The financial war between Russia with China’s tacit backing on one side, and America and her NATO allies on the other has escalated rapidly. It appears that President Putin was thinking several steps ahead when he launched Russia’s attack on Ukraine.
We have seen sanctions fail. We have seen Russia achieve record export surpluses. We have seen the rouble become the strongest currency on the foreign exchanges.
We are seeing the west enter a new round of European monetary inflation to pay everyone’s energy bills. The euro, yen, and sterling are already collapsing — the dollar will be next. From Putin’s point of view, so far, so good.
Russia has progressed her power over Asian nations, including populous India and Iran. She has persuaded Middle Eastern oil and gas producers that their future lies with Asian markets, and not Europe. She is subsidising Asia’s industrial revolution with discounted energy. Thanks to the west’s sanctions, Russia is on its way to confirming Halford Mackinder’s predictions made over a century ago, that Russia is the true geopolitical centre of the world.
There is one piece in Putin’s jigsaw yet to be put in place: a new currency system to protect Russia and her allies from an approaching western monetary crisis. This article argues that under cover of the west’s geopolitical ineptitude, Putin is now assembling a new gold-backed multi-currency system by combining plans for a new Asian trade currency with his new Moscow World Standard for gold.
Currency developments under the radar
Unreported by western media, there are some interesting developments taking place in Asia over the future of currencies. Earlier this summer, it emerged that Sergei Glazyev, a senior Russian economist and Minister in charge of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EAEU), was leading a committee planning a new trade currency for the Eurasian Economic Union.
As put forward in Russian and EAEU media, the new currency is to be comprised of a mixture of national currencies and commodities. A weighting of some sort was suggested to reflect the relative importance of the currencies and commodities traded between them. At the same time, the new trade settlement currency was to be available to any other nation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the expanding BRICS membership. The ambition is for it to become an Asia-wide replacement for the dollar.
More specifically, the purpose is to do away with the dollar for trade settlements on cross-border transactions between participants. It is worth noting that any dollar transaction is reflected in US banks through the correspondent banking system, potentially giving the US authorities undesirable economic intelligence, and information on sanction-busting and other activities deemed illegal or undesirable by the US authorities. Furthermore, any transaction involving US dollars becomes a matter for the US legal system, giving US politicians the authority to intervene wherever the dollar is used.
As well as removing these disadvantages, through the inclusion of a basket of commodities there appears to be an acceptance that the new trade currency must be more stable in terms of its commodity purchasing power than exists with that of the dollar. But we can immediately detect flaws in the outline proposal. The mooted inclusion of national currencies in the basket is not only an unnecessary complication, but any nation joining it would presumably trigger a wholesale rebalancing of the currency’s composition.
Including national currencies is a preposterous suggestion, as is any suggestion that the commodity element should be weighted by trade volumes transacted between participating states. Instead, an unweighted average of energy, precious metals, and base metals makes more sense, but even that does not go far enough. The reasons are illustrated by the two charts in Figure 1.
The upper chart shows baskets of different categories of commodities indexed and priced in dollars. Between them, they represent a wide range of commodities and raw materials. These baskets are considerably less volatile than their individual components. For example, since April 2020 oil has risen from a distorted minus figure to a high of $130, whereas the energy basket has risen only 6.3 times, because other components have not risen nearly as much as crude oil and some components might be rising while others might be falling. Agriculture raw materials are comprised of cotton, timber, wool, rubber, and hides, not raw materials liable to undesirable seasonality. But the average of the four categories is considerably more stable than its components (the black line).
We are moving towards price stability. However, all commodities are priced in US dollars, which being undesirable, cannot be avoided. Pricing in gold, which is legal money, eventually resolves this problem because it can be fixed against participating currencies. The result of pricing the commodity categories in gold and the average of them is shown in the lower chart.
Since 1992, the average (the black line) has varied between 0.37 and 1.66, and is currently at 0.82, or 18% less than in January 1992. This is as stable as it gets, and even this low volatility would probably be less if the dollar wasn’t itself so volatile and the gold price manipulated by nay-saying western authorities. To further illustrate these points, Figure 2 shows the dollar’s volatility in terms of crude oil.
Before the abandonment of Bretton Woods in 1971, the price of oil hardly changed. Since then, measured by gold the dollar has lost 98% of its purchasing power. Furthermore, the chart shows that it is the dollar which is extremely volatile and not oil, because the price of oil in gold is relatively constant (down only 20% from 1950), while in dollars it is up 33.6 times with some wild price swings along the way. Critics of measuring prices in gold ignore the fact that legal money is gold and not paper currencies or bank credit: attempts by governments and their epigones to persuade us otherwise are propaganda only.
Therefore, Glazyev should drop currencies from the proposed basket entirely and strive to either price a basket of non-seasonal commodities in gold, or alternatively simply reference the new currency to gold in a daily fix. And as the charts above confirm, there is little point in using a basket of commodities priced in dollars or gold when it is far simpler for the EAEU nations and for anyone else wishing to participate in the new trade currency to use a trade currency directly tied to the gold price. It would amount to a new Asian version of a Bretton Woods arrangement and would need no further adjustment.
Attributing them to excessive credit, from recent statements by President Putin it is clear he has a better understanding of currencies and the west’s inflationary problems than western economists. Intellectually, he has long demonstrated an appreciation of the relationship between money, that is only gold, and currency and credit. His knowledge was further demonstrated by his insistence that the “unfriendlies” pay for energy in roubles, taking control of the media of energy exchange into Russia’s own hands and away from those of his enemies.
In short, Putin appears to understand that gold is money and that the rest is unreliable, weaponizable, credit. So, why does he not just command a new trade currency to be created, backed by gold?
Enter the new Moscow gold standard
Logic suggests that a gold-backed currency will be the outcome of Glazyev’s EAEU committee’s trade currency deliberations after all, because of a subsequent announcement from Moscow concerning a new Russian bullion market.
In accordance with western sanctions, the London Bullion Market refused to accept Russian mined and processed gold. It was then natural for Russia to propose a new gold market based in Moscow with its own standards. It is equally sensible for Moscow to set up a price fixing committee, replicating that of the LBMA. But instead of it being the basis for a far larger unallocated gold deposit account offering by Russian and other banks, it will be a predominantly physical market.
Based in Moscow, with a new market called the Moscow International Precious Metals Exchange, the Moscow Gold Standard will incorporate some of the LBMA’s features, such as good delivery lists with daily, or twice daily fixings. The new exchange is therefore being promoted as a logical replacement for the LBMA.
But could that be a cover, with the real objective being to provide a gold link to the new trade currency planned by Glazyev’s EAEU committee? Timing suggests that this may indeed be the case, but we will only know for sure as events unfold.
If it is to be backed by gold, the considerations behind setting up a new trade currency are fairly straightforward. There is the Chinese one kilo bar four-nines standard, which is widely owned, has already been adopted throughout Asia, and is traded even on Comex. Given that China is Russia’s long-term partner, that is likely to be the standard unit. The adoption of the Chinese standard in the new Moscow exchange is logical, simplifying the relationship with the Shanghai Gold Exchange, and streamlining fungibility between contracts, arbitrage, and delivery.
Geopolitics suggest that the simple proposition behind the establishment of a new Moscow exchange will fit in with a larger trans-Asia plan and is unlikely to move at the glacial pace of developments between Russia and China to which we have become accustomed. The gold question has become bound up in more rapid developments triggered by Russia’s belligerence over Ukraine, and the sanctions which quickly followed.
There can be little doubt that this must be leading to a seismic shift in gold policy for the Russian Chinese partnership. The Chinese in particular have demonstrated an unhurried patience that befits a nation with a sense of its long history and destiny. Putin is more of a one-man act. Approaching seventy years old, he cannot afford to be so patient and is showing a determination to secure a legacy in his lifetime as a great Russian leader. While China has made the initial running with respect to gold policy, Putin is now pushing the agenda more forcefully.
Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the strategy was to let the west make all the geopolitical and financial mistakes. For Putin perhaps, the lesson of history was informed by Napoleon’s march to the gates of Moscow, his pyrrhic victory at Borodino, and his defeat by the Russian winter. Hitler made the same mistake with Operation Barbarossa. From Putin’s viewpoint, the lesson was clear — Russia’s enemies defeat themselves. It was repeated in Afghanistan, where the American-led NATO enemy was conquered by its own hubris without Putin having to lift so much as a finger. That is why Russia is Mackinder’s Pivot Area of the World Island. It cannot be attacked by navies, and supply line requirements for armies make Russia’s defeat well-nigh impossible
Following the Ukraine invasion, Putin’s financial strategy has become more aggressive, and is potentially at odds with China’s economic policy. Being cut off from western markets, Putin is now proactive, while China which exports goods to them probably remains more cautious. But China knows that western capitalism bears the seeds of its own destruction, which would mean the end of the dollar and the other major fiat currencies. An economic policy based on exports to capitalistic nations would be a passing phase.
China’s gold policy was aways an insurance policy against a dollar collapse, realising that she must not be blamed for the west’s financial destruction by announcing a gold standard for the yen in advance of it. It would be a nuclear equivalent in a financial war, only an action to be taken as a last resort.
Developments in Russia have changed that. It is clear to the Russians, and most likely the Chinese, that credit inflation is now pushing the dollar into a currency crisis in the next year or two. Preparations to protect the rouble and the yuan from the final collapse of the dollar, long taught in Marxist universities as inevitable, must assume a new urgency. It would be logical to start with a new trade settlement currency as a testbed for national currencies in Asia, and for it to be set up in such a way that it would permit member states to adopt gold standards for their own currencies as well.
Possession of bullion is key
The move away from western fiat currencies to gold backed Asian currencies requires significant gold bullion ownership at the least. The only members, associates, and dialog partners of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the EAEU whose central banks have not increased their gold reserves since the Lehman failure when the credit expansion of dollars began in earnest, are minor states. Since then, between them they have added 4,645 tonnes to their reserves, while all the other central banks account for only 781 tonnes of additional gold reserves.
But central bank reserves are only part of the story, with nations running other, often secret national bullion accounts not included in reserves. The appendix to this article shows why and how China almost certainly accumulated an undeclared quantity of bullion, likely to be in the region of 25,000 tonnes by 2002 and probably more since.
Since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange opened and China’s citizens were permitted for the first time to own gold, gold delivered into public hands has totalled a further amount of over 20,000 tonnes. While the bulk of this is jewellery and some has been returned to the SGE as scrap for re-refining, it is clear that the authorities have encouraged Chinese citizens to retain gold for themselves, which traditionally has been real money in China.
According to Simon Hunt of Simon Hunt Strategic Services, as well as declared reserves of 2,301 tonnes Russia also holds gold bullion in its Gosfund (the State Fund of Russia) bringing its holdings up to 12,000 tonnes. This is significantly greater than the 8,133 tonnes declared by the US Treasury, over which there are widespread doubts concerning the veracity of its true quantity.
Obviously, the Asian partnership has a very different view of gold from the American hegemon. Furthermore, in recent months evidence has confirmed what gold bugs have claimed all along, that the Bank for International Settlements and major bullion operators such as JPMorgan Chase have indulged in a price suppression scheme to discourage gold ownership and to divert bullion demand into synthetic unallocated accounts.
The secrecy that surrounds reporting of gold reserves to the IMF raises further suspicions over the true position. Furthermore, there are leases and swaps between central banks, the BIS, and bullion dealers that lead to double counting and bullion recorded as being in possession of governments and their central banks but being held by other parties.
As long ago as 2002 when the gold price was about $300 per ounce, Frank Veneroso, who as a noted analyst spent considerable time and effort identifying central bank swaps and leases, concluded that anything between 10,000 and 15,000 tonnes of government and central bank gold reserves were out on lease or swapped — that is up to almost half the total official global gold reserves at that time. His entire speech is available on the Gold Antitrust Action Committee website, but this is the introduction to his reasoning:[i]
“Let’s begin with an explanation of gold banking and gold derivatives.
“It is a simple, simple idea. Central banks have bars of gold in a vault. It’s their own vault, it’s the Bank of England’s vault, it’s the New York Fed’s vault. It costs them money for insurance – it costs them money for storage— and gold doesn’t pay any interest. They earn interest on their bills of sovereigns, like US Treasury Bills. They would like to have a return as well on their barren gold, so they take the bars out of the vault and they lend them to a bullion bank. Now the bullion bank owes the central bank gold—physical gold—and pays interest on this loan of perhaps 1%. What do these bullion bankers do with this gold? Does it sit in their vault and cost them storage and insurance? No, they are not going to pay 1% for a gold loan from a central bank and then have a negative spread of 2% because of additional insurance and storage costs on their physical gold. They are intermediaries—they are in the business of making money on financial intermediation. So they take the physical gold and they sell it spot and get cash for it. They put that cash on deposit or purchase a Treasury Bill. Now they have a financial asset—not a real asset—on the asset side of their balance sheet that pays them interest—6% against that 1% interest cost on the gold loan to the central bank. What happened to that physical gold? Well, that physical gold was Central Bank bars, and it went to a refinery and that refinery refined it, upgraded it, and poured it into different kinds of bars like kilo bars that go to jewellery factories who then make jewellery out of it. That jewellery gets sold to individuals. That’s where those physical bars have wound up—adorning the women of the world…
“We have gotten, albeit crude, estimates of gold borrowings from the official sector from probably more than 1/3 of all the bullion banks. We went to bullion dealers, and we asked, “Are these guys major bullion bankers, medium bullion bankers, or small-scale bullion bankers?” We classified them accordingly and from that we have extrapolated a total amount of gold lending from our sample. That exercise has pointed to exactly the same conclusion as all of our other evidence and inference—i.e., something like 10,000 to 15,000 tonnes of borrowed gold.”
Veneroso’s findings were stunning. But two decades later, we have no idea of the current position. The market has changed substantially since 2002, and today it is thought that swaps and leases are often by book entry, rather than physical delivery of bullion into markets. But the implications are clear: if Russia or China cared to declare their true position and made a move towards backing their currencies with gold or linking them to gold credibly, it would be catastrophic for the dollar and western fiat currencies generally. It would amount to a massive bear squeeze on the west’s longstanding gold versus fiat policy. And remember, gold is money, and the rest is credit, as John Pierpont Morgan said in 1912 in evidence to Congress. He was not stating his opinion, but a legal fact.
In a financial crisis, the accumulated manipulation of bullion markets since the 1970s is at significant risk of becoming unwound. The imbalance in bullion holdings between the Russian Chinese camp and the west would generate the equivalent of a financial nuclear event. This is why it is so important to understand that instead of being a longstop insurance policy against the Marxist prediction of capitalism’s ultimate failure, it appears that the combination of planning for a new trade currency for Asian nations centred on members of the EAEU, coinciding with the introduction of a new Moscow-based bullion standard, is now pre-empting financial developments in the west. That being the case, a financial nuclear bomb is close to being triggered.
China’s gold policy
China actually took its first deliberate step towards eventual domination of the gold market as long ago as June 1983, when regulations on the control of gold and silver were passed by the State Council. The following Articles extracted from the English translation set out the objectives very clearly:
Article 1. These Regulations are formulated to strengthen control over gold and silver, to guarantee the State’s gold and silver requirements for its economic development and to outlaw gold and silver smuggling and speculation and profiteering activities.
Article 3. The State shall pursue a policy of unified control, monopoly purchase and distribution of gold and silver. The total income and expenditure of gold and silver of State organs, the armed forces, organizations, schools, State enterprises, institutions, and collective urban and rural economic organizations (hereinafter referred to as domestic units) shall be incorporated into the State plan for the receipt and expenditure of gold and silver.
Article 4. The People’s Bank of China shall be the State organ responsible for the control of gold and silver in the People’s Republic of China.
Article 5. All gold and silver held by domestic units, with the exception of raw materials, equipment, household utensils and mementos which the People’s Bank of China has permitted to be kept, must be sold to the People’s Bank of China. No gold and silver may be personally disposed of or kept without authorization.
Article 6. All gold and silver legally gained by individuals shall come under the protection of the State.
Article 8. All gold and silver purchases shall be transacted through the People’s Bank of China. No unit or individual shall purchase gold and silver unless authorised or entrusted to do so by the People’s Bank of China.
Article 12. All gold and silver sold by individuals must be sold to the People’s Bank of China.
Article 25. No restriction shall be imposed on the amount of gold and silver brought into the People’s Republic of China, but declaration and registration must be made to the Customs authorities of the People’s Republic of China upon entry.
Article 26. Inspection and clearance by the People’s Republic of China Customs of gold and silver taken or retaken abroad shall be made in accordance with the amount shown on the certificate issued by the People’s Bank of China or the original declaration and registration form made on entry. All gold and silver without a covering certificate or in excess of the amount declared and registered upon entry shall not be allowed to be taken out of the country.
These articles make it clear that only the People’s Bank was authorised to acquire or sell gold on behalf of the state, without limitation, and that citizens owning or buying gold were not permitted to do so and must sell any gold in their possession to the People’s Bank.
Additionally, China has deliberately developed her gold mine production regardless of cost, becoming the largest producer by far in the world.[ii] State-owned refineries process this gold along with doré imported from elsewhere. Virtually none of this gold leaves China, so that the gold owned today between the state and individuals continues to accumulate.
The regulations quoted above formalised the State’s monopoly over all gold and silver which is exercised through the Peoples Bank, and they allow the free importation of gold and silver but keep exports under very tight control. The intent behind the regulations is not to establish or permit the free trade of gold and silver, but to control these commodities in the interest of the state.
This being the case, the growth of Chinese gold imports recorded as deliveries to the public since 2002, when the Shanghai Gold Exchange was established and the public then permitted to buy gold, is only the more recent evidence of a deliberate act of policy embarked upon thirty-nine years ago. China had been accumulating gold for nineteen years before she allowed her own nationals to buy when private ownership was finally permitted. Furthermore, the bullion was freely available, because in seventeen of those years, gold was in a severe bear market fuelled by a combination of supply from central bank disposals, leasing, and increasing mine production, all of which I estimate totalled about 59,000 tonnes. The two largest buyers for all this gold for much of the time were private buyers in the Middle East and China’s government, with additional demand identified from India and Turkey. The breakdown from these sources and the likely demand are identified in the table below:
In another context, the cost of China’s 25,000 tonnes of gold equates to roughly 10% of her exports over the period, and the eighties and early nineties in particular also saw huge capital inflows when multinational corporations were building factories in China. However, the figure for China’s gold accumulation is at best informed speculation. But given the determination of the state to acquire gold expressed in the 1983 regulations and by its subsequent actions, it is clear China had deliberately accumulated a significant undeclared stockpile by 2002.
So far, China’s long-term plans for the acquisition of gold appear to have achieved some important objectives. To date, additional deliveries to the public through the SGE now total over 20,000 tonnes.
China’s motives for taking control of the gold bullion market have almost certainly evolved. The regulations of 1983 make sense as part of a forward-looking plan to ensure that some of the benefits of industrialisation would be accumulated as a risk-free national asset. This reasoning is similar to that of the Arab nations capitalising on the oil-price bonanza only ten years earlier, which led them to accumulate their hoard, mainly held in private as opposed to government hands, for the benefit of future generations. However, as time passed the world has changed substantially both economically and politically.
2002 was a significant year for China, when geopolitical considerations entered the picture. Not only did the People’s Bank establish the Shanghai Gold Exchange to facilitate deliveries to private investors, but this was the year the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation formally adopted its charter. This merger of security and economic interests with Russia has bound Russia and China together with a number of resource-rich Asian states into an economic bloc. When India, Iran, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan join (as they now have or are already committed to do), the SCO will cover more than half the world’s population. And inevitably the SCO’s members are looking for an alternative trade settlement system to using the US dollar.
At some stage China with her SCO partner, Russia, might force the price of gold higher as part of their currency strategy. You can argue this from an economic point of view on the basis that possession of properly priced gold will give her a financial dominance over global trade at a time when we are trashing our fiat currencies, or more simply that there’s no point in owning an asset and suppressing its value for ever. From 2002 there evolved a geopolitical argument: both China and Russia having initially wanted to embrace American and Western European capitalism no longer sought to do so, seeing us as soft enemies instead. The Chinese public were then encouraged, even by public service advertising, to buy gold, helping to denude the west of her remaining bullion stocks and to provide market liquidity in China.
What is truly amazing is that the western economic and political establishment have dismissed the importance of gold and ignored all the warning signals. They do not seem to realise the power they have given China and Russia to create financial chaos as a consequence of gold price suppression. If they do so, which seems to be only a matter of time, then London’s fractional reserve system of unallocated gold accounts would simply collapse, leaving Shanghai as the only major physical market.
This is probably the final link in China’s long-standing gold strategy, and through it a planned domination of the global economy in partnership with Russia and the other SCO nations. But as noted above, recent events have brought this outcome forward.
The present state of the U.S. economy does not suggest that it can function without the financial and material support from external sources. The quantitive easing policy, which the Fed has resorted to regularly in recent years, as well as the uncontrolled issue of cash during the 2020 and 2021 Covid lockdowns, have led to a sharp increase in the external debt and an increase in the dollar supply.
