Originally published on Substack
In January 2022, following the failure of security talks between Russia and the US, the Kremlin warned that it would resort to “military technical measures that would inevitably jeopardize western powers’ security and interests in the region.” It was widely expected that Russia would invade Ukraine, but I didn't think they would do that. In an article I posted at the time, I wrote that, "The Kremlin will probably increase pressure on the US and NATO countries in multiple ways, but my own hunch is that their first focus will be on the Persian Gulf region which is strategically of huge importance to the West but where US positions are increasingly fragile."
The Iranian pivot
As it turned out, I was wrong about Ukraine, but I was right about the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. The changes were already discernible: in March of 2020 Iran had signed a comprehensive 25-year cooperation plan with China. On 17 September 2021 Iran formally joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and it became clear that in furtherance of its One Belt One Road agenda, China had designated Iran as the cornerstone of their security architecture for the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.
Iran: the new pivot of Western Asia
In this, it was clear that China had full support from Russia: Iran also signed various security agreements with Russia, including the 20-year cooperation agreement modeled on the Iran-China agreement. Suggesting further developments in the same direction, on 11 December 2021, Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh stated that, "Like the 25-year cooperation roadmap we developed with China, we can do the same with major neighboring countries."
To complete the chessboard, Saudi Arabia would have to be brought into the fold and I expected that some kind of a breakthrough between the two rival powers was in the offing. At last, on 10 March 2023, top Iranian and Saudi security officials met in Beijing to sign a peace deal and restore full diplomatic relations. The move would radically rearrange Western sponsored balance of power and precipitate the loss of Western hegemony in the region.
Eurasian hegemony: the foremost US national interest
In “The Grand Chessboard,” (1997), Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that, “The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” In August 2018, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Wes Mitchell gave a briefing to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, making it explicit that the “central aim of the Administration’s foreign policy is to defend US domination of Eurasian landmass as the foremost US national security interest and to prepare the nation for this challenge.” Mitchell added that the Administration was “working with our close ally the UK to form an international coalition for coordinating efforts in this field.”
Selling the “Israeli” ceasefire deal
In spite of all the proclamations, US domination has been on the wane. Today it is in equal parts painful and embarrassing watching the Blinken Biden Administration scramble to restore their power in the Middle East. This week, Antony Blinken travelled to the region once more, working simultaneously on two critical assignments: pretend to broker a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas and somehow seduce the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to normalize their ties to Israel and to grant the use of their airspace to the US military aircraft.
The administration announced the ceasefire deal on the pretense that it is an Israeli proposal. Before boarding his plane, Blinken insisted that everybody except Hamas had accepted the deal, and the whole world, yearning for peace and stability, was waiting on Hamas.
But as nearly everyone else knows, Israel neither proposed nor accepted this deal. It was a US-sponsored resolution, put forth to the UN Security Council which formally adopted it on 10 June 2024. Hamas and Israel were each expected to submit a letter to the UNSC, officially indicating their acceptance of the deal. Hamas has done so, but Israel has not, and contrary to Blinken's statements, the Israeli government's position on the deal remains unclear.
The fact that the US Secretary of State would spew such obvious, brazen lies is simply astonishing. His statements might convince the least well informed among US voters, but to the leaders and diplomats around the world this was only another confirmation that they're dealing with a rogue administration, tangled in its own confabulations and careening from one crisis to the next on short sighted, juvenile impulses. For anyone familiar with the British sitcom "Little Britain," Antony Blinken is beginning to resemble the diplomatic version of their character, Vicky Pollard. The lie about the "Israeli deal," was repeated by the Pentagon spokesman, Admiral John Kirby, the Vicky Pollard of spokesmen.
You can meet Vicky Pollard here and see the uncanny resemblance with Mr. Blinken.
Selling protection to the Saudis
After years of insulting and antagonizing the Saudis, the same foreign policy dream team is now courting Saudi Arabia, offering them protection if only they would normalize their relations with Israel and grant the use of their airspace to the US. If one looks at the map, it is easy to see why the US would elevate the kingdom to the status of a treaty ally which even Israel doesn't enjoy: Saudi Arabia is strategically located both along the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf and borders all the key Middle Eastern nations including Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen and Iraq. The kingdom is a much better aircraft carrier than Israel, to say nothing of its oil reserves.
But because Biden had promised that he would treat Saudi Arabia as a pariah state, his National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (the Vicky Pollard of national security advisors) awkwardly presented the deal as a "historical opportunity to achieve the vision of a secure Israel, flanked by strong regional partners, presenting a powerful front to deter aggression and uphold regional stability." Which is nice, except that Israel's security has deteriorated very dramatically since the Vicky Pollard administration usurped power in Washington.
Some options are on the table
The attempt to seduce the Saudis likely won't amount to very much. For starters, it will require the backing of a 2/3rd majority in US Congress. More problematically, the Saudis will insist on Palestinian statehood before considering any such deal. The diplomatic string-along with interminable roadmaps to peace will not do this time: the Saudis will demand an immediate, formal recognition of Palestine by both the US and by Israel. In other words, the deal isn't happening: Israeli government is opposed to Palestinian statehood, and some 75% of Israeli public rejects it!
So why are Blinken, Sulivan et al. even pushing it? Remember the famous table where all the foreign policy options used to be? It seems to me that an attempt to woo the Saudis is the very best option they can find as they're desperately trying to restore some degree of their lost influence in the region. Judging by their performance however, they will probably achieve the exact opposite outcome, only at a huge cost. Ultimately, the impact of this failure will deal a massive blow to Western financial institutions.
