Global Economic Crisis

Only three months after being elected as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hassan Rouhani addressed the U.N. General Assembly, in the process arousing once moribund hope that the Iranian nuclear issue can be resolved peacefully. In his speech delivered on September 24, 2013, Rouhani echoed many of the same words that had been uttered before by his bombastic predecessor, Ahmadinejad; Iran’s nuclear program is entirely peaceful, and exists solely for the purpose of generating electricity, and Iran insists on its “fundamental right” to enrich uranium for “peaceful purposes.” He also repeated the credo that not only Ahmadinejad but more importantly Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has often pronounced; the Islamic Republic of Iran does not seek nuclear weapons, and such weaponry violates the fundamental principles of the theocratic state’s governing ideology. With a poise and polish totally foreign to Ahmadinejad, Rouhani has accomplished a truly remarkable rebranding of his nation. Largely through one speech, a vortex of diplomatic processes has been launched, with many pundits expressing optimism about the prospect of a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

In the wake of the celebratory praise of Rouhani’s speech before the U.N. General Assembly, can he in fact be believed? Is it indeed possible for Iran to have created a largely covert national uranium enrichment program, vast in its infrastructure and cost, but with that same nation possessing only one barely functioning nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, with no additional ones under construction, while simultaneously enduring painful economic sanctions, solely for the purpose of developing electrical power? Time will tell how sincere Rouhani and his master, Ayatollah AliKhamenei, are in their mutual denial of intentions of developing nuclear weapons and claims of desiring  a speedy diplomatic resolution of the crisis. One can hope that Rouhani’s speech manifests a genuine desire to end the grounds for concern about Iran’s nuclear program. However, the history of the last century provides grounds for caution when it comes to deriving the true intentions of a head of state from a policy speech.

On May 21, 1935 the German chancellor and Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, addressed his nation’s Reichstag, with his words recorded by international journalists. Nazi Germany was in the middle of a vast arms buildup. Before disclosing his true ambition of world conquest, it was vital that international public opinion and politicians in Western Europe and the U.S.  be lulled into a false sense of calm regarding his ultimate intentions. In a brilliant oratorical performance which one American journalist described as one of the most eloquent calls for peace and disarmament ever spoken, Hitler reassured the international audience he was aiming at that his goals were strictly peaceful:”National Socialist Germany wants peace because of its fundamental convictions… Whoever lights the torch of war in Europe can wish for nothing but chaos.”

The world fell for the reassuring words of Adolf Hitler with a suddenness and completeness that is hard to grasp nearly eighty years later. A typical reaction was an editorial which appeared in the Times of London that proclaimed, “It is to be hoped that the speech will be taken everywhere as a sincere and well-considered utterance, meaning precisely what it says.”

Is history repeating itself, or is the totalitarian regime in Iran being truthful in its claims about the pacific orientation of its nuclear project? After Hitler’s peace speech in 1935, those few who publically warned about the true intentions of Nazi Germany, especially Winston Churchill, were denounced as war mongers.  Hopefully, those who have not yet jumped on the Rouhani rebranding bandwagon, and are preaching caution in exploring the possibility that Iran genuinely does not seek to develop nuclear weapons, will be listened to more earnestly than was the case in the 1930s.  In judging Iran and the authentic goals of its leadership, it is acts and deeds, not words, that should serve as the ultimate litmus test regarding Tehran’s true intentions.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

YouTube

Hillary Clinton Nude

Hillary Clinton Nude

YouTube

HILLARY CLINTON NUDE

WALL STREET KILLS--A CHILLING NOVEL ABOUT WALL STREET GREED GONE MAD

To view the official trailer YouTube video for “Wall Street Kills,” click image below:

Wall Street Kills-Official Trailer

In a world dominated by high finance, how far would Wall Streetgo in search of profits? In Sheldon Filger’s terrifying novel about money, sex and murder, Wall Street has no limits. “Wall Street Kills” is the ultimate thriller about greed gone mad. Read “Wall Street Kills” and blow your mind.

With an inflation rate of approximately 25% and unemployment officially in excess of 12%, the Iranian economy has been battered by external factors such as the collapse of oil prices with the onset of the global recession. This situation was undoubtedly exacerbated by the sheer ineptitude of Ahmadinejad’s attempt at managing Iran’s economy. However, as is well known, the President of Iran wields little actual power; it is the Supreme Leader, the unelected Ali Khamenei and his clique of “experts,” who rule the country. All indications demonstrate that the Khamenei clique is far more interested in maintaining their political dominance of Iran than improving the economy. The reelection of Ahmadinejad, even if done through fraud with sufficient transparency so that nobody is fooled, is a far more comforting outcome for Khamenei than risking the appointment of a reformer as president. It is also clear that improving relations with the United States is not seen as useful to the ruling theocratic clique; maintaining tensions with the “Great Satan” is advantageous to the regime as justification for maintaining strict political control over Iranian society, and continuing with Tehran’s thinly-disguised nuclear weapons program. In that sense, strengthening the hand of the bombastic, provocative Ahmadinejad is also a desirable outcome for Khamenei.

A radicalized Iranian leadership that is willing to ignore the will of its own populace can scarcely be expected to bow to international pressure to terminate its nuclear weapons program. As the perception that Iran is getting closer to developing nuclear weapons grows stronger, the possibility of military hostilities in the region cannot be ignored, whether initiated by the U.S., Israel or preemptively by Tehran. Though the ramifications of military hostilities with Iran are unpredictable in a general context, in one specific aspect it is clear what the most dramatic implications are. Even the perception that a military clash with Iran may occur, as opposed to actual hostilities, will prove disastrous to the global economy.

Any attack on Iran, whether justified or not, will provoke fierce retaliation. Iran is in one of the most strategic areas on the globe, its coastline hugging the Persian Gulf and straits of Hormuz, the most important choke point for the export of oil to the world’s leading industrialized economies. Besides curtailing its own oil exports, the Tehran regime will almost certainly interdict and disrupt the supply of oil from the Gulf, and it unfortunately has many options to facilitate this outcome. During the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, the Iranians attacked oil tankers belonging to nations not involved in its conflict with Iraq, at a time when it was much weaker than currently. It therefore is a matter of certitude that if Iran’s nuclear facilities are attacked, it will do all in its power to cut off the supply of oil from the Gulf region.

The impact of any rise in tension in the Persian Gulf will send the price of a barrel of oil through the stratosphere. Factor in Iranian reaction to an attack on its nuclear installations, and we could have oil prices climb to a level that seems inconceivable at present: $400-500 a barrel, perhaps even higher. Such exorbitant prices for oil will terminate any talk of economic recovery, and ensure that the world sinks into a severe depression.

And what about Ahmadinejad? Though the Iranian intellectual establishment and even factions within the clerical ruling clique would prefer a lessening of international tensions, the chosen symbol of the real centers of power in Iran represents its most hard-line agenda. In 2005, the Iranian President stated his long-term objective in very clear terms. His comments were brief, to the point, and devoid of any references to Iran’s economic problems. He simply said, “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi.” The reappearance of the Mahdi presupposes an apocalypse on earth.

It is not only the credit crunch, stimulus spending, deficits and deflation that the global economy must wrestle with. The Iranian election parody will demonstrate how even domestic political events in a foreign country can have dangerous implications for the world’s economy at a time when it is already in a state of acute vulnerability. What unfolds in Tehran in the weeks and months ahead may prove more important to the evolution of the global financial and economic crisis than the public utterances of officials in Washington.