The continuing deterioration of the economic situation is highly likely to lead to a loss in the position of the Democratic Party in Congress and the Senate in the forthcoming elections to be held in November 2022. The impeachment of the President cannot be ruled out under these circumstances, which must be avoided at all costs.
There in an urgent need for resources to flow into the national economy, especially the banking system. Only European countries bound by EU and NATO commitments will be able to provide them without significant military and political costs for us.
The major obstacle to it is growing independence of Germany. Although it still is a country with limited sovereignty, for decades it has been consistently moving toward lifting these limitations and becoming a fully independent state. This movement is slow and cautious, but steady. Extrapolation shows that the ultimate goal can be reached only in several decades. However, if social and economic problems in the United States escalate, the pace could accelerate significantly.
An additional factor contributing to Germany’s economic independence is Brexit. With the withdrawal of the UK from the EU structures, we have lost a meaningful opportunity to influence the negotiation of crossgovernmental decisions.
It is fear of our negative response which by and large determines the relatively slow speed of those changes. If one day we abandon Europe, there will be a good chance for Germany and France to get to a full political consensus. Then, Italy and other Old Europe countries — primarily the former ECSC members — may join it on certain conditions. Britain, which is currently outside the European Union, will not be able to resist the pressure of the Franco-German duo alone. If implemented, this scenario will eventually turn Europe into not only an economic, but also a political competitor to the United States.
Besides, if the U.S. is for a certain period is engulfed by domestic problems, the Old Europe will be able to more effectively resist the influence of U.S.-oriented Eastern European countries.
Vulnerabilities in German and EU Economy
An increase in the flow of resources from Europe to U.S. can be expected if Germany begins to experience a controlled economic crisis. The pace of the economic developments in the EU depends almost without alternative on the state of the German economy. It is Germany that bears the brunt of the expenditure directed towards the poorer EU members.
The current German economic model is based on two pillars. These are unlimited access to cheap Russian energy resources and to cheap French electric power, thanks to the operation of nuclear plants. The importance of the first factor is considerably higher. Halting Russian supplies can well create a systemic crisis that would be devastating for the German economy and, indirectly, for the entire European Union.
The French energy sector could also soon being to experience heavy problems. The predictable stop of Russian-controlled nuclear supplies, combined with the unstable situation in the Sahel region, would make French energy sector critically dependent on Australian and Canadian fuel. In connection with the establishment of AUKUS, it creates new opportunities to exercise pressure. However this issue is beyond the scope of the present report.
A Controlled Crisis
Due to coalition constraints, the German leadership is not in full control of the situation in the country. Thanks to our precise actions, it has been possible to block the commissioning of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, despite the opposition of lobbyists from the steel and chemical industries. However, the dramatic deterioration of the living standards may encourage leadership to reconsider its policy and return to the idea of European sovereignty and strategic autonomy.
The only feasible way to guarantee Germany’s rejection of Russian energy supplies is to involved both sides in the military conflict in Ukraine. Our further actions in this country will inevitably lead to a military response from Russia. Russians will obviously not be able to leave unanswered the massive Ukrainian army pressure on the unrecognized Donbas republics. That would make possible to declare Russia an aggressor and apply to it the entire package of sanctions prepared beforehand.
Putin may in turn decide to impose limited counter sanctions — primarily on Russian energy supplies to Europe. Thus, the damage to the EU countries will be quite comparable to the one to Russians, and in some countries — primarily in Germany — it will be higher.
The prerequisite for Germany to fall into this trap is the leading role of green parties and ideology in Europe. The German Greens are a strongly dogmatic, if not zealous, movement, which makes it quite easy to make them ignore economic arguments. In this respect, the German Greens somewhat exceed their counterparts in the rest of Europe. Personal features and the lack of professionalism of their leaders — primarily Annalena Baerbock and Robert Habeck — permit to presume that it is next to impossible for them to admit their own mistakes in a timely manners.
Thus, it will be enough to quickly form the media image of Putin’s aggressive war to turn the Greens into ardent and hardline supporters of sanctions, a ‘party of war’. It will enable the sanctions regime to be introduced without any obstacles. The lack of professionalism of the current leaders will not allow a setback in the future, even when the negative impact of the chose policy becomes obvious enough. The partners in the German governing coalition will simply have to follow their allies — at least until the load of economic problems outweighs the fear of provoking a government crisis.
However, even when the SPD and the FDP are ready to go against the Greens, the possibility for the next government to return relations with Russia to normal soon enough will be noticeable limited. Germany’s involvement in large supplies of weapons and military equipment to the Ukrainian army will inevitably generate a strong mistrust in Russia, which will make the negotiations process quite lengthy.
If war crimes and Russian aggression against Ukraine are confirmed, the German political leadership will not be able to overcome its EU partners’ veto on assistance to Ukraine and reinforced sanctions packages. This will ensure a sufficiently long gap in cooperation between Germany and Russia, which will make large German economic operators uncompetitive.
A reduction in Russian energy supplies — ideally, a complete halt of such supplies — would lead to disastrous outcomes for German industry. The need to divert significant amounts of Russian gas for winter heating of residential and public facilities will further exacerbate the shortages. Lockdowns in industrial enterprises will cause shortages of components and spare parts for manufacturing, a breakdown of logistics chais, and, eventually, a domino effect. A complete standstill at the largest chemical, metallurgical, and machine-building, plants is likely, while they have virtually no spare capacity to reduce energy consumption. It could lead to the shutting down of continuous-cycle enterprises, which could mean their destruction.
The cumulative losses of the German economy can be estimated only approximately. Even if the restriction of Russian supplies is limited to 2022, its consequence will last for several years, and the total losses could reach 200-300 billion euros. Not only will it deliver a devastating blow to the German economy, but the entire EU economy will inevitably collapse. We are talking not about a decline in economy growth pace, but about a sustained recession and a decline in GDP only in material production by 3-4% per year for the next 5-6 years. Such a fall will inevitably cause panic in the financial markets and may bring them to a collapse.
The euro will inevitably, and most likely irreversibly, fall below the dollar. A sharp fall of euro will consequently cause its global sale. It will become a toxic currency, and all countries in the world will rapidly reduce its share in their forex reserves. This gap will be primarily filled with dollar and yaun.
Another inevitable consequence of a prolonged economic recession will be a sharp drop in living standards and rising unemployment (up to 200,000-400,000 in Germany alone), which will entail the exodus of skilled labour and well-educated young people. There are literally no other destinations for such immigration other than the United States today. A somewhat smaller, but also quite significant flow of migrants can be expected from other EU countries.
The scenario under consideration will thus serve to strengthen the national financial conditions both indirectly and most directly. In the short term, it will reverse the trend of the looming economic recession and, in addition, consolidate American society by distracting it from immediate economic concerns. This, in turn, will reduce electoral risks.
In the medium terms (4-5 years), the cumulative benefits of capital flight, re-oriented logistical flows and reduced competition in major industries may amount to USD 7-9 trillion.
Unfortunately, China is also expected to benefit over the medium term from this emerging scenario. At the same time, Europe’s deep political dependence on the U.S. allows us to effectively neutralise possible attempts by individual European states to draw closer to China.
Source: Stratfor Worldview Four Intelligence Scandals and a Culture War Mar 8, 1999 | 06:00 GMT
Four intelligence scandals blew up in the past week or so: A blown U.S. intelligence collection operation in Iraq; Chinese theft of nuclear weapons secrets from Los Alamos; the claim that Israel’s Mossad had taped Clinton having phone sex with Monica Lewinsky and was using it to blackmail Clinton into stopping a mole hunt for an Israeli agent in the White House; and suspicion that Greece had traded U.S. and NATO jamming codes to the Russians. However true each of these is, somebody has clearly launched a campaign against the Clinton White House. Depending on your point of view, this is either another in an endless series of attempts by a vast right-wing conspiracy to discredit the President or a desperate attempt to warn the country about the incompetence or malfeasance of the Administration. But it does not strike us as accidental that these four reports all hit the major media within a few days of each other. We see a “culture war” underway between the Clinton Administration and the national security apparatus. Underlying it is a fundamental disagreement as to the nature of the international system, the threat faced by the United States and the appropriate policies that ought to be followed.
What made last week remarkable was the sudden, simultaneous emergence of four completely unconnected stories of espionage and international duplicity. The stories varied widely over content and time frame. What they had in common was that each involved the United States in some way and all broke into the headlines within a few days of each other. We present them here in no particular order:
A report in the Washington Post asserted that the Central Intelligence Agency had placed agents on the staff of UNSCOM, the United Nations unit that had been assigned to inspect Iraqi weapons production facilities under UN Security Council resolutions. Claims that the weapons inspectors were being used by the CIA had been circulating for months. Indeed, Saddam Hussein had created a major crisis when he decided not to permit American members of the team into Iraq because they were, according to him, CIA agents. Two things made the Post story interesting. First, it provided some hints as to how the U.S. had used UNSCOM remote monitoring to intercept Iraqi communications. Second, the Post story appears to have originated within official Washington circles and has not been met with a spate of denials.
The New York Times broke a story late in the week that claimed that Chinese intelligence had penetrated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and that it had, over many years, extracted technical information on the construction of miniaturized nuclear warheads. Such miniaturization is critical for the construction of warheads with multiple, independently targeted, re-entry vehicles (MIRVs), which the United States and Soviet Union had built, but which China had not been able to construct until they had allegedly stolen plans from Los Alamos. Apparently, the theft had been discovered in 1995, but according to these reports, the Clinton Administration had deliberately ignored the warnings because creating a public crisis would interfere with the Administration’s plans for engagement with China. The Administration did not deny the espionage claim, but did state that they had tightened security. The New York Post published a story claiming that a book written by Gordon Thomas would claim that Israel’s Mossad had tapped Monica Lewinsky’s phone (along with another, unnamed intelligence agency) and had recorded her having phone sex with the President. The story went on to claim that Mossad had used the tapes to blackmail Clinton. The President then called off a hunt for a suspected Israeli mole in the White House because of Israeli threats that they would release the tapes. In a later interview, Thomas backed off the blackmail claims, stating that Danny Yatom, head of Mossad at the time, had ruled out blackmail. He continued to maintain that Mossad had obtained the tapes. Last weekend, the Washington Post broke a story stating that the United States had temporarily halted the sale of aircraft to Greece. The reason was that evidence had come to light that Greece, a U.S. ally and member of NATO, had provided the Russians with extremely sensitive codes that would enable someone to jam NATO aircraft. In exchange, according to the reports, Russia gave Greece a system known as SPN-2, which would interfere with the targeting capabilities of NATO aircraft. Presumably, Greece would have used this system against Turkey. Once the reports surfaced, Washington asserted that weapons sales to Greece would resume, because the reports were inaccurate and the transaction had not taken place. So it was quite a week for fans of espionage and intrigue. Two stories seem pretty much confirmed. No one is denying that the U.S. used UNSCOM as a vector for U.S. espionage activity, nor is anyone denying that China had stolen extremely sensitive information about U.S. nuclear technology. The White House is denying and Israel is saying nothing about the Lewinsky wiretaps and even the author is backing off the blackmail charge. The U.S. is confirming the suspension of weapons sales to Greece but is claiming that investigation has shown that the Greeks did not do what they had been charged with. So two of the stories seem to be pretty much confirmed and two are being denied with varying degrees of plausibility.
We could spend days trying to untangle each of these events without getting to the bottom of them. Let’s, therefore, look at what we know for certain. First, last week saw a surge of very public assertions about espionage being conducted either by the United States or directed toward the United States. Second, while each of them appear unconnected, there is a single, underlying theme: that the Clinton Administration, through the personal actions of the President and through his foreign policy, has left major national security breaches that have materially damaged the United States. Third, that the very existence of these leaks in this concentrated form is proof of the second claim, which is that the Clinton Administration does not know how to conduct a coherent, professional, national security policy.
What emerged from the week was an extremely embarrassing, blown intelligence operation against Iraq that essentially confirmed that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth and the U.S. was lying when Saddam charged that UNSCOM was a tool of U.S. intelligence. It also created a huge credibility gap for all future UN operations with U.S. participation. So, the week revealed that even when the U.S. mounts an effective espionage operation, it cannot control it well enough to keep it from blowing up very publicly.
The other three leaks tended to show enormous recklessness by the White House in pursuing its policies. The China story seemed to show that the White House was so eager for good relations with China that it would not confront China with clear evidence of espionage directed toward securing some of the most vital secrets of the United States. The Greek story carried this theme further by implicitly claiming that the failure of the United States to redefine NATO had enabled the Greeks continuing access to U.S. technology in the post-Cold War world. This, in turn, left U.S. security in the hands of unreliable nations whose interests had dramatically diverged from U.S. interests. Finally, the Lewinsky-Mossad story left the impression of a White House not only casual about national security issues, but willing to open itself to blackmail for the most frivolous of reasons.
In other words, either by coincidence or intention, someone worked very hard to make it appear that the Clinton Administration was wholly incapable of protecting either U.S. secrets or vital, on-going espionage operations. Now, coincidences happen, and it is certainly possible that this avalanche of leaks about U.S. intelligence failures, or successes turned into failures, was coincidence. But what an avalanche of coincidence it was to have all four of these stories breaking into the media within days of each other. What a further coincidence that two of these stories broke in the Washington Post while a third broke into the New York Times. The fourth, the Lewinsky-Mossad story, may well have been a coincidence since we suspect the story was planted by the publisher, St. Martin’s Press, as pre-publication publicity. The Chinese, Greek and Iraqi stories, however, all went to major, national media. That meant that the leakers had credibility and access. They were not mid-level officials.
The leakers on the Greek story appear to come from Congress. The structure of the stories made it clear that congressional sources were dissatisfied with the results of the Department of Defense examination and one can infer from that that the source was on either the Senate or House oversight committees. Indeed, those committees are possible sources for both the Iraq and China story as well. Again, assuming that the avalanche was not a remarkable coincidence, we can expand our hypothesis to claim that elements in Congress and in the intelligence communities decided this week to go public with an extraordinary record of something between malfeasance and incompetence far more damaging than anything to do with sex in the Oval Office.
That may well be the trigger to this week’s events. It is now clear that President Clinton has survived the Lewinsky affair. The final shot, the story that he had actually raped a women years before in Arkansas, seems not to have hit the mark. Whatever personal damage was done to Clinton, he is not going to be forced from office. But lurking behind Lewinsky and Whitewater have been charges that the Administration, particularly in its dealings with China, traded national security for business opportunities for politically connected corporations.
But even behind this, even behind the hints of corruption and malfeasance, there has been a deep-seated sense within the defense and intelligence communities that the Administration was simply not sensitive to the national security needs of the United States. From the beginning, there has been a deep policy and cultural divide between the national security apparatus that was honed and seasoned during the Cold War and the Clinton Administration. For the Clintonites, the need to maintain engagement with China and Greece, for example, outweighed archaic concerns about weapons system security. Attention to the fine details of covert operations, which would dictate not operating within the easily exposed milieu of UNSCOM, was not seen as a priority. Maintaining communication security and not calling a mistress on an open telephone line was not taken seriously. Someone in the national security community, or among its congressional allies, decided this week to open a new campaign against the President.
Whoever the leakers were this week, they are trying to paint a picture of an Administration that was simply indifferent to the classical concept of national security. The end of the Lewinsky affair has, it appears to us, opened a new battlefield in which the stakes are much higher. The President and his Administration are being charged with being either fools or knaves when it comes to defending the security interests of the United States. Now, there is the obvious question as to whether the charges in their particulars are true. But it is clear that the Iraq and China stories are true. The congressional oversight committees will probe the truth of the Greek story. And if Mossad didn’t tap Monica’s phone, it was only because of pure luck and not by Presidential caution.
The real issue here is cultural. On one side, those leaking these charges are claiming that the national security state is not archaic, that protecting the integrity of U.S. military and covert operations remains a priority above all other considerations. On the other side, there is the view of the world in which national security considerations, properly understood, have created a new hierarchy of values. In this view, cooperating with China on maintaining financial stability in Asia is more important than weapons technology theft and working with Greece as a conduit to Serbia or the Kurds is more important than keeping jamming codes out of Russian hands. The argument is that maintaining operational security over a covert operation in Iraq is less important than the short-term goal of getting the information needed, since the U.S. has the ability to live through the embarrassment of exposure and the loss of exposed collection systems. Indeed, in the extreme, the argument is that the existence of an Israeli mole in the White House is less important than keeping Netanyahu at the bargaining table with Arafat.
Rulers have traditionally compromised intelligence operations for higher, policy goals. That is to be expected. What surfaced this week, however, has been the charge that the Administration systematically ignored national security issues such as collection systems, jamming codes, and even nuclear technology, in favor of policy goals of dubious value. This is the real debate: were these trade-offs worth it? What did the United States achieve by ignoring foreign operations or failing to maintain its own operational security?
Apart from the truly sensational revelations of the last week, there is a deep policy debate that involves how the United States views the world. If we view the world as having genuinely evolved to a point at which traditional security issues are now marginal, then the Clinton Administration’s behavior (assuming the stories are true at all) is understandable. If, on the other hand, the world continues to behave today much as it did for the past few centuries, then national security considerations remain central. Scandals aside, this is what was being debated in Washington this week.
The evidence of Israeli involvement is substantial, based on the level of the Jewish state’s espionage operations in the U.S., Phil Giraldi writes.
The twentieth anniversary of 9/11 last Saturday has raised many of the usual issues about what actually happened on that day. Were hijacked airliners actually crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or was the damage in New York City attributable to explosives or even some kind of nuclear device? These are fundamental questions and the so-called “Truthers” who raise them have been inspired by their reading of the 585 page 9/11 Report, which is most charitably described as incomplete, though many would reasonably call it a government cover-up.
I have long believed that unless one actually sees or experiences something first hand the description of any event is no better than hearsay. The closest I came to “seeing” 9/11 was the panicked evacuation of a CIA office building, where I was working at the time. Another related bit of 9/11 narrative also came from two close friends who were driving into work at the Pentagon when they each independently observed what appeared to be a large plane passing over their cars and striking the building. I consider the sources credible but was it an airplane or a missile? And I was not there to see it with my own eyes, so I am reluctant to claim that my friends actually saw something that in retrospect might have been misconstrued.
Critics of the physical and engineering aspects of the accepted narrative certainly have a great deal of expert evidence that supports their case. The way the towers fell as well as the collapse of Building 7 nearby are suggestive of something other than the impact of an airliner near the top of the structure, but I am no expert in the science of the matter and have avoided expressing a view regarding it.
Apart from what happened, I have always been more intrigued by “Who done it?” I found the 9/11 Report to be conspicuously lacking in its failure to cover possible foreign involvement, to include the Saudis, Pakistanis and the Israelis. Indeed, President Joe Biden has taken steps that have resulted in the declassification and release of 16 pages of the notorious 28-page redaction of documents relating to any possible Saudi role. The document consists of interviews with Saudi student Omar al-Bayoumi, who reportedly helped support several hijackers.
The Saudis are being sued by 9/11 survivors, but it is unlikely that anything really sensitive will ever be exposed, as explained by investigative journalist Jim Bovard. Indeed, the documents released last Saturday did not demonstrate that the Saudi government itself played any direct role in 9/11, though it is clear that wealthy Saudis and even members of the Royal Family had been supporting and funding al-Qaeda. It is also known that that Saudi Embassy and Consulate employees in the U.S. had funded the alleged hijackers.
Friends who were in CIA’s Counterterrorism Center at the time of 9/11 tend to believe that the Saudis were indeed supporting their fellow citizens while in the U.S. but were likely not knowledgeable regarding any terrorist plot. They observed, however, that there was considerable evidence that Israel knew in advance about what was impending and may have even been instrumental in making sure that it succeeded.
The evidence of Israeli involvement is substantial, based on the level of the Jewish state’s espionage operations in the U.S. and also its track record on so-called covert actions simulating terrorist attacks designed to influence political decision making in foreign countries. But, of course, in reporting on the 9/11 tragedy no one in the mainstream media did pick up on the connection, inhibited no doubt by the understanding that there are some things that one just does not write about Israel if one hopes to remain employed. That is true in spite of the fact that the Israeli angle to 9/11 is without a doubt a good story, consigned to the alternative media, where it can be marginalized by critics as a conspiracy theory or the product of anti-Semitism.
In the year 2001 Israel was running a massive spying operation directed against Muslims either resident or traveling in the United States. The operation included the creation of a number of cover companies in New Jersey, Florida and also on the west coast that served as spying mechanisms for Mossad officers. The effort was supported by the Mossad Station in Washington DC and included a large number of volunteers, the so-called “art students” who traveled around the U.S. selling various products at malls and outdoor markets. The FBI was aware of the numerous Israeli students who were routinely overstaying their visas but they were regarded as a minor nuisance and were normally left to the tender mercies of the inspectors at the Bureau of Customs and Immigration.
The Israelis were also running more sophisticated intelligence operations inside the United States, many of which were focused on Washington’s military capabilities and intentions. Some specialized intelligence units concentrated on obtaining military and dual use technology. It was also known that Israeli spies had penetrated the phone systems of the U.S. government, to include those at the White House.