The most important relationship
The relationship between foreign policy and the banking institutions is in fact the most important one to understand and the key reason behind the whole business of destabilizing the region in the first place. That relationship is deliberately obscured, so we must resort to dot-connecting. Consider for example, that in 2016, the Chilcot Inquiry into Britain’s role in the Iraq war revealed among other things, that six months after the 2003 invasion, a consortium of Western banks led by JP Morgan extended a $2.5 billion loan to "help" Iraq's economic recovery. The loan was guaranteed by Iraqi oil exports.
It is worth keeping in mind that the money for such loans comes conjured out of thin air; a bank doesn't have to part with its own money to lend it to its borrowers. Instead, it has the legal privilege to create it at their discretion. If you or I usurped this privilege, we’d end up in prison. But the banks can “print up” free money and lend it to their clients at interest. From that moment on, the loaned money becomes an asset on the bank's balance sheet, earning a handsome stream of revenues for its owners, creditors and executives. Of course, those money flows are only the proxy for the real wealth transfer which accrues to the bankers from the extraction and sale of Iraqi oil. The same is true for any other nation and any other natural resource under Western hegemony. It is the hegemony’s ultimate purpose.
The Chilcot inquiry revealed one of the dots for us, but once you know what to pay attention to, you’ll come across many such dots and you’ll discover that they always connect neatly and with an amazing consistency. Earlier this week US senator Lindsay Graham ran his mouth during an interview on "Face the Nation”:
"[Ukraine is] sitting on $10 to $12 trillion of critical minerals in Ukraine. They could be the richest country in all of Europe. I don't want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China. If we help Ukraine now, they can become the best business partner we ever dreamed of. That $10 to $12 trillion dollars of critical mineral assets could be used by Ukraine and the West, not given to Putin and China. This is a very big deal, how Ukraine ends. Let's help them win a war we can't afford to lose. Let's find a solution to this war. But they're sitting on a gold mine. To give Putin $10 or $12 trillion dollars of critical minerals that he will share with China is ridiculous. "
Not so long ago, Graham was giddy about the Ukraine war and thought that funding it was "the best money we ever spent." At the time he was gloating that "the Russians are dying," but in this last interview he clearly lost his suave smugness, mentioning the trillions in critical minerals three times in under a minute. He doesn’t want Russia or China to have them and somehow he feels that it is up to him. Of course, he’s not speaking on his own behalf, much less on his constituents’ behalf. Instead, he is broadcasting his donors’ obsession and in that, Graham confirms the ultimate reason for war and unwittingly points the finger at the interest groups that are behind it.
It’s all about resource wealth
Wars are about resource wealth (duh!), and there is only one interest group who must secure access to that wealth by the force of arms: the international banking cartel. Their means and their opportunity may be more difficult to establish (though not that difficult), but their motive is crystal clear. Resources like Graham's "critical minerals," represent the high quality collateral against which banks can issue trillions of dollars of loans: it’s assets they appropriate to themselves with a flick of a pen.
To a casual observer, it may seem that it is multinational corporations who are the culprits - big oil, big ag, the mining corporations, etc. Their role and their presence in subjugated countries is very visible, but they are not the prime movers behind imperialist expansion. For one thing, the corporations should be indifferent as to where they obtain financing for development and trade of resources. Whether they obtain funding Western banks or from Russian or Chinese banks would make no real difference. And to the extent that the multinational corporations provide useful services, they should be able to do business across the world regardless of who's in charge or who controls the resources.
Alternatively, they would also have the option to purchase the critical minerals from local companies, add their margin on top and process or resell them in their domestic markets and still have a lucrative business without the need to conquer and subjugate. In sum, multinational corporations have a broader range of options in how they can develop business and their incentives are very different from those of the banking institutions. Truly, the moneylenders are the only group for whom the control of resources - and therefore, hegemony - is an all-or-nothing, do-or-die proposition.
How deep does the rabbit hole go?
With regards to the 2003 Iraqi loan, it may have been only a coincidence that JPMorgan was also one of the biggest financial backers of the Bush/Cheney 2000 election campaign. Who knew back then that in 2001 we'd witness the 9/11 terror attacks which helped justify the subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq and the capture of their resources? Nobody saw Condoleeza Rice’s “birth pangs of the new Middle East” coming. Most likely however, the whole toxic brew was planned well before the events began to take shape.
Incidentally, that same JP Morgan also richly rewarded Sir Tony Blair for his own inestimable contribution to the 2003 Iraq invasion: after the end of his term as Britain's Prime Minister, JP Morgan hired him as an advisor on a $5 million/year contract.
For coincidence theorists, none of this should be too troubling since they know that our forces only go abroad to defend democracy, freedom and human rights, especially for women and girls. Of course, we are also there to fight the terrorists: we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. And you, dear reader, you are either with us or you are against us. At any rate, remember that we've always been at war with Eurasia.
Alex Krainer – @NakedHedgie is the creator of I-System Trend Following and publisher of daily TrendCompass investor reports which cover over 200 financial and commodities markets. One-month test drive is always free of charge, no jumping through hoops to cancel. To start your trial subscription, drop us an email at
For US investors, we propose a trend-driven inflation/recession resilient portfolio covering a basket of 30+ financial and commodities markets. Further information is at this link.
