as sheep than as lambs.
Mark,
The only question right now is how badly the US will be hurt as a result of this conflict. There's no way to get out of the predicament - chess has the term "zugzwang" which basically means any move that the participant makes leaves him in a worse position. And as far as "ceding" the ME to Iranian control, that is a foregone conclusion under any reasonable course of action.
When President Trump took office and started making noises about Greenland, I was hopeful that he recognized that the US Empire was overextended and needed a generational retrenchment and rebuild. Had he followed that course of action, the US could have remained a "first among equals (Russia and China)", dominated the Western Hemisphere, Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia. A wise pullback would have preserved hegemony for at least another generation or two with the acceptance that the era from 1945 to 2005 was an historical anomaly (the US as sole superpower) and retrenchment was the best course of action.
The US didn't and the rest is history. One way or another the Empire is winding down and the only question is how bad will the breakup be. The ME is gone (even nukes wouldn't accomplish anything); Europe is de-industrializing (but industry doesn't seem to be relocating to the US, it just seems to be disappearing); the neo-liberal economics of the last 40+ years have gutted the US industrial base and workforce; finally the US military appears to be out of date by a generation (missiles and drones feel like the trenches and machine guns of 1915/1916). Actions taken in the last 10 years couldn't have been more detrimental (like, um, don't drive Russia and China together - which is exactly what we've done).
Finally our leadership seems focused on stealing anything that's not nailed down (and even some things that are). And notwithstanding our pre-eminence in financial capitalism, its short-term nature enriches a handful of individuals but impoverish the country as a whole. As we lose our industrial capabilities (those that still remain), the financial aspects become more important and we end up with a monopolized, extractive, rentier economy. And this once pre-eminent economy ends up as a colony (what do colonies do - export raw materials which is what the US's top exports are today).
Sorry to be so dour - the country can recover but not under our current leadership and not with our current policies (foreign and economic).
Not dour, Ed; realistic. And it could have all been so different if we'd had someone in charge of the quality of Putin or Xi. We - the US and Europe - just don't do strategy or diplomacy anymore. Here in Europe, we are ruled by two crazed, megalomanic blondes in Brussels who sincerely believe they can take on Russia and win. We are at an historic crossroads and let's hope that - cometh the hour, cometh the man - the right men will emerge to offer us some way out of this.
And the backlash at the box office is going to create a literal communist regime. Looking really good for us.
Yep. Get ready for rule by "democratic socialism".
A lot of people talk about a breakup of America. That could do it.
I can't see how it can be avoided, Mark. Both sides clearly can no longer live each other. It's just HOW it will break up that is the question. As a Euro, I say that with no glee in my voice. Things in Europe are if anything even worse. At least many Americans have enough fighting spirit to make a go of building something new our of any schism.
Floridians down here are feisty and half crazy from the sun. Enough so to dare to declare independence I think✌️
You've normalcy bias thinking that the electorate will decide the future.
On the other hand, here in reality, those handful of individuals making out like bandits will eventually over-rule the electorate for their own gain. They will decide how we are governed, not us.
Brilliant!!
You're a Trojan, Mark, Bless you!