All of that came into focus on September 11, 2001, when a New Jersey housewife saw something from the window of her apartment building, which overlooked the World Trade Center. She watched as the buildings burned and crumbled but also noted something strange. Three young men were kneeling on the roof of a white transit van parked by the water’s edge, making a movie in which they featured themselves high fiving and laughing in front of the catastrophic scene unfolding behind them. The woman wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police, who responded quickly and soon both the local force and the FBI began looking for the vehicle, which was subsequently seen by other witnesses in various locations along the New Jersey waterfront, its occupants “celebrating and filming.”
The license plate number revealed that the van belonged to a New Jersey registered company called Urban Moving Systems. The van was identified and pulled over. Five men between the ages of 22 and 27 years old emerged to be detained at gunpoint and handcuffed. They were all Israelis. One of them had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock and another had two foreign passports. Bomb sniffing dogs reacted to the smell of explosives in the van.
According to the initial police report, the driver identified as Sivan Kurzberg, stated “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” The five men were detained at the Bergen County jail in New Jersey before being transferred the FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which handles allegations of spying.
After the arrest, the FBI obtained a warrant to search Urban Moving System’s Weehawken, NJ, offices. Papers and computers were seized. The company owner Dominick Suter, also an Israeli, answered FBI questions but when a follow-up interview was set up a few days later it was learned that he had fled the country for Israel, putting both his business and home up for sale. It was later learned that Suter has been associated with at least fourteen businesses in the United States, mostly in New Jersey and New York but also in Florida.
The five Israelis were held in Brooklyn, initially on charges relating to visa fraud. FBI interrogators questioned them for more than two months. Several were held in solitary confinement so they could not communicate with each other and two of them were given repeated polygraph exams, which they failed when claiming that they were nothing more than students working summer jobs. The two men that the FBI focused on most intensively were believed to be Mossad staff officers and the other three were volunteers helping with surveillance. Interestingly, photo evidence demonstrated that they had been seen “casing” the area where they were seen celebrating on the day before, indicating that they had prior knowledge of the attack.
The Israelis were not exactly cooperative, but the FBI concluded from documents obtained at their office in Weehawken that they had been targeting Arabs in New York and New Jersey. The FBI concluded that there was a distinct possibility that the Israelis had actually monitored the activities of at least two of the alleged 9/11 hijackers while the cover companies and intelligence personnel often intersected with locations frequented by the Saudis.
The dots were apparently never connected by investigators. Police records in New Jersey and New York where the men were held have disappeared and FBI interrogation reports are inaccessible. Media coverage of the case also died, though the five were referred to in the press as the “dancing Israelis” and by some, more disparagingly, as the “dancing Shlomos.”
Inevitably, the George W. Bush White House intervened. After 71 days in detention, the five Israelis were inexplicably released from prison, put on a plane, and deported. One should also recall that when the news of 9/11 reached Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was pleased, saying that “It’s very good. Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” It will “strengthen the bond between our two peoples, because we’ve experienced terror over so many decades, but the United States has now experienced a massive hemorrhaging of terror.” And, of course, it was conveniently attributable to Israel’s enemies.
The possible role of Israel in 9/11 was first explored in book form in 2003 by Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo in his The Terror Enigma, a short book focusing on Israeli spying and inconsistencies in the narrative that bore the provocative subtitle “9/11 and the Israeli Connection.”
Currently, the twentieth anniversary of 9/11 has inspired some others to take another look at the possible Israeli role. Ron Unz has recently completed an exhaustive examination of the evidence. He observes that 9/11 and its aftermath have shaped “the last two decades, greatly changing the daily lives and liberties of most ordinary Americans.” He asks “What organized group would have been sufficiently powerful and daring to carry off an attack of such vast scale against the central heart of the world’s sole superpower? And how were they possibly able to orchestrate such a massively effective media and political cover-up, even enlisting the participation of the U.S. government itself?”
Ron Unz answers his question, concluding that there is “a strong, perhaps even overwhelming case that the Israeli Mossad together with its American collaborators played the central role” in the attack. His argument is based on the noted inconsistencies in the standard narrative, plus an examination of the history of Israeli false flag and mass terrorism attacks. It also includes new information gleaned from Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman’s recent book Rise and Kill First: the Secret History of Israel’s Targeted Assassinations.
To a certain extent, Unz relies on a detailed investigative article written by French journalist Laurent Guyenot in 2018 as well as on an argument made by an ex-Marine and former instructor at the U.S. Army War College Alan Sabrosky in an article where he records how “Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the ‘tactics of mistake.’ This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage. This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others. I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone. They needed local help within America (and perhaps elsewhere) and they had it, principally from some alumni of PNAC (the misnamed Project for a New American Century) and their affiliates within and outside of the U.S. Government (USG), who in the 9/11 attacks got the ‘catalytic event’ they needed and craved to take the U.S. to war on Israel’s behalf…”
Economist and author Paul Craig Roberts has also been motivated by the anniversary to review the evidence and concludes “Circumstantial evidence suggests that 9/11 was a scheme of George W. Bush regime neoconservative officials allied with vice president Dick Cheney and Israel to create a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ that would generate support on the part of the American people and Washington’s European allies for a Middle Eastern ‘war on terror’ whose real purpose was to destroy Israel’s enemies in the interest of Greater Israel… This is the most plausible explanation, but, if true, it is not one that the U.S. and Israeli governments would ever acknowledge. Consequently, we are stuck with an official explanation long championed by the presstitutes that no one believes.”
Yes, an implausible explanation that no one really believes for the greatest national security disaster in America’s twenty-first century. And Israel gets yet another pass.
The complex and often uneasy relationship between Israel’s Mossad and the U.S. intelligence community is emerging as a prime reason for the catastrophic failure of the CIA and FBI to act on advance warnings of an impending attack on America.
Eight days before the September 11 attack, Egypt’s senior intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, informed the CIA station chief in Cairo that “credible sources” had told him that Osama bin-Laden’s network was “in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target.”
Prior to that, the FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley had revealed, there was a similar warning from French intelligence.
Both warnings, Globe-Intel has established, originally came from Mossad.
The Israeli intelligence service chose to pass on its own intelligence to Washington through its contacts in French and Egyptian intelligence agencies because it did not believe its previous warnings on an impending attack by the bin-Laden network had been taken seriously enough in Washington.
Part of the reason has already emerged by President Bush acknowledging for the first time there had been a serious breakdown between the twin pillars of the U.S. intelligence community – the FBI and CIA.
“In terms of whether or not the FBI and the CIA were communicating properly, I think it is clear that they weren’t,” he has said.
Behind this admission is the long-standing suspicion that both the FBI and CIA have about Mossad and its ongoing activities in the United States.
Ostensibly, Israel denies it has ever spied on its most powerful ally. But the reality is otherwise. Both the FBI and CIA regard Mossad as a clear and present danger to U.S. national security. It places the Israeli spy agency just below the espionage totem pole that has China’s Secret Intelligence Service at its top.
A full ten months before Mossad started to sound its own warnings against bin-Laden, senior officials in both the FBI and CIA saw them as “blowing smoke” to divert attention from Mossad’s own activities in the United States.
Evidence of this may well be contained in the more than 350,000 documents that the CIA has already turned over to the hearings of the Senate and House of Representatives intelligence committees.
These are now underway in sound-proofed rooms before 37 members of those committees.
Already, in the atmosphere of leak and counter-leak in Washington, the consensus is emerging on Capitol Hill that the U.S. intelligence community had enough data to have been able to prevent the September 11 attacks.
Richard Shelby, the senior Republican on the Senate intelligence committee has spoken about “a massive intelligence failure.”
A hint of the extent of that failure has come from Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak. He has spoken of “a secret agent who was in close contact with the bin-Laden organisation.”
Globe-Intel has been told that the “agent” was in fact the senior Mossad source who tipped off Egypt’s intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, that an attack on America was coming.
During last year, senior Egyptian officials have told Globe-Intel there were five separate contacts between Suleiman and his Mossad counterpart, Efraim Halevy.
Understandably, Israeli government sources in Tel Aviv have denied such contacts.
But an official close to Mubarak have confirmed that they did take place.
Mubarak’s public statements on the matter – the first ranking statesman to break cover over the building controversy of who-knew-what-and-when, will at minimum be seen as clear indications that there were lapses in the interpretations of both the CIA and FBI.
Coupled to the warnings that Mossad arranged to be passed through French intelligence and which Coleen Rowley has used to lambaste her chief, FBI director Robert Mueller, the failure to act assumes frightening proportions.
The revelations make a mockery of George Tenet’s claim that he was “proud” of the CIA’s record. Its embattled director, currently in Israel trying to broker a doomed peace deal, has found in his absence that his own staff are admitting to mistakes.
“Part of the problem is that the CIA and FBI are loath to share vital information with each other, or with other government agencies because they have this deep-seated fear of compromising their own sources,” a senior State Department analyst told Globe-Intel.
But in the coming days the relationship between Mossad and the CIA and FBI will become the subject of close scrutiny in the closed hearings of the intelligence committees picking their way through the mass of documents now in their possession.
It is beginning to emerge that intelligence relating to pre-September 11 stopped at the desk of National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice.
The question as to why the President was not fully briefed has led to others. Had a decision been taken by Rice in consultation with Secretary of Defense and other high-ranking members of the Bush Administration to effectively not inform Bush of what was developing because they did not trust his limited experience in dealing with global terrorism – or a major threat of any kind?
Officially such a question is dismissed around the White House as nonsensical. Yet it persists within the State Department – where Secretary of State Colin Powell remains outside the charmed inner circle surrounding Bush.
There, senior officials point to the fact that the CIA briefing to Bush last August, less than a month before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, turned out to be conspicuous by what was not said.
Yet, at that time the CIA knew of the impending threat. There are other pointers that the President may have been kept out of the loop.
Within his own circle there is a determination to distance him from taking the advice of his father. President George Bush Snr is seen by some in the White House as being out of touch with todays world. And that the advice he proffers his son during their Texas cookouts is out-moded.
All this may go some way to explain why President Bush has now publicly acknowledged there was an intelligence failure. Much else will flow from that.
GORDON THOMAS is the author of forty-three books. Seven of them are major motion pictures including five times Academy Award-nominated Voyage of the Damned; Enola Gay, which won the Emmy Awards Foreign Critics Prize.
His books of best-selling David Morton novels are being filmed by IAC International as a 22-hour television series to be screened worldwide in 2003. His Gideon’s Spies: Mossad’s Secret Warriors became a major documentary for Channel Four which he wrote and narrated. It followed three years of research during which he was given unprecedented access to the Mossad’s key personnel. The book has so far been published in 16 languages.
The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel.
Israel has been under siege by suicide bombers for more than a year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against Palestinian command structures. The international community, particularly the United States, has pressured Israel heavily to stop its operations. The argument has been made that the threat of suicide bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a genuine threat to Israeli national security and should not trigger the kind of response Israel is making.
Today’s events change all of this.
First, the United States no longer can argue that Israel should endure the bombings. Moving forward, the domestic American political mood simply won’t tolerate such a stance.
Second, Israel now becomes, once again, an indispensable ally to the United States. The United States is obviously going to launch a massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement that is assumed to be behind this attack. Not only does this align U.S. and Israeli interests but it also makes the United States dependent on the Israelis — whose intelligence capabilities in this area as well as covert operational capabilities are clearly going to be needed.
There is no question, therefore, that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief. Given that pressures for Israel to restrain operations against the Palestinian Authority and other Palestinian groups will decline dramatically, it might be expected that Yasser Arafat, anticipating this evolution, will rapidly change his position on suicide bombings and become more accommodating to Israel. In effect, today’s events have wrecked Arafat’s nearly successful drive to split the United States from Israel.
Given that the bombers are not fools, they undoubtedly understood that this would be a consequence. Their reasoning appears to be that of Lenin: “Better fewer, but better.” In other words, they see Arafat and many others in the Arab world as weak and indecisive. They are prepared to split the Arab world between two camps in which they — though smaller and weaker — hold the imagination of the Islamic masses as well as control the tempo of events.
The greatest question right now is this: Which Islamic state was involved in the attack? We suspect that there was such involvement. The sophistication required means of communication and transport available only to states. Afghanistan does not have the international facilities needed. We assume that Sudanese and Iraqi diplomatic communications and transport are both too closely monitored to be useful. If that is true, what other nation provided support facilities for this operation? Answering that question speaks to the future of the region.
George Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR, the global intelligence company.
Like other religions, Islam is a religion of peace and does not permit acts of terrorism such as bomb blasts suicide attacks etc. But, the Holocaust warriors and the typical Jews who created holy warriors are misguiding the international community by equating the ideology of Islam with terrorism. Control of these Jews on the mainstream media houses of the world is so strong that terms such as Islamic militants, Jihadist groups and holy warriors (Mujahideen) have become popular. While reporting regarding global and regional events of terrorism, they do not use the terms like Hindu militants and Jewish terrorism or Christian militants.
Everyone knows that Al-Qaeda and Afghan Taliban were created by the American CIA to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
In this respect, former British Foreign secretary, Robin Cook stated, “Throughout the 1980s, he [Bin Laden] was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.”
The then US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and said about the militants (Mujahideen), “We know of their deep belief in God, and we are confident their struggle will succeed…because, you are fighting against the infidel Russians.”
However, after obtaining the political and economic interests of the US-led Israel, Washington had left Afghanistan in particular and Pakistan in general to face the fallout of a prolonged conflict—terrorism and instability. These Mujahideen who pulled the Russians out of Afghanistan, later become the Taliban, Al-Qaeda (New version) and the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamic State group (Daesh, ISIS, ISIL). They got the label of terrorists.
Notably, massacre of Jews through various tactics of torture in the concentration camps, erected by Hitler before and during the World War 11 is still shocking and condemnable. It was a big tragedy, popularly known as the Holocaust, conducted by the forces of state terrorism. But, before and in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, the Zionist-Israeli-led America has been taking unjustified revenge of the Holocaust from the Muslims in particular and the Christians in general, including persons of some other religious communities, who were not responsible for the Holocaust. These Holocaust warriors have been trying to convert the entire world into holocaust, as terror-related attacks have shown in various Islamic countries, including America, Europe and other Western countries.
Zionist-controlled American leading think-tanks and media have propagated that “genocide of 5 million Jews was carried out at the extermination camps, using tools of mass murder, such as gas chambers of Germany, Poland, Austria and Alsace”, while some Jewish-influenced Western scholars have estimated the genocide of the 7.8 million Jews.
On the other side, impartial writers, researchers and authors have opined, “Following the rise of Hitler there were no more than 4 million Jews, living in areas occupied by the Third Reich at the height of its power. Yet on June 30, 1965, the West German government announced that some 3,375,000 Jewish holocaust “survivors” had applied for reparations money. The International Red Cross had already reported in 1946 that of registered Jewish camp inmates no more than 300,000 could have died, and their audit to December 31, 1984 records a total 282,077 registered deaths of all internees in all German Concentration Camps from all causes.”
Regarding the present holocaust, it had already started when the US emerged as the sole superpower in the unipolar world after the disintegration of the former Russia. American former President Bush, (The Senior) replaced the old bipolar order with the New World Order, with the US acting as a kind of global policeman to protect the political and economic interests of Israel and the American Jews who are owners of many big cartels—multinational corporations, arms factories, oil companies, banks etc., including print and electronic media of the US in particular and the world in general. By dominating American internal policies, Zionist Jews mould country’s foreign policy for their own interests. And, by changing America into corporate industry, they have converted the world into corporate industry.
In the unipolar world, the United Nations became an instrument of the US policy to establish American hegemony in the world. In order to obtain the hidden agenda of Jews, the US imposed its sudden terms of globalization such as free markets, privatization and de-nationalization etc. on the ill-prepared developing countries and the Muslim states which left behind shattered nations and a global financial crisis, increased poverty in most of these countries, which resulted into deaths of many persons due to diseases and lack of medical treatment. It further widened the gap between the poor and the rich countries or G-7 countries. The corporations and international financial institutions like IMF and World Bank which are indirectly controlled by the Jews have continued to drive the project of globalization through the sole superpower. Besides, America’s child-killing sanctions against Iraq and Iran; late action to curb ethnic cleansing in Kosovo—genocide of the Bosnian Muslims annoyed the Muslims all over the world.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, American former President Bush (The Senior) in connivance with his Zionist-advisers and neoconservatives took the Islamic fundamentalism as a great threat. Since then, sometimes, Al-Qaeda has continuously been used by the US and some Western countries as a scapegoat to malign Pakistan, as the latter is the only nuclear country in the Muslim World. Sometimes, they accused Iran of harbouring terrorism, and to propagate against Tehran’s peaceful nuclear progragmme—sometimes to achieve the goals of external policy and sometimes to pacify their public, including the opposition in relation to the prolonged war in Afghanistan and the anti-Muslim ‘different war’. In all cases, the purpose behind has been to safeguard the interests Israel and Zionists who consider themselves God’s chosen people to rule over the world.
As regards the double game, on November 13, 2009, a Reuters report quoting Labeviere’s book “Corridors of Terror” (Released in November 2003) points to negotiations between Bin Laden and CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks-at the American Hospital in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, when Bin Laden was under a kidney dialysis treatment.
Meanwhile, while making Osama and Al-Qaeda as scapegoats, a number of fake video messages were telecast on various TV channels and websites by some Zionist Jews to obtain Israel’s anti-Muslim goals. For example, during the November 2004 elections in the US, a fake video tape helped the ex-president George W. Bush to get lead over John Kerry.
It is well-known that in a tape released on December 27, 2001, the authenticity of which is not in question, Osama denied any involvement in the September 11 tragedy. However, later, two video tapes appeared to validate his guilt in relation to 9/11, because the main aims of the Bush administration were to provoke American public against the Muslims and to justify the fake global war on terror—the occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq to possess energy resources of Central Asia and Iraq, including proxy wars in other Middle Eastern countries. Besides other actions of Bush era such as America’s state-sponsored terrorism in the volatile Islamic countries, persecution of Muslims through torture, detentions and arrests, CIA and FBI-operated facilities, promotion of sectarian violence and divide between Sunnis and Shias in the Islamic World—radicalizing the Western Christians against the Muslims.
It was because of the dual strategy of Bush through phony war on terror, and on the other side, response of Al-Qaeda militants by clandestine terror attacks, as shown through a number of the past suicidal missions such as on Indonesian resort island of Bali, Saudi Arabia, Spain etc., and a series of bomb attacks on London’s transport network, including those ones in other Afro-Asian countries have clearly pointed out that Al-Qaeda was organized on world level. But, the outfit lost control on its affiliated militant groups. Al-Qaeda’s decimated old guard may no longer be able to mount elaborately detailed plots, executed by other trained terrorists of various new groups which claim their links with Al-Qaeda, but, are not under its direct command. For example, in Somalia—splitting away of a hardliner-faction Al-Shabaab is an offshoot of the Islamic Courts Union, though the US defined Al-Shabaab as Al-Qaida allies.
In this connection, in March 2004, the former CIA Director, George Tenet said, “Al-Qaeda has become a loose collection of regional networks working autonomously-[they] pick their own targets, they plan their own attacks…in this new phase of franchise terrorism, Al-Qaeda has been described as an idea rather than an organization.”
It is mentionable that some Holocaust deniers claim, “The mass extermination of the Jews by the Nazis never happened…the Nazi command had a policy of deporting Jews, not exterminating them”, while some remark that the number of Jewish losses has been greatly exaggerated…that the Holocaust was not systematic nor a result of an official policy…only 600,000 Jews were killed rather than six million. All Jews were not killed through gas chambers, but also due to hunger, diseases and depression.”
On the one hand, the Jews have made the Holocaust the greatest device of gaining sympathy, while, on the other, they have used it for wars, anti-Muslim policies, expansion and foreign-aid, and to fulfill the Zionist ambition of greater Israel. With the support of American-Zionist Jews who manipulate the Holocaust, Israel has also become the sixth strongest military power of the world owing to the US assistance.
Once Henry Kissinger stated “legitimacy is not natural or automatic, but created.” Under the cover of the 9/11 tragedy, the US President George W. Bush who was in collaboration with the neo-conservatives and the Zionist Jews, orchestrated the drama of global war on terror to obtain the illegitimate interests of Israel by targeting the Islamic countries and persecution of the Muslims.
Bush who used the words, “crusade against the evil-doers” adding to the perception that the ongoing ‘different war’ against terrorism is actually a war against the Muslim countries also warned the world to choose sides by saying, “either you are with us or with terrorists.” It was due to employment of pressure-diplomacy on the weak states—Muslim countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Libya etc., including almost all the Arab states joined Bush’s anti-terrorism war. By manipulating the 9/11 carnage, Bush also got the sympathies of almost all the major Western countries, including NATO states which also joined the fake global war on terror.
By justifying the unjustified war on terror, several Muslim countries were deliberately destabilized and converted into concentration camps to attain the political, economic and religious goals of the Jews and Israel. For the purpose, double game and false flag operations which still continue became the part of the American CIA, Israeli Mossad and Indian RAW.
In case of Iraq, many of the Iraqis including some members of the former Interim Governing Council were shocked at the violence in Fallujah. Even the US weekly, ‘Newsweek’ admitted in its publication of April 19/April 26, 2004 that the US forces “used very heavy hand in Fallujah where more than 400 people were killed. Four members of the [former] Governing Council resigned in a protest against America’s crackdown in Fallujah…according to doctors figure of the deaths was impossible to check and it is more than 400…an airstrike dropped a 500 pound bomb. Arab language TV claimed that the bomb killed more than a score of civilians at prayer.”
Like Afghanistan, American soldiers also massacred several wounded people and civilians in Iraq. In November, 2004, a number of world’s televised channels including those of America showed footage of a US marine who was shooting and killing an already captive and wounded Iraqi prisoner at close range in a mosque in Fallujah where civilians had taken shelter.
No one can deny the fact that these were the worst examples of the US-led state terrorism or use of abnormal force.
It is of particular attention that the US-led troops, assisted by CIA have carried out indiscriminate mass round-ups in catching up suspected Muslim men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, including some Arab countries without evidence. Mossad has helped the CIA officials in arresting the Muslim men, having beard and ladies, wearing scarves. Besides Guantanamo Bay and Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison, CIA torture cells were present in several Islamic countries and were also set up in ships where US secret agencies and military personnel employed various methods of torture on the militants and suspected persons like physical violence and even murder. American notorious private military firm Blackwater also eliminated countless Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When America implemented the suggested plan of Rand Corporation and sparked a civil war (Sectarian violence) between the Sunnis and Shias in wake of war on terror to promote the objectives of Israel in the Muslim World, the horrible scenes of deaths were witnessed in Pakistan and especially in Iraq. In March, 2013, an investigative report by the British Guardian/BBC disclosed that acting under the direction of the top US officials; the CIA utilized a global network of secret prisons, foreign intelligence agents and torture centers in various Islamic countries including Belgium, Thailand etc. where torture was conducted directly by American intelligence operatives.
The report also mentioned atrocities of the US-backed entities, carried out in Bagram Airbase (Afghanistan), Guantanamo and Iraq—unleashed a deadly sectarian militia which terrorized the Sunni community and germinated a civil war between Sunnis and Shias, and claimed tens of thousands of lives.
It revealed, “At the height of that sectarian conflict, 3,000 bodies a month were strewn on the streets of Iraq. Rounding up Sunnis in American pickup trucks, the captives were thrown into secret prisons established in libraries, airports, and ministries. Anti-occupation politicians, human rights activists, and journalists were murdered. The purpose was also to terrorize ordinary Iraqis who opposed the US occupation.”
In this regard, the report focuses on the role of retired Colonel James Steele who worked with the Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Gen. David Petraeus who also served as Obama’s CIA director. Steele sent regular memos to Donald Rumsfeld who forwarded them to Vice-President Dick Cheney and President George Bush, while, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died and millions were displaced as a result of the chaos and brutal practices.
As exact details of the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq are not available due to the Jewish controlled media and their dominated concerned strategic institutes, some independent organizations have published their reports on the basis of randomly selected interviews of the household persons and the military officials. Some reports suggest that more than 3 million people including civilians died in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Following his predecessor, President Barack Obama had also continued the ruthless killings of the Muslims to complete the unfinished agenda of the Zionist Jews and Israel. Apart from air strikes on funerals, marriage-ceremonies and mosques in Afghanistan, and extrajudicial killings of the innocent people through illegal CIA-operated drone attacks in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen etc. in general and Pakistan in particular, he converted Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. into concentration camps. As part of the US double game, CIA which created Al-Qaeda and then ISIL, including Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and Syrian rebel groups in fighting against the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iraqi regime is responsible for the mass murder of more than 7 million Muslims and Christians who were killed in civil wars—ground and aerial strikes of the US-led Western countries, including various terrorism-related assaults like suicide attacks and bomb blasts, conducted by Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Besides, during the phony global war on terror, in these countries and Afghanistan and Iraq, especially in Syria, millions of Muslims became homeless. The plight of refugees—countless deaths, particularly of children owing to lack of medical treatment and starvation has displayed the holocaust on larger scale.
It is worth-mentioning that through the war against terrorism, President Bush and Obama provided a golden chance to Israel and India to accelerate the systematic genocide of the Palestinians and Kashmiris in the occupied territories of Palestine and Kashmir. Their forces have been employing military terrorism such as curfews, crackdowns, sieges, massacre and targeted killings to maintain alien rule on these territories.
In the recent years, the US-backed military regime in Burma (present Myanmar) has broken all the record of religious cleansing by encouraging Rakhine extremist Buddhists who butchered thousands of the Burmese Muslims belonging to the Rohingya Muslim through various brutal methods of torture. Eye witnesses disclosed that Buddhist extremists who are in majority in the country, torched several mosques, shops and houses of Muslims, while Burmese military and police have been found involved in genocide, targeted killings, disappearances and rape of Muslim women. Indian RAW which is in collaboration with the CIA and Mossad was behind the genocide of the Muslims.
According to reports, nearly one and half million Rohingya Muslims have been murdered since June 28, 2012, while more than 20,0000 are missing.
It is noteworthy that since September 2015, Russian-led coalition of Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-based Hezbollah has broken the backbone of the CIA-Mossad-assisted ISIS terrorists, Al-Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and the rebel groups. Russian-supported Assad’s forces and Iraqi troops have retaken several territories from the control of the rebels and the ISIS terrorists who are on flee in Syria and Iraq. Recently, Iraqi forces have recaptured the city of Mosul by defeating the ISIL militants. Very soon, through the skilful diplomacy, Russian President Vladimir Putin will liberate entire Iraq and Syria from the control of the US and Israeli supported non-state actors. Moscow which is destroying the pillars of the New World Order has also exposed the sinister designs of Washington and Tel Aviv against the Muslims and the international community.
In this backdrop, there is an interrelationship of the terror attacks in the US, Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Philippines etc., and elsewhere in the world, which were false flag terror assaults, conducted by Mossad in connivance with the agents of Indian RAW and those of the vulnerable CIA operatives.
Through all these false flag terror operations, the US and Israel wanted to obtain their covert aims against Russia and the Muslims. Mossad had also provided the US President Donald Trump with an opportunity to manipulate various terror assaults of Europe and America to win the US presidential election and to reunite America and Europe, as a rift was created between America and its Western allies, especially Europe on a number of issues. And, pro-Israeli President Donald Trump have left no stone unturned in implementing anti-Muslim policies, while speaking openly against the Muslims and Syrian refugees.
Nevertheless, Israeli Mossad which was in collaboration with the vulnerable CIA operatives, particularly, organized terror assaults in the US and Europe. As part of the double game, these terror attacks were conducted by these secret agencies, especially Mossad with the assistance of the ISIS terrorists who used the home-grown terrorists of these countries. Main aims of the Mossad were to reunite Europe and America and keep NATO united, and to divert the attention of their public from internal crises and a prolonged war in Afghanistan. Other purposes of Tel Aviv were to muster the support of America’s Western allies against Russia in relation to the Syrian war and to instigate the Western Christians, particularly those of Europe against the Muslims. Exaggeration of the threat of Islamophia and persecution of the Muslims in America and these countries might be cited as instance.
Another regrettable point is that irresponsible attitude of Indian, Israeli and some Western politicians has introduced dangerous socio-religious dimension in their societies by equating the “war on terror” with “war on Islam” and acts of Al-Qaeda and ISIS with all the Muslims. Their media have also been contributing to heighten the currents of world politics on cultural and religious lines with the negative projection of Islam.
Although overtly President Trump has softened his external policy regarding Muslims and Islamic countries to some extent, yet covertly, he is acting upon the conspiracy of Mossad and RAW, which is, intentionally or unintentionally, being followed by America’s Western partners against the Muslims. If not checked in time by the peace-loving Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Buddhists, these policies of the President Donald Trump who is particularly completing the extremist agenda of Israel are likely to result into more recruitment in the militant outfits, especially in the ISIS group, inspiring the extremist Muslims for more terrorism-related attacks. Israel, who will never accept the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, will prefer to seek the final revenge by bringing about a major war between the Muslim and the Christian worlds or to cause a nuclear war between Russia and the US-led some Western countries.
Nonetheless, the Holocaust warriors who created holy warriors to fight against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan are likely to create more holy warriors, while dividing the nations on religious lines which would convert the whole world into holocaust.
Speaking to Israeli TV, American businessman describes how he bought Twin Towers 7 weeks before the 2001 terror attacks, and how a dermatologist appointment saved his life that day
Ahead of the 20th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, American businessman Larry Silverstein recounted to an Israeli television network how he had purchased the Twin Towers in New York just seven weeks before they came down, how he himself survived by a “miracle,” and how he announced his intention to rebuild the World Trade Center just two days later.
Silverstein, 90, told Channel 13 news in an interview aired Tuesday that he had decided to purchase the World Trade Center buildings in Lower Manhattan in July 2001 because “I saw it as a vast opportunity, and that’s why we paid 3.2 billion dollars to acquire it.”
The buildings, which Silverstein leased for 99 years, collapsed just seven weeks later when Islamist terrorists crashed planes into each of the Twin Towers, killing 2,606 people.
“The day was a terrible day for the world,” Silverstein said. “Miraculously, I’m alive. I’m here, which is a miracle.”
In the weeks after the purchase, Silverstein would regularly meet some of the World Trade Center tenants at a restaurant on one of the upper floors, he said.
“So that morning, I was dressing to get downtown to meet with one of the tenants, and my wife said: ‘You can’t go.’ And I said: ‘Why? I have an appointment downtown.’ She said: ‘Because I made an appointment for you with a dermatologist, and that’s something you canceled last month and you cannot cancel again.’
“When you’re married for 45 years to the same woman and she gets upset, you can’t let that happen,” Silverstein said.
That appointment ended up saving his life.
Silverstein said he had made up his mind to rebuild almost immediately after the attack.
He said he told his wife: “Sweetheart, I think we’re gonna have to rebuild this, and the sooner we get on with it, the better.”
“I remember the governor, [then-New York] Governor [George] Pataki, calling me, I think two days after 9/11, asking me what I think we oughta do, should we rebuild,” Silverstein recounted. “And I said, Governor, I think we must. I really think it’s absolutely obligatory. We’ve gotta put this back as quickly as we possibly can.
“It was, I think, two weeks after 9/11 that our first design meeting was [held],” he added. “I brought everyone back for the redesign of this building, Seven World Trade Center, because this was the last building to come down on 9/11, and we decided it was the first building that was gonna go back up after 9/11.”
Seven World Trade Center was a smaller building that collapsed on the day of the attack, due to the damage caused by the collapse of the two towers.
Silverstein hailed the success of the rebuilt World Trade Center, saying it had helped transform the area back into a bustling business center.
“The quality of what’s here has totally changed, the neighborhood’s changed,” he said. “There are so many families living here right now. All kinds of new apartment houses. A completely different environment here, in Lower Manhattan. And 28 percent of the people who live here work here at the Trade Center or work downtown. That’s the highest work-live ratio in the entire United States.”
THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.
Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.
Five Israelis were seen filming as jet liners ploughed into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 … 1st November 2003
THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.
Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.
Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.
After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for US-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.” Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy for Israel from Americans.”
If Israel’s closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the world’s only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the second intifada dragged on throughout 2001.
It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the day unfold.
As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you know … they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”
Maria jotted down the van’s registration and called the police. The FBI was alerted and soon there was a statewide all points bulletin put out for the apprehension of the van and its occupants. The cops traced the number, establishing that it belonged to a company called Urban Moving.
Police Chief John Schmidig said: “We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down.”
By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey’s Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their 20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and handcuffed.
In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19 hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert. The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”
His name was Sivan Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzberg’s brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred out of the custody of the FBI’s Criminal Division and into the hands of their Foreign Counterintelligence Section – the bureau’s anti-espionage squad.
A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in New Jersey. Boxes of papers and computers were removed. The FBI questioned the firm’s Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to re-interview him a few days later, he was gone. An employee of Urban Moving said his co-workers had laughed about the Manhattan attacks the day they happened. “I was in tears,” the man said. “These guys were joking and that bothered me. These guys were like, Now America knows what we go through.'”
Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the US intelligence community believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was speculation over whether Urban Moving had been “set up or exploited for the purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”.
This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers – simply that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen, but effectively did nothing to help stop them.
After the owner vanished, the offices of Urban Moving looked as if they’d been closed down in a big hurry. Mobile phones were littered about, the office phones were still connected and the property of at least a dozen clients were stacked up in the warehouse. The owner had cleared out his family home in New Jersey and returned to Israel.
Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months. Some went into solitary confinement, all underwent two polygraph tests and at least one underwent up to seven lie detector sessions before they were eventually deported at the end of November 2001. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a lie detector test for 10 weeks, but then failed it. His lawyer said he was reluctant to take the test as he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in another country.
Nevertheless, their lawyer, Ram Horvitz, dismissed the allegations as “stupid and ridiculous”. Yet US government sources still maintained that the Israelis were collecting information on the fundraising activities of groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mark Regev, of the Israeli embassy in Washington, would have none of that and he said the allegations were “simply false”. The men themselves claimed they’d read about the World Trade Centre attacks on the internet, couldn’t see it from their office and went to the parking lot for a better view. Their lawyers and the embassy say their ghoulish and sinister celebrations as the Twin Towers blazed and thousands died were due to youthful foolishness.
The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002, however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a US official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what he told The Forward: “The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it.” He added that “the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on local Arabs”, but the men were released because they “did not know anything about 9/11”.
Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: “The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event.” But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?
We are now deep in conspiracy theory territory. But there is more than a little circumstantial evidence to show that Mossad – whose motto is “By way of deception, thou shalt do war” – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented the terror attacks.
Following September 11, 2001, more than 60 Israelis were taken into custody under the Patriot Act and immigration laws. One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were “tie-ins” between the Israelis and September 11; the hint was clearly that they’d gathered intelligence on the planned attacks but kept it to themselves.
The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified information.” Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it’s a ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch and was President Bush’s main cheerleader in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.
Another group of around 140 Israelis were detained prior to September 11, 2001, in the USA as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring run by Israel inside the USA. Government documents refer to the spy ring as an “organised intelligence-gathering operation” designed to “penetrate government facilities”. Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel. Nevertheless, a number had an intelligence background.
The first glimmerings of an Israeli spying exercise in the USA came to light in spring 2001, when the FBI sent a warning to other federal agencies alerting them to be wary of visitors calling themselves “Israeli art students” and attempting to bypass security at federal buildings in order to sell paintings. A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) report suggested the Israeli calls “may well be an organised intelligence-gathering activity”. Law enforcement documents say that the Israelis “targeted and penetrated military bases” as well as the DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, including secret offices and the unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.
number of Israelis questioned by the authorities said they were students from Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, but Pnina Calpen, a spokeswoman for the Israeli school, did not recognise the names of any Israelis mentioned as studying there in the past 10 years. A federal report into the so-called art students said many had served in intelligence and electronic signal intercept units during their military service.
According to a 61-page report, drafted after an investigation by the DEA and the US immigration service, the Israelis were organised into cells of four to six people. The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted “according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells”.
The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams. The pair had settled in Hollywood, Florida, along with three other hijackers, after leaving Hamburg – where another Mossad team was operating close by.
Hollywood in Florida is a town of just 25,000 souls. The French intelligence report says the leader of the Mossad cell in Florida rented apartments “right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi”. More than a third of the Israeli “art students” claimed residence in Florida. Two other Israelis connected to the art ring showed up in Fort Lauderdale. At one time, eight of the hijackers lived just north of the town.
Put together, the facts do appear to indicate that Israel knew that 9/11, or at least a large-scale terror attack, was about to take place on American soil, but did nothing to warn the USA. But that’s not quite true. In August 2001, the Israelis handed over a list of terrorist suspects – on it were the names of four of the September 11 hijackers. Significantly, however, the warning said the terrorists were planning an attack “outside the United States”.
The Israeli embassy in Washington has dismissed claims about the spying ring as “simply untrue”. The same denials have been issued repeatedly by the five Israelis seen high-fiving each other as the World Trade Centre burned in front of them.
Their lawyer, Ram Horwitz, insisted his clients were not intelligence officers. Irit Stoffer, the Israeli foreign minister, said the allegations were “completely untrue”. She said the men were arrested because of “visa violations”, adding: “The FBI investigated those cases because of 9/11.”
Jim Margolin, an FBI spokesman in New York, implied that the public would never know the truth, saying: “If we found evidence of unauthorised intelligence operations that would be classified material.” Yet, Israel has long been known, according to US administration sources, for “conducting the most aggressive espionage operations against the US of any US ally”. Seventeen years ago, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian working for the American Navy, was jailed for life for passing secrets to Israel. At first, Israel claimed Pollard was part of a rogue operation, but the government later took responsibility for his work.
It has always been a long-accepted agreement among allies – such as Britain and America or America and Israel – that neither country will jail a “friendly spy” nor shame the allied country for espionage. Chip Berlet, a senior analyst at Boston’s Political Research Associates and an expert in intelligence, says: “It’s a backdoor agreement between allies that says that if one of your spies gets caught and didn’t do too much harm, he goes home. It goes on all the time. The official reason is always visa violation.”
What we are left with, then, is fact sullied by innuendo. Certainly, it seems, Israel was spying within the borders of the United States and it is equally certain that the targets were Islamic extremists probably linked to September 11. But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to strike its enemies almost without limit? That’s a conspiracy theory too far, perhaps. But the unpleasant feeling that, in this age of spin and secrets, we do not know the full and unadulterated truth won’t go away. Maybe we can guess, but it’s for the history books to discover and decide.
The vile assassination of Darya Dugina, or terror at the gates of Moscow, is not really solved – as much as the FSB seems to have cracked the case in a little over 24 hours.
It’s now established that the main perpetrator, Azov batallion asset Natalia Vovk, did not act alone but had an Ukrainian sidekick, one Bogdan Tsyganenko, who provided false license plates for the Mini Cooper she was driving and helped to assemble a crude car bomb inside a rented garage in the southwest of Moscow.
According to the FSB, Vovk followed the Dugin family to the Tradition festival, and detonated the car bomb by remote control. The only missing pieces seem to be when the bomb was placed under Dugin’s SUV, and by whom; and whether such a sophisticated cross-border targeted assassination was aimed at both father and daughter.
As recalled by geopolitical analyst Manlio Dinucci, even the Los Angeles Times had made it public that “since 2015, the CIA has been training Ukrainian intelligence agents in a secret facility in the United States”.
Russian intel was more than aware of it. In fact, in an interview to Italian media in December 2021, Darya Dugina herself, based on FSB information, revealed, “they had identified 106 Ukrainian agents who were preparing attacks and massacres in 37 regions of Russia.”
Yet now a high-ranking member of Russian intel – who for obvious reasons must remain anonymous – has shed some information that, in his words, “will add the whole picture to this incident.”
It goes without saying that this is as much as he’s been allowed to reveal by his superiors. According to his analysis, “the tragedy was in the evening. In the next two days the FSB shared the whole data about SBU people who were involved with the incident. The majority of people think that it was a political kill. There are a lot of political kills in Ukraine but this tragedy has no political root. It is actually connected to organized crime money flow.”
The source asserts, “Darya was inside the patriotic movement and had connections in Moscow and Donetsk area. As you know there is a large money flow to the Donbas to restore the economy. This huge money flow provides an extreme incentive for criminal activity. Donetsk crime organizations are more dangerous than others because they operate in the war territory. Thus, someone was afraid that Darya was going to compromise money flow schemes by making this public.”
The source makes the important point that “Boris Nemtsov [a key actor in the liberal reforms imposed on post-Soviet Russia] was also killed by an organized crime group who was afraid that he might compromise some money flow schemes by making them public despite the fact that he was a quite powerful politician. Also [journalist] Anna Politkovkaya. She was given $900,000.00 in cash at Chubais election office during the election days for a political purpose. But some other guys knew it and grabbed the bag. She was slain.”
Disclosure: I prize my friendship with Alexander Dugin – we met in person in Iran, Lebanon and Russia: a towering intellectual and extremely sensitive spirit, eons away from the crude stereotype of “Putin’s brain” or worse, “Putin’s Rasputin” slapped on him by Western media sub-zoology specimens. His vision of Eurasianism should be granted the merit of an ample intellectual discussion, a real dialogue of civilizations. But obviously the current woke incarnation of the collective West lacks the sophistication to engage in real debate. So he’s been demonized to Kingdom Come.
Darya, who I had the honor to meet in Moscow, was a young, shining star with an ebullient personality who graduated in History of Philosophy at Moscow University: her main research was on the political philosophy of late Neoplatonism. Obviously that had nothing to do with the profile of a ruthless operative capable of “compromising” money flows. She did not seem to understand finance, much less “dark” financial ops. What she did understand is how the Ukrainian battlefield mirrored a larger than life clash of civilizations: globalism against Eurasianism.
Back to the assertions by the Russian intel agent, they cannot be simply dismissed. For instance, at the time he came up with the definitive version of the hit on the Moskva – the flagship of the Russian Black Sea fleet.
As he emailed to a select audience, “the destruction of the flagship of the fleet was planned as a strategic task. Therefore, the operation of delivering the PKR [anti-ship missile] to Odessa took place in strict secrecy and under the cover of electronic warfare. As the ‘killer’ of the cruiser, they chose the PKR, but not the Neptune, as spread by Ukrainian propaganda, but the fifth-generation NSM PKR (Naval Strike Missile, range of destruction 185 km, developed by Norway-USA). The NSM is able to reach the target along a programmed route thanks to the GPS-adjusted INS, independently find the target by flying up to it at an altitude of 3-5 meters. When reaching the target, the NSM maneuvers and puts electronic interference. A highly sensitive thermal imager is used as a homing system, which independently determines the most vulnerable places of the target ship. A stationary container installation secretly delivered to Ukraine was used as a launcher. Thus, after the damage to the cruiser Moskva, which led to its flooding (…) the Black Sea Fleet, unfortunately, no longer has a single ship with a long-range anti-aircraft missile system. But not everything is so bad. A three-band radar ‘Sky-M’ is located in Crimea, which is capable of tracking all air targets at a range of up to 600 km.”
So there you go. The hit on the Moskva was a NATO operation, ordered by the U.S. The Russian Ministry of Defense knows – and the Americans know they know. Retaliation will come – in the time and place of Moscow’s choosing.
The same will apply to the response for Darya Dugina’s assassination. As it stands, we may have 3 hypotheses.
The FSB official story, pointing to the SBU in Kiev. The FSB is obviously revealing only a fraction of what they know.
The high-level Russian intel agent pointing towards organized crime.
The usual Zionist suspects – who loathe Dugin for his fierce anti-globalism: and that would point to a Mossad operation, who in many aspects enjoys way more qualified local intel in Russia than the CIA and MI6.
A fourth hypothesis would point to a perfect storm: a confluence of interests of all the above organized crime syndicates. Once again, resorting to hegemonic American pop culture, and to borrow from Twin Peaks; “The owls are not what they seem”. Black ops can also reveal themselves as much darker than what they seem.
This exercise is a demonstration in how charitable donations are channeled through the “Not-For-Profit Industrial Compex.” We will see a donation flow through a series of conflicts of interest which would violate a tax-exempt status obtained via IRS Form 1023.
Note: these four diagrams I made for the purpose of this demonstration are used in a zoomed in presentation further into the blog post.
The Bottom Line:
Upon disbursement of the cash proceeds to an NPO to meet the pledge of a charitable contribution by another business entity, the round-robin begins in terms of the pass through of that very cash within the realm of the Nonprofit(NPO) world and it’s vendors, creditors, donors and beyond. And I am going to show you how charitable contributions made to these tax exempt NPOs generate more than just virtue signaling clout (for donating to “a good cause”) and a tax deduction to be used to offset taxable income for the entity making the donation. The following is a simple diagram of the clockwork-like movement of the cash donation (as you read on, you will be blown away how this – with all of its conflicts of interest) – is achieved through the manipulation of regulatory compliance loopholes that are exploited in a manner to such a tactful, involved degree – that the IRS simply does not have the investigative capacity to detect and investigate conflicts of interest that arise between related parties.
The following diagram is the simplistic summary of the dissection of the anatomy of how this round-robin of the cash donation made by the for-profit entity (earning them an income tax benefit) – how this cash quite literally returns to them during the ordinary course of business operations:
Globalization and the Financialization of the US Economy
The business community at large, both Wall Street and ‘Main Street”, has undergone radical, disruptive change at an exponential rate in the last 30+/+ years. Globalization is the term that sums it up best. Through globalization, the world has witnessed the evisceration of the middle class (small businesses swallowed up by the likes of Walmart), the funneling of financial capital poured into and under control of the BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street holy trinity of fuckery, the fiat-based world reserve currency, the USD, rely more and more to its Petrodollar tether -and we have begun to see the multipolarity (China-Russia-Iran-Syria asymmetrical defense against Neo-Liberal policy), the exportation of manufacturing and industry labor from the US to areas across the globe – further erasing America’s middle class.
The global financial system has a billion guns firing rounds at the encroaching outside world attempts to get close to any reform. And the system’s ammunition supply is eternal.
We have also learned (beyond the 2008 financial crisis) of the elaborate schemes of the greedy Think Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme, where some $65 BILLION disappeared in thin air. Then Enron’s labyrinth of subsidiary “variable interest entities” that kept the SEVENTH MOST VALUABLE company on the planet afloat until the charade came crashing down like a lead zeppelin and with it wiped out employee benefit pension funds. It is also of extreme importance to note how Arthur Anderson LLP, Enron’s financial statement auditor, in an aggregation of rogue behavior of which the sum forced the firm (then one of the “Big Five” global public accounting firms) to lose its licenses as certified public accountants in all 50 states here in the US. Funnily enough, the remnants of Arthur Anderson LLP is now known as the global risk management behemoth Accenture (yes that Accenture – one of Klaus Schwab’s “yes men” for the Great Reset project.
The global financial Rabbical class does not face repercussions from the regulatory compliance federal agencies (ie IRS, SEC) as it has continued where 2008 left off – only this time, circa current year, since the likes of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, HSBC, Citigroup, etc have adapted to the preferences of Twitter Blue Checks – sponsoring, promoting and injecting charitable contributions into the SJW causes of BLM, LBGTQ+++ and “ESG” (Environmental, Social, Governance) disclosures to their results of operations, much to the delight of the Church of the Woke, to Davos and to shitbags like Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Skate, Time Magazine, AOC, GQ Magazine, The View, CNN, Nancy Pelosi, NASA, Code Pink, countless genderfluid queers (since the aforementioned financial institutions human resource policies on diversity mirror the sentiments of the book “White Fragility.”
Globalization has left the world unrecognizable to the eyes of someone from 1954, if that person had a time machine and came to 2021 and saw the delights of Clown World’s Piss Earth and all of its glory. We know these things. The objective of this bog post is to demonstrate little known (to the ordinary people) some of the financial chicanery that is heavily capitalized upon by the global financial philanthro-capitalist elite.
The True Beneficiaries of Tax Exempt Paradigm
Since the financial institutions and private equity firms, in aggregate, through the process of gradualization, have procured enough shares in the companies of the S&P 500 that they have a material ownership in these businesses when viewing this financial mafia as a collective. Classic weapons of momentum based trading are rigged to work in their favor. For instance, speculation, arbitrage, futures, options, other derivatives – the movement of these mechanisms are often driven by a predetermined course of action put in play by the major shareholders, more over, by the institutions that own and operate the financial capital infrastructure that investment activity is conducted upon.
Ownership and Cumulative Voting
An aspect that the the shoddy, shitty, oven-tier “financial reporting” done by the likes of shitlib websites like Quartz, Buzzfeed, Slate, Salon, Mother Jones – how even Business Insider, NY Times, Washington Post, etc – even CNBC Financial News spends very little emphasis on the non-financial advantage that a large stake of ownership of shares in a publicly traded company affords the owners: VOTING – that is, each share represents a vote in the direction of the affairs on the company in a process called cumulative voting. The scope of what types of changes in the direction of a company are decided at shareholder quorums is far too detailed to examine for the sake of this exercise. One of the typical critical outcomes of a shareholder total vote is the appointment of the Board of the Directors.
Primary Distinction: For-Profit v Nonprofit
A for-profit business carries out business operations with the objective to maximize shareholder wealth. In a for-profit company, the objective of conducting business operations is to maximize shareholder wealth. Through the cumulative, shareholder voting, the Board of Directors is appointed. Keep in mind that the majority shareholders (who can coordinate alliances with other significant shareholders who share the same vision for the immediate direction of the company both have invested in) a Director can be elected who is actually one of those shareholders or who works on behalf of those very shareholders). Thus we have a consortium of investors with an a shared philosophical vision of how the company partially under their ownership should be run.
A nonprofit business carries out business operations with the objective of supporting its “Mission Statement.” The Mission Statement is the formal and specific reason for the NPO’s creation in the first place. The Mission Statement is the humanitarian/charitable/etc cause the NPO is serving. For example, the objective of helping people that are homeless to obtain access to food, medical services, temporary shelter and ultimately a place to call home – this is the Mission Statement of the NPO. The NPO is in operation to achieve the Mission Statement.
More Financial Napalm
To continue, the lesser known yet highly abused financial weapons of Wall Street include the use of insider information, lobbying to persuade and gain political clout, exotic derivatives (which are no different than gambling, frankly). In the private equity realm there are constant hostile takeovers, mergers/acquisitions/divestures, the use of litigation to seize the intellectual property of businesses that are the targets of takeovers. Allow us not to omit the off-shore treasury mechanisms that are employed as standard operating procedure in circumventing income tax liabilities and also in shielding the identities – through a network of dormant corporate entities connected to other dormant entities- the true owners of business operations engaging in questionable business ethics.
Well of course they are! That’s exactly how the financial ruling class became and maintains their stature as the financial ruling class – manipulation of loopholes, bending the interpretation of business laws – this is what the high powered international litigation attorneys are paid for…to protect the actions of the BlackRocks, the Bains and the Boston Consulting Consulting Group from being penalized.
With regards to the weapons of financial capital, the weapons cache has no end.
The Nonprofit Organization (NPO), too is a Weapon of Financialization courtesy of Globalization. How did this happen?
The nonprofit business entity is another one of these weapons, it is well known, that for-profit corporations, wealthy individuals, “philanthropists” will make charitable contributions to tax exempt organizations that will serve the aim of appearing to “support noble causes” in tandem with generating an alleviation of income tax liabilities – “charitable contributions eligible for tax deductions.” It is here that I will illustrate to you a much more potent explosivity that the realm of nonprofit world provides to its participants.
Brief Outline of the Nonprofit (NPO) and Tax Exemption
The NPO gains an income tax exempt status because it is a business operation that is for a charitable cause. The NPO is operating for the common good, therefore, imposing income tax stipulations would hinder the ability of the NPO to serve that purpose.
There is a common misconception that the NPO is “nonprofit” because it does not “make any money.” This is not the case – the NPO most certainly generates profits, however, there are no owners of the NPO. There are no shareholders.
Structuring the Weapon Deployment
In this example, there are three primary business entities involved:
The Charitable Contributor: a For-Profit professional services parent company – the company holds the ownership of two specific subsidiary operations,one a business advisory firm, the other a risk management firm.
Receiver of the Charitable Contribution: Nonprofit Entity (with Tax Exempt status.)
For-profit property investment parent company – the company holds the ownership of three subsidiaries; a real estate holding company, a property management company and a valuation firm.
The above diagram indicates the basic organizational charts and layout of the three entities.
Sequence of Events and Transactions:
In my professional experience as an auditor of the financial statements, it was quite common to see interplay between the different businesses, as one would serve the other in the capacities such as vendor, creditor, client, landlord, etc. I have placed numbers next to each KEY EVENT – of which the first conflict of interest sets in motion a manipulative scheme which intertwines “Related Parties” that ultimately conduct transactions with one another.
Structuring the Rogue Events (arrangements)
The diagram illustrates the flow of events (of which underlying assumptions will be explained below in further detail:
Diagram: Events (decision making capacity shifts, obligations created, contracts executed):
The Property Investment conglomerate owns and operates it’s three subsidiary operations. The subsidiary of focus here is the Valuation Co. The underlying assumption is that each specific operation has its own Executive Management group, which answers to the Board of Directors at the parent level. An Executive from the Valuation Firm is appointed to the Board of Directors of the the Risk Management subsidiary of the Professional Services Conglomerate.
The Board of Directors makes the broad based decisions about the best direction for the business entity to take. This includes decisions about Charitable Contributions – if to make them, to which Nonprofit to make them to, the amount to donate, etc. It is not a secret that nepotism plays a most significant role in terms of which NPO is selected as the beneficiary of a charitable contribution. Two benefits realized by the donor by making the donation are:
Income Tax Deduction for the fiscal year.
Virtue signaling clout by supporting charitable cause.
In the example I have illustrated, we have see that the management executive of the Valuation Co has joined the Board of Directors of the Professional Services Conglomerate. With nepotism a factor, with persuasive efforts, this Executive has gotten the Board of Directors to make the charitable contribution to the particular nonprofit. The process here will include alot of back channel communications – in order to avoid documentation of the gleaming conflict of interest that will arise from the following arrangements.
The grant letter with the pledge to make the grant can contain a provision that the proceeds of the grant must be used for the rent of office space for the NPO. This is a temporarily restricted form of revenue for the NPO.
It is, again, during the back channel communications that there is a determination made in advance that in order for the NPO to recieve this charitable contribution, it must sign a lease agreement for office space with the subsidiary “Real Estate Holding Co”
Notice thru the direction of the red arrows that the Executive from the Valuation Co (subsidiary of the Property Investment Conglomerate Parent Company) had been instrumental in bringing this deal into the fold.
The major conflict of interest is that he is on the Board of Directors of the company making the charitable contribution. A stipulation of the use of the cash disbursement that will come from the contribution is that the funds must be allocated towards the eventual lease payments made for office space – office space owned by the Real Estate Holding Co, which is owned by the same parent company as the Valuation Co. the Executive comes from!!!
Finally, there is a consulting agreement entered into between the Property Management subsidiary of the Property Investment Parent Company and the Business Advisory firm of the Professional Services Parent Company making the charitable contribution.
The flow of the charitable contribution to be transacted in the first place (due to the Executive from the Valuation Co presence on the Board of Directors of the Risk Management subsidiary of the Professional Services Parent Company ) is going from the Professional Services Parent Company, to the NPO, to the Real Estate Holding Co – a subsidiary of the Property Investment Parent Company.
The consulting agreement has the Business Advisory Firm performing services for the Property Management subsidiary of the Property Investment Parent Company (which through the consolidation of subsidiaries into the parent company, is in essence the recipient of the rents received from the NPO).
The following diagram is the path of the cash proceeds – once disbursement of the charitable contribution has been made. The path of the cash proceeds follows the same route as the preceding events(arrangements) only green arrows are used to designate the fact that cash is now on the move.
Finally, we see that the entity that made the charitable contribution has not only wound up as an ultimate beneficiary of the arrangement – having cash it donated having a destination within the very coffers of the point of origination. We also see that the contribution itself generated an income tax benefit (taxable income deduction) that will be able to be utilized at the time of filing the annual income tax return.
Conclusion: all three top level entities benefit:
Property Investment Conglomerate:
Procures Board of Directors position on a major Professional Services Conglomerate’s upper echelon. This is the type of networking that allows for the type of related party transactions with glaring conflicts of interest to persist and persist – to the point they become normalized and overlooked by the regulatory compliance outfit designed to prevent these arrangements (the IRS).
In having it’s Real Estate Holding Co have one of its properties rented out by the NPO, this covers the costs associated with the operation and the attainment of the equity in the office building (we assume there is a mortgage being paid on the office space).
By leasing office space to the NPO, it is scoring it’s virtue signaling clout hosting a “worthy cause” – which in the world of NPOs, curries good favor with the potential of procuring other NPO tenants in the future.
The services rendered by the Business Advisory Firm of the Professional Services Conglomerate enhanced the operations of the Property Management subsidiary, resulting in another value add.
NPO (Tax Exempt):
The NPO has established a relationship with a new charitable contributor, which is the most vital aspect to the going concern. The NPO is reliant upon grants, contributions, donations and minor service fees earned as forms of revenue to carry out it’s mission statement for the fiscal year.
The tendency in the realm of NPOs is that once serious For-profit business operations are making charitable contributions to an NPO, it is a rule of thumb that in the future more and more reputable entities will take an interest in the making charitable contributions as well (and keep in mind the clandestine inner-deals arranged by the parties involved – THIS IS THE MOST ATTRACTIVE FEATURE OF THE NPO! THE ABILITY TO STRUCTURE ROGUE FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE GUISE OF CHARITY!!!)
Professional Services Conglomerate:
What more needs to be said here? The company made a charitable contribution (which as a bonus has afforded them a year-end income tax deduction) – the cash proceeds went round robin and through the structure of subsidiary operations and consolidation of the operating results of those subsidiaries – the charitable contribution disbursed by them literally went round robin and wound right back in their pocket.
All the while, they earned the virtue signaling clout, they learned the racket inside and out and to top it off they will get an additional income tax liability reduction at year-end.
These types of arrangements exists throughout the entire NPO world. It is a subject rarely ever discussed – for many and most of the current “Fortune 500/Davos” types are in on it ….not just in on it….they pioneered this craft.
Made in America. Meticulously planned and carefully executed inter-related events and transactions that purposely manipulate and abuse the landscape of the tax exempt business world.
I’ve heard a couple of testimonies of what Project Looking Glass is. These different viewpoints are likely the result of multiple attempts at research to achieve the same result. What they have in common is that it’s a method of peering through time itself.
A second version of the Chronovisor was described by Father François Brune in his book Le nouveau mystère du Vatican. In his book, he says that the Chronovisor was built by Pellegrino Ernetti. Ernetti supposedly helped Brune build the machine as part of a team of scientists which included Enrico Fermi and Wernher von Braun.
Another version, according to the notes from Bill…
[This article is derived from a speech I made at the July 23rd Peace and Freedom Rally in Kingston New York]
There are some things that I believe to be true about the anarchy that purports to be US foreign policy. First, and most important, I do not believe that any voter cast a ballot for Joe Biden because he or she wanted him to relentlessly pursue a needless conflict with Russia that could easily escalate into a nuclear war with unimaginable consequences for all parties. Biden has recently declared that the US will support Ukraine “until we win” and, as there are already tens of billions of dollars of weapons going to Ukraine plus American “advisers” on the ground, it constitutes a scenario in which American and Russian soldiers will soon likely be shooting at each other. The President of Serbia and columnists like Pat Buchanan and Tulsi Gabbard believe that we are already de facto in World War 3 and one has to wonder how the White House is getting away with ignoring the War Powers mandates in the US Constitution.
Second, I believe that the Russians approached the United States and its allies with some quite reasonable requests regarding their own national security given that a hostile military alliance was about to land on its doorsteps. The issues at stake were fully negotiable but the US refused to budge on anything and Russia felt compelled to take military action. Nevertheless, there is no such thing as a good war. I categorically reject anyone invading anyone else unless there is a dire and immediate threat, but the onus on how the Ukraine situation developed the way it did is on Washington.
Third, I believe that the US and British governments in particularly have been relentlessly lying to the people and that the media in most of west is party to the dissemination of the lies to sustain the war effort against Russia in Ukraine. The lies include both the genesis and progress of the war and there has also been a sustained effort to demonize President Vladimir Putin and anything Russian, including food, drinks, the Russian language and culture and even professional athletes. The latest victim is a Tchaikovsky symphony banned in Canada. Putin is being personally blamed for inflation, food shortages and energy problems which more properly are the fault of the Washington-led ill-thought-out reaction to him. There is considerable irony in the fact that Biden is giving Ukraine $1.7 billion for healthcare, while healthcare in the US is generally considered among the poorest in the developed world.
I believe that Russia is winning the war comfortably and Ukraine will be forced to give up territory while the American taxpayer gets the bill for the reckless spending policies, currently totaling more than $60 billion, while also looking forward to runaway inflation, energy shortages, and, in a worst-case scenario, a possible collapse of the dollar.
All of the above and the politics behind it has led me to believe that the United States, assisted by some of its allies, has become addicted to war as an excuse for domestic failures as well as a replacement for diplomacy to settle international disputes. The White House hypocritically describes its role as “global leadership” or maintaining a “rules based international order” or even defending “democracy against authoritarianism.” But at the same time the Biden Administration has just completed a fiasco evacuation that ended a twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan. Not having learned anything from Afghanistan, there are now US troops illegally present in Syria and Iraq and Washington is conniving to attack Iran over false claims made by Israel that the Iranians are developing a nuclear weapon. Neither Syria nor Iraq nor Iran in any way threaten the United States, just as the Russians did not threaten Americans prior to a regime change intervention in Ukraine starting in 2014, when the US arranged the overthrow of a government that was friendly to Moscow. The US has also begun to energize NATO to start looking at steps to take to confront the alleged Chinese threat.
The toll coming from constant warfare and fearmongering has also enabled a steady erosion of the liberties that Americans once enjoyed, including free speech and freedom to associate. I would like to discuss what the ordinary concerned citizen can do to cut through all the lies surrounding what is currently taking place, which might well be described as the most aggressive propaganda campaign the world has ever seen, far more extensive than the lying and dissimulation by the White House and Pentagon officials that preceded the disastrous Iraq war. It is an information plus propaganda war that sustains the actual fighting on the ground, and it is in some senses far more dangerous as it seeks to involve more countries in the carnage while also creating a global threat perception that will be used to justify further military interventions.
Part of the problem is that the US government is awash with bad information that it does not know how to manage so it makes it hard to identify anything that might actually be true. Back in my time as an intelligence officer operating overseas, there were a number of short cuts that were used to categorize and evaluate information. For example, if one were hanging out in a local bar and overheard two apparent government officials discussing something of interest that might be happening in the next week, one might report it to Washington with a source description FNU/LNU, which stood for “first name unknown” and “last name unknown.” In other words, it was unverifiable hearsay coming from two individuals who could not be identified. As such it was pretty much worthless, but it clogged up the system and invited speculation.
My personal favorite, however, was the more precise source descriptions developed by military intelligence using an alphabet letter followed by a number in a sequence running from A-1 to F-6. At the top of an intelligence report there would be an assessment of the source, or agent. A-1 meant a piece of information that was both credible and had been confirmed by other sources and that was also produced by an agent that had actual access to the information in question. At the other end of the scale, an F-6 was information that was dubious produced by a source that appeared to have no actual access to the information.
By that standard, we Americans have been fed a lot of largely fabricated F-6 “fake information” coming from both the government and the media to justify the Ukraine disaster. Here is how you can spot it. If it is a newspaper or magazine article skim all the way down the text until you reach a point towards the end where the sourcing of the information is generally hidden. If it is attributed to a named individual who indeed indisputably had direct access to the information it would at least suggest that the reporting contains a kernel of truth. But that is almost never the case, and one normally sees the source described as an “anonymous source” or a “government official” or even, in many cases, there is no source attribution at all. That generally means that the information conveyed in the reporting is completely unreliable and should be considered the product of a fabricator or a government and media propaganda mill. When a story is written by a journalist who claims to be on the scene it is also important to check out whether he or she is actually on site or working from a pool operating safely in Poland to produce the reporting. Yahoo News takes the prize in spreading propaganda as it currently reproduces press releases originating with the Ukrainian government and posts them as if they are unbiased reporting on what is taking place on the ground.
Another trick to making fake news look real is to route it through a third country. When I was in Turkey we in CIA never placed a story in the media there directly. Instead, a journalist on our payroll in France would do the story and the Turkish media would pick it up, believing that because it had appeared in Paris it must be true even though it was not. Currently, I have noted that a lot of apparently MI-6 produced fake stories on Ukraine have been appearing in the British media, most notably the Telegraph and Guardian. They are then replayed in the US media and elsewhere to validate stories that are essentially fabricated.
Television and radio media is even worse than print media as it almost never identifies the sources for the stories that it carries. So my advice is to be skeptical of what you read or hear regarding wars and rumors of wars. The war party is bipartisan in the United States and it is just itching to seize the opportunity to get a new venture going, and they are oblivious to the fact that they might in the process be about to destroy the world as we know it. We must expose their lies and unite and fight to make sure that they can’t get away with it!
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is email@example.com.
NATURE: Abrupt and widespread discontinuities exist in the fossil record of fauna and are considered evidence of widespread mass extinction of species. These low frequency events have been attributed to fluctuations in sea level, reversals of the geomagnetic fields (exposing the earth’s surface to lethal radiation), impacts of the earth by very large meteors (putting tons of dust into the atmosphere cutting off photosynthesis) and supernovae (causing catastrophic but temporary climate changes). There are also a range of potential man-made ecocatastrophes, such as triggering an earthquake with a an underground nuclear explosion. In addition, there are other more fantastic possibilities. The sun will expand into a red star engulfing Mercury and Venus and melting lead on the Earth. The moon can fall to earth, a comet, a swarm of meteorites or a black hole could collide with the earth. The earth will eventually loose its atmosphere. A life form might evolve destroying all of humankind.
This is the source material for the United Nations Agenda 2030 – the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The carrying out of the implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals is the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum known as “The Great Reset”…
The fed gov’t shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its safety/efficacy. Who does the gov’t work for?
The FDA has asked a federal judge to make the public wait until the year 2076 to disclose all of the data and information it relied upon to license Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. That is not a typo. It wants 55 years to produce this information to the public.
As explained in a prior article, the FDA repeatedly promised “full transparency” with regard to Covid-19 vaccines, including reaffirming “the FDA’s commitment to transparency” when licensing Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine.
With that promise in mind, in August and immediately following approval of the vaccine, more than 30 academics, professors, and scientists from this country’s most prestigious universities requested the data and information submitted to the FDA by Pfizer to license its COVID-19 vaccine.
The FDA’s response? It produced nothing. So, in September, my firm filed a lawsuit against the FDA on behalf of this group to demand this information. To date, almost three months after it licensed Pfizer’s vaccine, the FDA still has not released a single page. Not one.
Instead, two days ago, the FDA asked a federal judge to give it until 2076 to fully produce this information. The FDA asked the judge to let it produce the 329,000+ pages of documents Pfizer provided to the FDA to license its vaccine at the rate of 500 pages per month, which means its production would not be completed earlier than 2076. The FDA’s promise of transparency is, to put it mildly, a pile of illusions.
It took the FDA precisely 108 days from when Pfizer started producing the records for licensure (on May 7, 2021) to when the FDA licensed the Pfizer vaccine (on August 23, 2021). Taking the FDA at its word, it conducted an intense, robust, thorough, and complete review and analysis of those documents in order to assure that the Pfizer vaccine was safe and effective for licensure. While it can conduct that intense review of Pfizer’s documents in 108 days, it now asks for over 20,000 days to make these documents available to the public.
So, let’s get this straight. The federal government shields Pfizer from liability. Gives it billions of dollars. Makes Americans take its product. But won’t let you see the data supporting its product’s safety and efficacy. Who does the government work for?
The lesson yet again is that civil and individual rights should never be contingent upon a medical procedure. Everyone who wants to get vaccinated and boosted should be free to do so. But nobody should be coerced by the government to partake in any medical procedure. Certainly not one where the government wants to hide the full information relied upon for its licensure until the year 2076!
This is an example of the Virus-Cyber-Climate emergency fear mechanisms at work. The New York Times is part of the mainstream media apparatus, which is one of the tentacles of the globalist, Zionist, technocratic oligarchy that wishes to instill the FEAR into ALL OF YOU. It’s latest iteration comes:
Officials in the area had moved quickly to prepare for the nor’easter, in part scarred by the intensity of several storms this summer that exposed the region’s vulnerability to extreme weather events made more frequent and intense by climate change.
from NY Times article
And this quote:
“Someday maybe we’ll just have a regular rainstorm. We don’t seem to get those much anymore,” Joseph Fiordaliso, who leads New Jersey’s utility board, said at a news conference on Tuesday, adding, “Climate change is real, and we have to work to mitigate as much of it as we possibly can.”
from NY Times article
These storms – and storms themselves have been in existence since FOREVER. Whether one ascribes to Christian doctrine, or to perhaps one is well acquainted with the Celts, amongst many others I could write here, storms have been in existence since ancient times.
I’ve been alive since 1979 and we have had a shit-ton of storms since then in New England. I’ve lived in New England for some 32 of my 42 years (living elsewhere in the world for work purposes the other ten years – of which storms occured in those places I lived too)…
The Great Reset is meme’ing any/all weather events as abnormalities that are due to “climate change”.
Just so all of you know, the idea of using climate change (an environmental emergency) was conceived by the globalist consortium known as the Club of Rome, I’ve written about them here:
I have also shared information on my blog about MIKHAIL GORBACHEV, yes him, as he stated in 1996 that the possibility of an environmental emergency would we manipulated to usher in a New World Order:
With the hoax of a climate change emergency, they will ultimately tell you the earth will burn up beneath your feet if you do not surrender your rights to private property ownership. If the sheep give in to this? Well, they will find a new home in the smart cities grid (one of the clearcut objectives of Agenda 2030’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals). Through this barrage of propaganda, soon enough the people will be begging for a breathe of fresh air from an eye dropper and Rabbi Klaus Schwab makes that decision.
If you think I am being obtuse then I suggest you return to watching Don Lemon or Rachel Maddow, or David Rubin and Ben Shapiro, whatever keeps you comfortable.
The NY Times is under control of the global financial system. How? Through:
Ownership of stock (equity)
Stock ownership affords VOTING RIGHTS
The Voting Rights are utilized at shareholder meetings
At these meetings is where major issues of the viability, financial well-being and other important matters are brought up and voted upon
It is at these meeting that members of the Board of Directors are appointed
Presence on the Board of Directors – a shareholder can be appointed to the Board (ie a financial institution from BlackRock, or Goldman Sachs, or Comcast, or a private equity firm – can become a Director)
Directors are responsible for appointing the Executive Management (ie CEO, CFO, COO) which carry out operations of the business entity
It is also important to note here that the New York Times in it’s history has had Directors, Executives, Editors, Journalists and other employees that have been members of the globalist one world order La Kosher Nostra type of organizations like the World Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith. Also the spooky groups like the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. And the Think Tanks like the CFR, Brookings Institute, Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Carnegie Endowment, Ford Foundation, Christopher Lloyd Foundation (yes 88mph that Christopher Lloyd), Atlantic Council, etc.
And please keep in mind the networking that occurs amongst the NY Times with the entire industry.
This is how Climate Change Emergency becomes the weapon!!!
The entities I listed are all members of the World Economic Forum. The World Economic Forum was founded by Klaus Schwab. The World Economic Forum entered into a partnership with the United Nations in June of 2019, a strategic partnership. What was the intent of this partnership?
To summarize; The partnership was created in order for the World Economic Forum to carry out the implementation of the United Nation’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals, contained within Agenda 2030. The realization of Agenda 2030 is underway under the scheme called The Great Reset.
This blog post I wrote gives tremendous detail. I put alot of effort into it. Please read it if you want to discover the recent origins of The Great Reset:
I am 42 years old and it is commonplace to have Nor’easter storms. They have occured throughout New England and the northeast portion of the United States (and also affecting Canada – and other places) since – since FOREVER.
The Jew York Times is meme’ing together the phenom known as nature with their climate hoax. Storms have been happening since forever!!
Every storm = climate change. Because the Jews say so.
Abstract Nuclear command and control increasingly relies on computing networks that might be vulnerable to cyber attack. Yet nuclear deterrence and cyber operations have quite different political properties. For the most part, nuclear actors can openly advertise their weapons to signal the costs of aggression to potential adversaries, thereby reducing the danger of misperception and war. Cyber actors, in contrast, must typically hide their capabilities, as revelation allows adversaries to patch, reconfigure, or otherwise neutralize the threat. Offensive cyber operations are better used than threatened, while the opposite, fortunately, is true for nuclear weapons. When combined, the warfighting advantages of cyber operations become dangerous liabilities for nuclear deterrence. Increased uncertainty about the nuclear/cyber balance of power raises the risk of miscalculation during a brinksmanship crisis. We should expect strategic stability in nuclear dyads to be, in part, a function of relative offensive and defensive cyber capacity. To reduce the risk of crisis miscalculation, states should improve rather than degrade mutual understanding of their nuclear deterrents.
Introduction In the 1983 movie WarGames, a teenager hacks into the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) and almost triggers World War III. After a screening of the film, President Ronald Reagan allegedly asked his staff, “Could something like this really happen?” The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff replied, “Mr. President, the problem is much worse than you think.” The National Security Agency (NSA) had been hacking Russian and Chinese communications for years, but the burgeoning personal computer revolution was creating serious vulnerabilities for the United States too. Reagan directed a series of reviews that culminated in a classified national security decision directive (NSDD-145) entitled “National Policy on Telecommunications and Automated Information Systems Security.” More alarmist studies, and potential remedies, emerged in recent decades as technicians and policymakers came to appreciate the evolving threat [1–3].
Cyber warfare is routinely overhyped as a new weapon of mass destruction, but when used in conjunction with actual weapons of mass destruction, severe, and underappreciated, dangers emerge. One side of a stylized debate about cybersecurity in international relations argues that offensive advantages in cyberspace empower weaker nations, terrorist cells, or even lone rogue operators to paralyze vital infrastructure [4–8]. The other side argues that operational difficulties and effective deterrence restrains the severity of cyber attack, while governments and cybersecurity firms have a pecuniary interest in exaggerating the threat [9–13]. Although we have contributed to the skeptical side of this debate [14–16], the same strategic logic that leads us to view cyberwar as a limited political instrument in most situations also leads us to view it as incredibly destabilizing in rare situations. In a recent Israeli wargame of a regional scenario involving the United States and Russia, one participant remarked on “how quickly localized cyber events can turn dangerously kinetic when leaders are ill-prepared to deal in the cyber domain” . Importantly, this sort of catalytic instability arises not from the cyber domain itself but through its interaction with forces and characteristics in other domains (land, sea, air, etc.). Further, it arises only in situations where actors possess, and are willing to use, robust traditional military forces to defend their interests.
Classical deterrence theory developed to explain nuclear deterrence with nuclear weapons, but different types of weapons or combinations of operations in different domains can have differential effects on deterrence and defense [18, 19]. Nuclear weapons and cyber operations are particularly complementary (i.e. nearly complete opposites) with respect to their strategic characteristics. Theorists and practitioners have stressed the unprecedented destructiveness of nuclear weapons in explaining how nuclear deterrence works, but it is equally, if not more, important for deterrence that capabilities and intentions are clearly communicated. As quickly became apparent, public displays of their nuclear arsenals improved deterrence. At the same time, disclosing details of a nation’s nuclear capabilities did not much degrade the ability to strike or retaliate, given that defense against nuclear attack remains extremely difficult. Knowledge of nuclear capabilities is necessary to achieve a deterrent effect . Cyber operations, in contrast, rely on undisclosed vulnerabilities, social engineering, and creative guile to generate indirect effects in the information systems that coordinate military, economic, and social behavior. Revelation enables crippling countermeasures, while the imperative to conceal capabilities constrains both the scope of cyber operations and their utility for coercive signaling [21, 22]. The diversity of cyber operations and confusion about their effects also contrast with the obvious destructiveness of nuclear weapons.
The problem is that transparency and deception do not mix well. An attacker who hacks an adversary’s nuclear command and control apparatus, or the weapons themselves, will gain an advantage in warfighting that the attacker cannot reveal, while the adversary will continue to believe it wields a deterrent that may no longer exist. Most analyses of inadvertent escalation from cyber or conventional to nuclear war focus on “use it or lose it” pressures and fog of war created by attacks that become visible to the target [23, 24]. In a US–China conflict scenario, for example, conventional military strikes in conjunction with cyber attacks that blind sensors and confuse decision making could generate incentives for both sides to rush to preempt or escalate [25–27]. These are plausible concerns, but the revelation of information about a newly unfavorable balance of power might also cause hesitation and lead to compromise. Cyber blinding could potentially make traditional offensive operations more difficult, shifting the advantage to defenders and making conflict less likely.
Clandestine attacks that remain invisible to the target potentially present a more insidious threat to crisis stability. There are empirical and theoretical reasons for taking seriously the effects of offensive cyber operations on nuclear deterrence, and we should expect the dangers to vary with the relative cyber capabilities of the actors in a crisis interaction.
Nuclear command and control vulnerability
General Robert Kehler, commander of US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in 2013, stated in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, “we are very concerned with the potential of a cyber-related attack on our nuclear command and control and on the weapons systems themselves” . Nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) form the nervous system of the nuclear enterprise spanning intelligence and early warning sensors located in orbit and on Earth, fixed and mobile command and control centers through which national leadership can order a launch, operational nuclear forces including strategic bombers, land-based intercontinental missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and the communication and transportation networks that tie the whole apparatus together [29, 30]. NC3 should ideally ensure that nuclear forces will always be available if authorized by the National Command Authority (to enhance deterrence) and never used without authorization (to enhance safety and reassurance). Friendly errors or enemy interference in NC3 can undermine the “always-never” criterion, weakening deterrence [31, 32].
NC3 has long been recognized as the weakest link in the US nuclear enterprise. According to a declassified official history, a Strategic Air Command (SAC) task group in 1979 “reported that tactical warning and communications systems … were ‘fragile’ and susceptible to electronic countermeasures, electromagnetic pulse, and sabotage, which could deny necessary warning and assessment to the National Command Authorities” . Two years later, the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering released a broad-based, multiservice report that doubled down on SAC’s findings: “the United States could not assure survivability, endurability, or connectivity of the national command authority function” due to:
major command, control, and communications deficiencies: in tactical warning and attack assessment where existing systems were vulnerable to disruption and destruction from electromagnetic pulse, other high altitude nuclear effects, electronic warfare, sabotage, or physical attack; in decision making where there was inability to assure national command authority survival and connection with the nuclear forces, especially under surprise conditions; and in communications systems, which were susceptible to the same threats above and which could not guarantee availability of even minimum-essential capability during a protracted war. 
The nuclear weapons safety literature likewise provides a number of troubling examples of NC3 glitches that illustrate some of the vulnerabilities attackers could, in principle, exploit [34–36]. The SAC history noted that NORAD has received numerous false launch indications from faulty computer components, loose circuits, and even a nuclear war training tape loaded by mistake into a live system that produced erroneous Soviet launch indications . In a 1991 briefing to the STRATCOM commander, a Defense Intelligence Agency targeteer confessed, “Sir, I apologize, but we have found a problem with this target. There is a mistake in the computer code … . Sir, the error has been there for at least the life of this eighteen-month planning cycle. The nature of the error is such that the target would not have been struck” . It would be a difficult operation to intentionally plant undetected errors like this, but the presence of bugs does reveal that such a hack is possible.
Following many near-misses and self-audits during and after the Cold War, American NC3 improved with the addition of new safeguards and redundancies. As General Kehler pointed out in 2013, “the nuclear deterrent force was designed to operate through the most extreme circumstances we could possibly imagine” . Yet vulnerabilities remain. In 2010, the US Air Force lost contact with 50 Minuteman III ICBMs for an hour because of a faulty hardware circuit at a launch control center . If the accident had occurred during a crisis, or the component had been sabotaged, the USAF would have been unable to launch and unable to detect and cancel unauthorized launch attempts. As Bruce Blair, a former Minuteman missileer, points out, during a control center blackout the antennas at unmanned silos and the cables between them provide potential surreptitious access vectors .
The unclassified summary of a 2015 audit of US NC3 stated that “known capability gaps or deficiencies remain” . Perhaps more worrisome are the unknown deficiencies. A 2013 Defense Science Board report on military cyber vulnerabilities found that while the:
nuclear deterrent is regularly evaluated for reliability and readiness … , most of the systems have not been assessed (end-to-end) against a [sophisticated state] cyber attack to understand possible weak spots. A 2007 nuclear deterrent is regularly evaluated for reliability and readiness … , most of the systems have not been assessed (end-to-end) against a [sophisticated state] cyber attack to understand possible weak spots. A 2007 Air Force study addressed portions of this issue for the ICBM leg of the U.S. triad but was still not a complete assessment against a high-tier threat. 
If NC3 vulnerabilities are unknown, it is also unknown whether an advanced cyber actor would be able to exploit them. As Kehler notes, “We don’t know what we don’t know” .
Even if NC3 of nuclear forces narrowly conceived is a hard target, cyber attacks on other critical infrastructure in preparation to or during a nuclear crisis could complicate or confuse government decision making. General Keith Alexander, Director of the NSA in the same Senate hearing with General Kehler, testified that:
our infrastructure that we ride on, the power and the communications grid, are one of the things that is a source of concern … we can go to backup generators and we can have independent routes, but … our ability to communicate would be significantly reduced and it would complicate our governance … . I think what General Kehler has would be intact … [but] the cascading effect … in that kind of environment … concerns us. 
Kehler further emphasized that “there’s a continuing need to make sure that we are protected against electromagnetic pulse and any kind of electromagnetic interference” .
Many NC3 components are antiquated and hard to upgrade, which is a mixed blessing. Kehler points out, “Much of the nuclear command and control system today is the legacy system that we’ve had. In some ways that helps us in terms of the cyber threat. In some cases it’s point to point, hard-wired, which makes it very difficult for an external cyber threat to emerge” . The Government Accountability Office notes that the “Department of Defense uses 8-inch floppy disks in a legacy system that coordinates the operational functions of the nation’s nuclear forces” . While this may limit some forms of remote access, it is also indicative of reliance on an earlier generation of software when security engineering standards were less mature. Upgrades to the digital Strategic Automated Command and Control System planned for 2017 have the potential to correct some problems, but these changes may also introduce new access vectors and vulnerabilities . Admiral Cecil Haney, Kehler’s successor at STRATCOM, highlighted the challenges of NC3 modernization in 2015:
Assured and reliable NC3 is fundamental to the credibility of our nuclear deterrent. The aging NC3 systems continue to meet their intended purpose, but risk to mission success is increasing as key elements of the system age. The unpredictable challenges posed by today’s complex security environment make it increasingly important to optimize our NC3 architecture while leveraging new technologies so that NC3 systems operate together as a core set of survivable and endurable capabilities that underpin a broader, national command and control system. 
In no small irony, the internet itself owes its intellectual origin, in part, to the threat to NC3 from large-scale physical attack. A 1962 RAND report by Paul Baran considered “the problem of building digital communication networks using links with less than perfect reliability” to enable “stations surviving a physical attack and remaining in electrical connection … to operate together as a coherent entity after attack” . Baran advocated as a solution decentralized packet switching protocols, not unlike those realized in the ARPANET program. The emergence of the internet was the result of many other factors that had nothing to do with managing nuclear operations, notably the meritocratic ideals of 1960s counterculture that contributed to the neglect of security in the internet’s founding architecture [46, 47]. Fears of NC3 vulnerability helped to create the internet, which then helped to create the present-day cybersecurity epidemic, which has come full circle to create new fears about NC3 vulnerability.
NC3 vulnerability is not unique to the United States. The NC3 of other nuclear powers may even be easier to compromise, especially in the case of new entrants to the nuclear club like North Korea. Moreover, the United States has already demonstrated both the ability and willingness to infiltrate sensitive foreign nuclear infrastructure through operations such as Olympic Games (Stuxnet), albeit targeting Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle rather than NC3. It would be surprising to learn that the United States has failed to upgrade its Cold War NC3 attack plans to include offensive cyber operations against a wide variety of national targets.
Hacking the deterrent The United States included NC3 attacks in its Cold War counterforce and damage limitation war plans, even as contemporary critics perceived these options to be destabilizing for deterrence . The best known example of these activities and capabilities is a Special Access Program named Canopy Wing. East German intelligence obtained the highly classified plans from a US Army spy in Berlin, and the details began to emerge publicly after the Cold War. An East German intelligence officer, Markus Wolf, writes in his memoir that Canopy Wing “listed the types of electronic warfare that would be used to neutralize the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact’s command centers in case of all-out war. It detailed the precise method of depriving the Soviet High Command of its high-frequency communications used to give orders to its armed forces” .
It is easy to see why NC3 is such an attractive target in the unlikely event of a nuclear war. If for whatever reason deterrence fails and the enemy decides to push the nuclear button, it would obviously be better to disable or destroy missiles before they launch than to rely on possibly futile efforts to shoot them down, or to accept the loss of millions of lives. American plans to disable Soviet NC3 with electronic warfare, furthermore, would have been intended to complement plans for decapitating strikes against Soviet nuclear forces. Temporary disabling of information networks in isolation would have failed to achieve any important strategic objective. A blinded adversary would eventually see again and would scramble to reconstitute its ability to launch its weapons, expecting that preemption was inevitable in any case. Reconstitution, moreover, would invalidate much of the intelligence and some of the tradecraft on which the blinding attack relied. Capabilities fielded through Canopy Wing were presumably intended to facilitate a preemptive military strike on Soviet NC3 to disable the ability to retaliate and limit the damage of any retaliatory force that survived, given credible indications that war was imminent. Canopy Wing included :
“Measures for short-circuiting … communications and weapons systems using, among other things, microscopic carbon-fiber particles and chemical weapons.”
“Electronic blocking of communications immediately prior to an attack, thereby rendering a counterattack impossible.”
“Deployment of various weapons systems for instantaneous destruction of command centers, including pin-point targeting with precision-guided weapons to destroy ‘hardened bunkers’.”
“Use of deception measures, including the use of computer-simulated voices to override and substitute false commands from ground-control stations to aircraft and from regional command centers to the Soviet submarine fleet.”
“Us[e of] the technical installations of ‘Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’ and ‘Voice of America,’ as well as the radio communications installations of the U.S. Armed Forces for creating interference and other electronic effects.”
Wolf also ran a spy in the US Air Force who disclosed that:
the Americans had managed to penetrate the [Soviet air base at Eberswalde]’s ground-air communications and were working on a method of blocking orders before they reached the Russian pilots and substituting their own from West Berlin. Had this succeeded, the MiG pilots would have received commands from their American enemy. It sounded like science fiction, but, our experts concluded, it was in no way impossible that they could have pulled off such a trick, given the enormous spending and technical power of U.S. military air research. 
One East German source claimed that Canopy Wing had a $14.5 billion budget for research and operational costs and a staff of 1570 people, while another claimed that it would take over 4 years and $65 million to develop “a prototype of a sophisticated electronic system for paralyzing Soviet radio traffic in the high-frequency range” . Canopy Wing was not cheap, and even so, it was only a research and prototyping program. Operationalization of its capabilities and integration into NATO war plans would have been even more expensive. This is suggestive of the level of effort required to craft effective offensive cyber operations against NC3.
Preparation comes to naught when a sensitive program is compromised. Canopy Wing was caught in what we describe below as the cyber commitment problem, the inability to disclose a warfighting capability for the sake of deterrence without losing it in the process. According to New York Times reporting on the counterintelligence investigation of the East German spy in the Army, Warrant Officer James Hall, “officials said that one program rendered useless cost hundreds of millions of dollars and was designed to exploit a Soviet communications vulnerability uncovered in the late 1970’s” . This program was probably Canopy Wing. Wolf writes, “Once we passed [Hall’s documents about Canopy Wing] on to the Soviets, they were able to install scrambling devices and other countermeasures” . It is tempting to speculate that the Soviet deployment of a new NC3 system known as Signal-A to replace Signal-M (which was most likely the one targeted by Canopy Wing) was motivated in part by Hall’s betrayal .
Canopy Wing underscores the potential and limitations of NC3 subversion. Modern cyber methods can potentially perform many of the missions Canopy Wing addressed with electronic warfare and other means, but with even greater stealth and precision. Cyber operations might, in principle, compromise any part of the NC3 system (early warning, command centers, data transport, operational forces, etc.) by blinding sensors, injecting bogus commands or suppressing legitimate ones, monitoring or corrupting data transmissions, or interfering with the reliable launch and guidance of missiles. In practice, the operational feasibility of cyber attack against NC3 or any other target depends on the software and hardware configuration and organizational processes of the target, the intelligence and planning capacity of the attacker, and the ability and willingness to take advantage of the effects created by cyber attack [52, 53]. Cyber compromise of NC3 is technically plausible though operationally difficult, a point to which we return in a later section.
To understand which threats are not only technically possible but also probable under some circumstance, we further need a political logic of cost and benefit . In particular, how is it possible for a crisis to escalate to levels of destruction more costly than any conceivable political reward? Canopy Wing highlights some of the strategic dangers of NC3 exploitation. Warsaw Pact observers appear to have been deeply concerned that the program reflected an American willingness to undertake a surprise decapitation attack: they said that it “sent ice-cold shivers down our spines” . The Soviets designed a system called Perimeter that, not unlike the Doomsday Device in Dr. Strangelove, was designed to detect a nuclear attack and retaliate automatically, even if cut off from Soviet high command, through an elaborate system of sensors, underground computers, and command missiles to transmit launch codes . Both Canopy Wing and Perimeter show that the United States and the Soviet Union took nuclear warfighting seriously and were willing to develop secret advantages for such an event. By the same token, they were not able to reveal such capabilities to improve deterrence to avoid having to fight a nuclear war in the first place.
Nuclear deterrence and credible communication
Nuclear weapons have some salient political properties. They are singularly and obviously destructive. They kill in more, and more ghastly, ways than conventional munitions through electromagnetic radiation, blast, firestorms, radioactive fallout, and health effects that linger for years. Bombers, ICBMs, and SLBMs can project warheads globally without significantly mitigating their lethality, steeply attenuating the conventional loss-of-strength gradient . Defense against nuclear attack is very difficult, even with modern ballistic missile defenses, given the speed of incoming warheads and use of decoys; multiple warheads and missile volleys further reduce the probability of perfect interception. If one cannot preemptively destroy all of an enemy’s missiles, then there is a nontrivial chance of getting hit by some of them. When one missed missile can incinerate millions of people, the notion of winning a nuclear war starts to seem meaningless for many politicians.
As defense seemed increasingly impractical, early Cold War strategists championed the threat of assured retaliation as the chief mechanism for avoiding war [56–59]. Political actors have issued threats for millennia, but the advent of nuclear weapons brought deterrence as a strategy to center stage. The Cold War was an intense learning experience for both practitioners and students of international security, rewriting well-worn realities more than once [60–62]. A key conundrum was the practice of brinkmanship. Adversaries who could not compete by “winning” a nuclear war could still compete by manipulating the “risk” of nuclear annihilation, gambling that an opponent would have the good judgment to back down at some point short of the nuclear brink. Brinkmanship crises—conceptualized as games of Chicken where one cannot heighten tensions without increasing the hazard of the mutually undesired outcome—require that decision makers behave irrationally, or possibly that they act randomly, which is difficult to conceptualize in practical terms . The chief concern in historical episodes of chicken, such as the Berlin Crisis and Cuban Missile Crisis, was not whether a certain level of harm was possible, but whether an adversary was resolved enough, possibly, to risk nuclear suicide. The logical inconsistency of the need for illogic to win led almost from the beginning of the nuclear era to elaborate deductive contortions [64–66].
Both mutually assured destruction (MAD) and successful brinksmanship depend on a less appreciated, but no less fundamental, feature of nuclear weapons: political transparency. Most elements of military power are weakened by disclosure . Military plans are considerably less effective if shared with an enemy. Conventional weapons become less lethal as adversaries learn what different systems can and cannot do, where they are located, how they are operated, and how to devise countermeasures and array defenses to blunt or disarm an attack. In contrast, relatively little reduction in destruction follows from enemy knowledge of nuclear capabilities. For most of the nuclear era, no effective defense existed against a nuclear attack. Even today, with evolving ABM systems, one ICBM still might get through and annihilate the capital city. Nuclear forces are more robust to revelation than other weapons, enabling nuclear nations better to advertise the harm they can inflict.
The need for transparency to achieve an effective deterrent is driven home by the satirical Cold War film, Dr. Strangelove: “the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn’t you tell the world, eh?” During the real Cold War, fortunately, Soviet leaders paraded their nuclear weapons through Red Square for the benefit of foreign military attaches and the international press corps. Satellites photographed missile, bomber, and submarine bases. While other aspects of military affairs on both sides of the Iron Curtain remained closely guarded secrets, the United States and the Soviet Union permitted observers to evaluate their nuclear capabilities. This is especially remarkable given the secrecy that pervaded Soviet society. The relative transparency of nuclear arsenals ensured that the superpowers could calculate risks and consequences within a first-order approximation, which led to a reduction in severe conflict and instability even as political competition in other arenas was fierce [61, 68].
Recent insights about the causes of war suggest that divergent expectations about the costs and consequences of war are necessary for contests to occur [69–73]. These insights are associated with rationalist theories, such as deterrence theory itself. Empirical studies and psychological critiques of the rationality assumption have helped to refine models and bring some circumspection into their application, but the formulation of sound strategy (if not the execution) still requires the articulation of some rational linkage between cause and effect [19, 62, 74]. Many supposedly nonrational factors, moreover, simply manifest as uncertainty in strategic interaction. Our focus here is on the effect of uncertainty and ignorance on the ability of states and other actors to bargain in lieu of fighting. Many wars are a product of what adversaries do not know or what they misperceive, whether as a result of bluffing, secrecy, or intrinsic uncertainty [75, 76]. If knowledge of capabilities or resolve is a prerequisite for deterrence, then one reason for deterrence failure is the inability or unwillingness to credibly communicate details of the genuine balance of power, threat, or interests. Fighting, conversely, can be understood as a costly process of discovery that informs adversaries of their actual relative strength and resolve. From this perspective, successful deterrence involves instilling in an adversary perceptions like those that result from fighting, but before fighting actually begins. Agreement about the balance of power can enable states to bargain (tacit or overt) effectively without needing to fight, forging compromises that each prefers to military confrontation or even to the bulk of possible risky brinkmanship crises.
Despite other deficits, nuclear weapons have long been considered to be stabilizing with respect to rational incentives for war (the risk of nuclear accidents is another matter) . If each side has a secure second strike—or even a minimal deterrent with some nonzero chance of launching a few missiles—then each side can expect to gain little and lose much by fighting a nuclear war. Whereas the costs of conventional war can be more mysterious because each side might decide to hold something back and meter out its punishment due to some internal constraint or a theory of graduated escalation, even a modest initial nuclear exchange is recognized to be extremely costly. As long as both sides understand this and understand (or believe) that the adversary understands this as well, then the relationship is stable. Countries engage nuclear powers with considerable deference, especially over issues of fundamental national or international importance. At the same time, nuclear weapons appear to be of limited value in prosecuting aggressive action, especially over issues of secondary or tertiary importance, or in response to aggression from others at lower levels of dispute intensity. Nuclear weapons are best used for signaling a willingness to run serious risks to protect or extort some issue that is considered of vital national interest.
As mentioned previously, both superpowers in the Cold War considered the warfighting advantages of nuclear weapons quite apart from any deterrent effect, and the United States and Russia still do. High-altitude bursts for air defense, electromagnetic pulse for frying electronics, underwater detonations for anti-submarine warfare, hardened target penetration, area denial, and so on, have some battlefield utility. Transparency per se is less important than weapon effects for warfighting uses, and can even be deleterious for tactics that depend on stealth and mobility. Even a single tactical nuke, however, would inevitably be a political event. Survivability of the second strike deterrent can also militate against transparency, as in the case of the Soviet Perimeter system, as mobility, concealment, and deception can make it harder for an observer to track and count respective forces from space. Counterforce strategies, platform diversity and mobility, ballistic missile defense systems, and force employment doctrine can all make it more difficult for one or both sides in a crisis to know whether an attack is likely to succeed or fail. The resulting uncertainty affects not only estimates of relative capabilities but also the degree of confidence in retaliation. At the same time, there is reason to believe that platform diversity lowers the risk of nuclear or conventional contests, because increasing the number of types of delivery platforms heightens second strike survivability without increasing the lethality of an initial strike . While transparency is not itself a requirement for nuclear use, stable deterrence benefits to the degree to which retaliation can be anticipated, as well as the likelihood that the consequences of a first strike are more costly than any benefit. Cyber operations, in contrast, are neither robust to revelation nor as obviously destructive.
The cyber commitment problem
Deterrence (and compellence) uses force or threats of force to “warn” an adversary about consequences if it takes or fails to take an action. In contrast, defense (and conquest) uses force to “win” a contest of strength and change the material distribution of power. Sometimes militaries can change the distribution of information and power at the same time. Military mobilization in a crisis signifies resolve and displays a credible warning, but it also makes it easier to attack or defend if the warning fails. Persistence in a battle of attrition not only bleeds an adversary but also reveals a willingness to pay a higher price for victory. More often, however, the informational requirements of winning and warning are in tension. Combat performance often hinges on well-kept secrets, feints, and diversions. Many military plans and capabilities degrade when revealed. National security involves trade-offs between the goals of preventing war, by advertising capabilities or interests, and improving fighting power should war break out, by concealing capabilities and surprising the enemy.
The need to conceal details of the true balance of power to preserve battlefield effectiveness gives rise to the military commitment problem [79, 80]. Japan could not coerce the United States by revealing its plan to attack Pearl Harbor because the United States could not credibly promise to refrain from reorienting defenses and dispersing the Pacific Fleet. War resulted not just because of what opponents did not know but because of what they could not tell each other without paying a severe price in military advantage. The military benefits of surprise (winning) trumped the diplomatic benefits of coercion (warning).
Cyber operations, whether for disruption and intelligence, are extremely constrained by the military commitment problem. Revelation of a cyber threat in advance that is specific enough to convince a target of the validity of the threat also provides enough information potentially to neutralize it. Stuxnet took years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop but was patched within weeks of its discovery. The Snowden leaks negated a whole swath of tradecraft that the NSA took years to develop. States may use other forms of covert action, such as publicly disavowed lethal aid or aerial bombing (e.g. Nixon’s Cambodia campaign), to discretely signal their interests, but such cases can only work to the extent that revelation of operational details fails to disarm rebels or prevent airstrikes .
Cyber operations, especially against NC3, must be conducted in extreme secrecy as a condition of the efficacy of the attack. Cyber tradecraft relies on stealth, stratagem, and deception . Operations tailored to compromise complex remote targets require extensive intelligence, planning and preparation, and testing to be effective. Actions that alert a target of an exploit allow the target to patch, reconfigure, or adopt countermeasures that invalidate the plan. As the Defense Science Board points out, competent network defenders:
can also be expected to employ highly-trained system and network administrators, and this operational staff will be equipped with continuously improving network defensive tools and techniques (the same tools we advocate to improve our defenses). Should an adversary discover an implant, it is usually relatively simple to remove or disable. For this reason, offensive cyber will always be a fragile capability. 
The world’s most advanced cyber powers, the United States, Russia, Israel, China, France, and the United Kingdom, are also nuclear states, while India, Pakistan, and North Korea also have cyber warfare programs. NC3 is likely to be an especially well defended part of their cyber infrastructures. NC3 is a hard target for offensive operations, which thus requires careful planning, detailed intelligence, and long lead-times to avoid compromise.
Cyberspace is further ill-suited for signaling because cyber operations are complex, esoteric, and hard for commanders and policymakers to understand. Most targeted cyber operations have to be tailored for each unique target (a complex organization not simply a machine), quite unlike a general purpose munition tested on a range. Malware can fail in many ways and produce unintended side effects, as when the Stuxnet code was accidentally released to the public. The category of “cyber” includes tremendous diversity: irritant scams, hacktivist and propaganda operations, intelligence collection, critical infrastructure disruption, etc. Few intrusions create consequences that rise to the level of attacks such as Stuxnet or BlackEnergy, and even they pale beside the harm imposed by a small war.
Vague threats are less credible because they are indistinguishable from casual bluffing. Ambiguity can be useful for concealing a lack of capability or resolve, allowing an actor to pool with more capable or resolved states and acquiring some deterrence success by association. But this works by discounting the costliness of the threat. Nuclear threats, for example, are usually somewhat veiled because one cannot credibly threaten nuclear suicide. The consistently ambiguous phrasing of US cyber declaratory policy (e.g. “we will respond to cyber-attacks in a manner and at a time and place of our choosing using appropriate instruments of U.S. power” ) seeks to operate across domains to mobilize credibility in one area to compensate for a lack of credibility elsewhere, specifically by leveraging the greater robustness to revelation of military capabilities other than cyber.
This does not mean that cyberspace is categorically useless for signaling, just as nuclear weapons are not categorically useless for warfighting. Ransomware attacks work when the money extorted to unlock the compromised host is priced below the cost of an investigation or replacing the system. The United States probably gained some benefits in general deterrence (i.e. discouraging the emergence of challenges as opposed to immediate deterrence in response to a challenge) through the disclosure of Stuxnet and the Snowden leaks. Both revelations compromised tradecraft, but they also advertised that the NSA probably had more exploits and tradecraft where they came from. Some cyber operations may actually be hard to mitigate within tactically meaningful timelines (e.g. hardware implants installed in hard-to-reach locations). Such operations might be revealed to coerce concessions within the tactical window created by a given operation, if the attacker can coordinate the window with the application of coercion in other domains. As a general rule, however, the cyber domain on its own is better suited for winning than warning . Cyber and nuclear weapons fall on extreme opposite sides of this spectrum.
Nuclear weapons have been used in anger twice—against the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki—but cyberspace is abused daily. Considered separately, the nuclear domain is stable and the cyber domain is unstable. In combination, the results are ambiguous.
The nuclear domain can bound the intensity of destruction that a cyber attacker is willing to inflict on an adversary. US declaratory policy states that unacceptable cyber attacks may prompt a military response; while nuclear weapons are not explicitly threatened, neither are they withheld. Nuclear threats have no credibility at the low end, where the bulk of cyber attacks occur. This produces a cross-domain version of the stability–instability paradox, where deterrence works at the high end but is not credible, and thus encourages provocation, at low intensities. Nuclear weapons, and military power generally, create an upper bound on cyber aggression to the degree that retaliation is anticipated and feared [22, 83, 84].
In the other direction, the unstable cyber domain can undermine the stability of nuclear deterrence. Most analysts who argue that the cyber–nuclear combination is a recipe for danger focus on the fog of crisis decision making [85–87]. Stephen Cimbala points out that today’s relatively smaller nuclear arsenals may perversely magnify the attractiveness of NC3 exploitation in a crisis: “Ironically, the downsizing of U.S. and post-Soviet Russian strategic nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War, while a positive development from the perspectives of nuclear arms control and nonproliferation, makes the concurrence of cyber and nuclear attack capabilities more alarming” . Cimbala focuses mainly on the risks of misperception and miscalculation that emerge when a cyber attack muddies the transparent communication required for opponents to understand one another’s interests, redlines, and willingness to use force, and to ensure reliable control over subordinate commanders. Thus a nuclear actor “faced with a sudden burst of holes in its vital warning and response systems might, for example, press the preemption button instead of waiting to ride out the attack and then retaliate” .
The outcome of fog of decision scenarios such as these depend on how humans react to risk and uncertainty, which in turn depends on bounded rationality and organizational frameworks that might confuse rational decision making [89, 90]. These factors exacerbate a hard problem. Yet within a rationalist framework, cyber attacks that have already created their effects need not trigger an escalatory spiral. While being handed a fait accompli may trigger an aggressive reaction, it is also plausible that the target’s awareness that its NC3 has been compromised in some way would help to convey new information that the balance of power is not as favorable as previously thought. This in turn could encourage the target to accommodate, rather than escalate. While defects in rational decision making are a serious concern in any cyber–nuclear scenario, the situation becomes even more hazardous when there are rational incentives to escalate. Although “known unknowns” can create confusion, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, the “unknown unknowns” are perhaps more dangerous.
A successful clandestine penetration of NC3 can defeat the informational symmetry that stabilizes nuclear relationships. Nuclear weapons are useful for deterrence because they impose a degree of consensus about the distribution of power; each side knows the other can inflict prohibitive levels of damage, even if they may disagree about the precise extent of this damage. Cyber operations are attractive precisely because they can secretly revise the distribution of power. NC3 neutralization may be an expensive and rarified capability in the reach of only a few states with mature signals intelligence agencies, but it is much cheaper than nuclear attack. Yet the very usefulness of cyber operations for nuclear warfighting ensure that deterrence failure during brinksmanship crises is more likely.
Nuclear states may initiate crises of risk and resolve to see who will back down first, which is not always clear in advance. Chicken appears viable, ironically, because each player understands that a nuclear war would be a disaster for all, and thus all can agree that someone can be expected swerve. Nuclear deterrence should ultimately make dealing with an adversary diplomatically more attractive than fighting, provided that fighting is costly—as would seem evident for the prospect of nuclear war—and assuming that bargains are available to states willing to accept compromise rather than annihilation. If, however, one side knows, but the other does not, that the attacker has disabled the target’s ability to perceive an impending military attack, or to react to one when it is underway, then they will not have a shared understanding of the probable outcome of war, even in broad terms.
Consider a brinksmanship crisis between two nuclear states where only one has realized a successful penetration of the rival’s NC3. The cyber attacker knows that it has a military advantage, but it cannot reveal the advantage to the target, lest the advantage be lost. The target does not know that it is at a disadvantage, and it cannot be told by the attacker for the same reason. The attacker perceives an imbalance of power while the target perceives a balance. A dangerous competition in risk taking ensues. The first side knows that it does not need to back down. The second side feels confident that it can stand fast and raise the stakes far beyond what it would be willing to if it understood the true balance of power. Each side is willing to escalate to create more risk for the other side, making it more likely that one or the other will conclude that deterrence has failed and move into warfighting mode to attempt to limit the damage the other can inflict.
The targeted nature and uncertain effects of offensive cyber operations put additional pressure on decision makers. An intrusion will probably disable only part of the enemy’s NC3 architecture, not all of it (which is not only operationally formidable to achieve but also more likely to be noticed by the target). Thus the target may retain control over some nuclear forces, or conventional forces. The target may be tempted to use some of them piecemeal to signal a willingness to escalate further, even though it cannot actually escalate because of the cyber operation. The cyber attacker knows that it has escalation dominance, but when even a minor demonstration by the target can cause great damage, it is tempting to preempt this move or others like it. This situation would be especially unstable if only second strike but not primary strike NC3 was incapacitated. Uncertainty in the efficacy of the clandestine penetration would discount the attacker’s confidence in its escalation dominance, with a range of possible outcomes. Enough uncertainty would discount the cyber attack to nothing, which would have a stabilizing effect by returning the crisis to the pure nuclear domain. A little bit of uncertainty about cyber effectiveness would heighten risk acceptance while also raising the incentives to preempt as an insurance measure.
Adding allies into the mix introduces additional instability. An ally emboldened by its nuclear umbrella might run provocative risks that it would be much more reluctant to embrace if it was aware that the umbrella was actually full of holes. Conversely, if the clandestine advantage is held by the state extending the umbrella, allies could become unnerved by the willingness of their defender to run what appear to be outsize risks, oblivious of the reasons for the defender’s confidence, creating discord in the alliance and incentives for self-protective action, leading to greater uncertainty about alliance solidarity.
The direction of influence between the cyber and nuclear realms depends to large degree on which domain is the main arena of action. Planning and conducting cyber operations will be bounded by the ability of aggressors to convince themselves that attacks will remain secret, and by the confidence of nuclear nations in their invulnerability. Fears of cross-domain escalation will tend to keep instability in cyberspace bounded. However, if a crisis has risen to the point where nuclear threats are being seriously considered or made, then NC3 exploitation will be destabilizing. Brinksmanship crises seem to have receded in frequency since the Cuban Missile Crisis but may be more likely than is generally believed. President Vladimir Putin of Russia has insinuated more than once in recent years that his government is willing to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to support his policies.
Cyber power and nuclear stability Not all crises are the same. Indeed, their very idiosyncrasies create the uncertainties that make bargaining failure more likely . So far our analysis would be at home in the Cold War, with the technological novelty of cyber operations. Yet not every state has the same cyber capabilities or vulnerabilities. Variation in cyber power relations across dyads should be expected to affect the strategic stability of nuclear states.
The so-called second nuclear age differs from superpower rivalry in important ways . There are fewer absolute numbers of warheads in the world, down from a peak of over 70 000 in the 1980s to about 15 000 today (less than 5000 deployed), but they are distributed very unevenly . The United States and Russia have comparably sized arsenals, each with a fully diversified triad of delivery platforms, while North Korea only has a dozen or so bombs and no meaningful delivery system (for now). China, India, Pakistan, Britain, France, and Israel have modest arsenals in the range of several dozen to a couple hundred weapons, but they have very different doctrines, conventional force complements, domestic political institutions, and alliance relationships. The recent nuclear powers lack the hard-won experience and shared norms of the Cold War to guide them through crises, and even the United States and Russia have much to relearn.
Cyber warfare capacity also varies considerably across contemporary nuclear nations. The United States, Russia, Israel, and Britain are in the top tier, able to run sophisticated, persistent, clandestine penetrations. China is a uniquely active cyber power with ambitious cyber warfare doctrine, but its operational focus is on economic espionage and political censorship, resulting in less refined tradecraft and more porous defenses for military purposes . France, India, and Pakistan also have active cyber warfare programs, while North Korea is the least developed cyber nation, depending on China for its expertise .
It is beyond the scope of this article to assess crisis dyads in detail, and data on nuclear and cyber power for these countries are shrouded in secrecy. Here, as a way of summing up the arguments above, we offer a few conjectures about how stylized aspects of cyber power affect crisis stability through incentives and key aspects of decision making. We do not stress relative nuclear weapon capabilities on the admittedly strong (and contestable) assumption that nuclear transparency in the absence of cyber operations would render nuclear asymmetry irrelevant for crisis bargaining because both sides would agree about the terrible consequences of conflict . We also omit domestic or psychological variables that affect relative power assessments, although these are obviously important. Even if neither India nor Pakistan have viable cyber–nuclear capabilities, brinksmanship between them is dangerous for many other reasons, notably compressed decision timelines, Pakistan’s willingness to shoot first, and domestic regime instability. Our focus is on the impact of offensive and defensive cyber power on nuclear deterrence above and beyond the other factors that certainly play a role in real-world outcomes.
First, does the cyber attacker have the organizational capacity, technical expertise, and intelligence support to “compromise” the target’s NC3? Can hackers access critical networks, exploit technical vulnerabilities, and confidently execute a payload to disrupt or exploit strategic sensing, command, forces, or transport capacity? The result would be some tangible advantage for warfighting, such as tactical warning or control paralysis, but one that cannot be exercised in bargaining.
Second, is the target able to “detect” the compromise of its NC3? The more complicated and sensitive the target, the more likely cyber attackers are to make a mistake that undermines the intrusion. Attribution is not likely to be difficult given the constricted pool of potential attackers, but at the same time the consequences of misattributing “false flag” operations could be severe . At a minimum, detection is assumed to provide information to the target that the balance of power is perhaps not as favorable as imagined previously. We assume that detection without an actual compromise is possible because of false positives or deceptive information operations designed to create pessimism or paranoia.
Third, is the target able to “mitigate” the compromise it detects? Revelation can prompt patching or network reconfiguration to block an attack, but this assumption is not always realistic. The attacker may have multiple pathways open or may have implanted malware that is difficult to remove in tactically meaningful timelines. In such cases the cyber commitment problem is not absolute, since the discovery of the power to hurt does not automatically disarm it. Successful mitigation here is assumed to restore mutual assessments of the balance of power to what they would be absent the cyber attack.
Table 1 shows how these factors combine to produce different deterrence outcomes in a brinksmanship (chicken) crisis. If there is no cyber compromise and the target detects nothing (no false positives) then we have the optimistic ideal case where nuclear transparency affords stable “deterrence.” Transparency about the nuclear balance, including the viability of secure second strike forces, provides strategic stability. We also expect this box to describe situations where the target has excellent network defense capabilities and thus the prospect of defense, denial or deception successfully deters any attempts to penetrate NC3. This may resemble the Cold War situation (with electronic warfare in lieu of cyber), or even the present day US–Russia dyad, where the odds of either side pulling off a successful compromise against a highly capable defender are not favorable. Alternately the attack may be deemed risky enough to encourage serious circumspection. However, the existence of Canopy Wing does not encourage optimism in this regard.
Conversely, if there is a compromise that goes undetected, then there is a heightened risk of “war” because of the cyber commitment problem. This box may be particularly relevant for asymmetric dyads such as the United States and North Korea, where one side has real cyber power but the other side is willing to go to the brink where it believes, falsely, that it has the capability to compel its counterpart to back down. Cyber disruption of NC3 is attractive for damage limitation should deterrence fail, given that the weaker state’s diminutive arsenal makes damage limitation by the stronger state more likely to succeed. The dilemma for the stronger state is that the clandestine counterforce hedge, which makes warfighting success more likely, is precisely what makes deterrence more likely to fail.
The United States would face similar counterforce dilemmas with other dyads like China or even Russia, although even a strong cyber power should be more circumspect when confronted with an adversary with a larger/more capable nuclear and conventional arsenal. More complex and cyber savvy targets, moreover, are more likely to detect a breach in NC3, leading to more ambiguous outcomes depending on how actors cope with risk and uncertainty. Paradoxically, confidence in cyber security may be a major contributor to failure; believing one is safe from attack increases the chance that an attack is successful.
If the successful compromise is detected but not mitigated, then the target learns that the balance of power is not as favorable as thought. This possibility suggests fleeting opportunities for “coercion” by revealing the cyber coup to the target in the midst of a crisis while the cyber attacker maintains or develops a favorable military advantage before the target has the opportunity to reverse or compensate the NC3 disruption. Recognizing the newly transparent costs of war, a risk neutral or risk averse target should prefer compromise. The coercive advantages (deterrence or compellence) of a detected but unmitigated NC3 compromise will likely be fleeting. This suggests a logical possibility for creating a window of opportunity for using particular cyber operations that are more robust to revelation as a credible signal of superior capability in the midst of a crisis. It would be important to exploit this fleeting advantage via other credible military threats (e.g. forces mobilized on visible alert or deployed into the crisis area) before the window closes.
One side may be able gain an unearned advantage, an opportunity for coercion via a “bluff,” by the same window-of-opportunity logic. A target concerned about NC3 compromise will probably have some network monitoring system and other protections in place. Defensive systems can produce false positives as a result of internal errors or a deception operation by the attacker to encourage paranoia. It is logically possible that some false positives would appear to the target to be difficult to mitigate. In this situation, the target could believe it is at a disadvantage, even though this is not in fact the case. This gambit would be operationally very difficult to pull off with any reliability in a real nuclear crisis.
Cyber–nuclear coercion and bluffing strategies are fraught with danger. Detection without mitigation might put a risk-acceptant or loss-averse target into a “use-lose” situation, creating pressures to preempt or escalate. The muddling of decision-making heightens the risk of accidents or irrational choices in a crisis scenario. Worry about preemption or accident then heightens the likelihood that the initiator will exercise counterforce options while they remain available. These pressures can be expected to be particularly intense if the target’s detection is only partial or has not revealed the true extent of damage to its NC3 (i.e. the target does not realize it has already lost some or all of what it hopes to use). These types of scenarios are most usually invoked in analyses of inadvertent escalation [23–27]. The essential distinction between “use-lose” risks and “war” in this typology is the target’s knowledge of some degree of NC3 compromise. Use-lose and other cognitive pressures can certainly result in nuclear war, since the breakdown of deterrence leads to the release of nuclear weapons, but we distinguish these outcomes to highlight the different decision making processes or rational incentives at work.
A “spiral” of mistrust may emerge if one side attempts a compromise but the defender detects and mitigates it. Both sides again have common mutual estimates of the relative balance of power, which superficially resembles the “deterrence” case because the NC3 compromise is negated. Unfortunately, the detection of the compromise will provide the target with information about the hostile intentions of the cyber attacker. This in turn is likely to exacerbate other political or psychological factors in the crisis itself or in the crisis-proneness of the broader relationship. The strange logical case where there is no compromise but one is detected and mitigated could result from a false positive misperception (including a third-party false flag operation) that could conflict spiraling [96, 97]. The bluff and coercion outcomes are also likely to encourage spiraling behavior once the fleeting bargaining advantage dissipates or is dispelled (provided anyone survives the interaction).
The risk of crisis instability is not the same for all dyads. It is harder to compromise the NC3 of strong states because of the redundancy and active defenses in their arsenal. Likewise, strong states are better able to compromise the NC3 of any states but especially of weaker states, because of strong states’ greater organizational capacity and expertise in cyber operations. Stable deterrence or MAD is most likely to hold in mutually strong dyads (e.g. the United States and the Soviet Union in the Cold War or Russia today to a lesser extent). Deterrence is slightly less likely in other equally matched dyads (India–Pakistan) where defensive vulnerabilities create temptations but offensive capabilities may not be sufficient to exploit them. Most states can be expected to refrain from targeting American NC3 given a US reputation for cyber power (a general deterrence benefit enhanced by Stuxnet and Snowden). The situation is less stable if the United States is the attacker. The most dangerous dyad is a stronger and a weaker state (United States and North Korea or Israel and Iran). Dyads involving strong and middle powers are also dangerous (United States and China). The stronger side is tempted to disrupt NC3 as a warfighting hedge in case deterrence breaks down, while the weaker but still formidable side has a reasonable chance at detection. The marginally weaker may also be tempted to subvert NC3, particularly for reconnaissance; the stronger side is more likely to detect and correct the intrusion but will be alarmed by the ambiguity in distinguishing intelligence collection from attack planning . In a brinksmanship crisis between them, windows for coercion may be available yet fleeting, with real risks of spiral and war.
Policy implications Skeptics are right to challenge the hype about cyberwar. The term is confusing, and hacking rarely amounts to anything approaching a weapon of mass destruction. Cyberspace is most usefully exploited on the lower end of the conflict spectrum for intelligence and subversion, i.e., not as a substitute for military or economic power but a complement to it. Yet the logic of complementarity has at least one exception regarding conflict severity, and it is a big one.
Offensive cyber operations against NC3 raise the risk of nuclear war. They do so because cyber operations and nuclear weapons are extreme complements regarding their informational properties. Cyber operations rely on deception. Nuclear deterrence relies on clear communication. In a brinksmanship crisis, the former undermines the latter. Nuclear crises were rare events in Cold War history, thankfully. Today, the proliferation and modernization of nuclear weapons may raise the risk slightly. Subversion of NC3 raises the danger of nuclear war slightly more. Cyberwar is not war per se, but in rare circumstances it may make escalation to thermonuclear war more likely.
NC3 is a particularly attractive counterforce target because disruption can render the enemy’s arsenal less effective without having to destroy individual platforms. US nuclear strategy in practice has long relied on counterforce capabilities (including Canopy Wing) [48, 99]. Deterrence theorists expect this to undermine the credibility of the adversary’s deterrent and create pressures to move first in a conflict [100, 101]. If for some reason deterrence fails, however, countervalue strikes on civilian population centers would be militarily useless and morally odious. Counterforce strikes, in contrast, aim at preemptive disarmament or damage limitation by attacking the enemy’s nuclear enterprise. Counterforce capabilities are designed for “winning” a nuclear war once over the brink, but their strategic purpose may still include warning if they can somehow be made robust to revelation. During the Cold War, the United States found ways to inform the Soviet Union of its counterforce ability to sink SSBNs, hit mobile ICBMs, and show off some electronic warfare capabilities without giving away precise details . This improved mutual recognition of US advantages and thus clearer assessment of the consequences of conflict, but the military commitment problem was real nonetheless. The problem is particularly pronounced for cyber disruption of NC3. As one side builds more sophisticated NC3 to improve the credibility of its nuclear “warning,” the other side engages in cyber operations to improve its capacity for nuclear “winning,” thereby undermining the warning.
The prohibitive cost of nuclear war and the relative transparency of the nuclear balance has contributed to seven decades of nuclear peace. If this is to continue, it will be necessary to find ways to maintain transparency. If knowledge of a shift in relative power is concealed, then the deterrent effect of nuclear capabilities is undermined. This will tend to occur in periods where concern over nuclear attack is heightened, such as in the midst of a militarized crises. Yet there is no reason to believe that states will wait for a crisis before seeking to establish advantageous positions in cyberspace. Indeed, given the intricate intelligence and planning required, offensive cyber preparations must precede overt aggression by months or even years. It is this erosion of the bulwark of deterrence that is most troubling.
What can be done? Arms control agreements to ban cyber attacks on NC3 might seem attractive, but the cyber commitment problem also undermines institutional monitoring and enforcement. Even where the United States would benefit from such an agreement by keeping this asymmetric capability out of the hands of other states, it would still have strong incentives to prepare its own damage limitation options should deterrence fail. Nevertheless, diplomatic initiatives to discuss the dangers of cyber–nuclear interactions with potential opponents should be pursued. Even if cyber–nuclear dangers cannot be eliminated, states should be encouraged to review their NC3 and ensure strict lines of control over any offensive cyber operations at that level.
Classified studies of the details of NC3, not just the technical infrastructure but also their human organizations, together with wargames of the scenarios above, may help nuclear war planners to think carefully about subverting NC3. Unfortunately, the same reconnaissance operations used to better understand the opponent’s NC3 can be misinterpreted as attempts to compromise it . More insidiously, private knowledge can become a source of instability insofar as knowing something about an adversary that improves one’s prospects in war increases the incentive to act through force or to exploit windows of opportunity in a crisis that could inadvertently escalate.
Anything that can be done to protect NC3 against cyber intrusion will make the most dangerous possibility of successful but undetected compromises less likely. The Defense Science Board in 2013 recommended “immediate action to assess and assure national leadership that the current U.S. nuclear deterrent is also survivable against the full-spectrum cyber … threat” . Defense in depth should include redundant communications pathways, error correction channels, isolation of the most critical systems, component heterogeneity rather than a vulnerable software monoculture, and network security monitoring with active defenses (i.e. a counterintelligence mindset). Older technologies, ironically, may provide some protection by foiling access of modern cyber techniques (Russia reportedly still uses punch-cards for parts of its NC3 ); yet vulnerabilities from an earlier era of inadequate safeguards are also a problem. For defense in depth to translate into deterrence by denial requires the additional step of somehow advertising NC3 redundancy and resilience even in a cyber degraded environment.
Cyber disruption of NC3 is a cross-domain deterrence problem. CDD might also be part of the solution. As noted above, CDD can help to bound the severity of instability in the cyber domain by threatening, implicitly or explicitly, the prospect of military, economic, law-enforcement, or diplomatic consequences. Cyber attacks flourish below some credible threshold of deterrence and rapidly tail off above it. CDD may also help in nuclear crises. CDD provides policymakers with options other than nuclear weapons, and perhaps options when NC3 is compromised. A diversity of options provides a variation on Schelling’s classic “threat that leaves something to chance.” In some dyads, particularly with highly asymmetric nuclear arsenals and technical capabilities, CDD may provide options for “war” and “coercion” outcomes (in the language of our typology) short of actual nuclear war. CDD does not necessarily improve deterrence and in many ways is predicated on the failure of deterrence, but the broadening of options may lessen the consequences of that failure (i.e. if a machine asks, “Do you want to play a game?” it would be helpful to have options available other than “global thermonuclear war”). The implications of choice among an expanded palette of coercive options in an open-ended bargaining scenario is a topic for future research.
Finally, every effort should be made to ensure that senior leaders—the President and the Secretary of Defense in the United States, the Central Military Commission in China, etc.—understand and authorize any cyber operations against any country’s NC3 for any reason. Even intrusions focused only on intelligence collection should be reviewed and approved at the highest level. Education is easier said than done given the esoteric technical details involved. Ignorance at the senior level of the implications of compromised NC3 is a major risk factor in a crisis contributing to false optimism or other bad decisions. New technologies of information are, ironically, undermining clear communication.
Acknowledgements We thank Scott Sagan, William J. Perry, the participants of the Stanford Cyber Policy Program (SCPP) Workshop on Strategic Dimensions of Offensive Cyber Operations, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments. This research was supported by SCPP and the Department of Defense Minerva Initiative through an Office of Naval Research Grant [N00014-14-1-0071].
References 1 Kaplan F. ‘WarGames’ and cybersecurity’s debt to a hollywood hack. The New York Times. February 19, 2016. Google Scholar 2 Schulte SR. ‘The WarGames Scenario’: regulating teenagers and teenaged technology (1980-1984). Television & New Media August 19, 2008. Google Scholar 3 Warner M. Cybersecurity: a pre-history. Intell Natl Security 2012;27:781–99. Google ScholarCrossref 4 Borg S. Economically complex cyberattacks. IEEE Security and Privacy Magazine 2005;3:64–67. Google ScholarCrossref 5 Clarke RA, Knake RK. Cyber War: The Next Threat to National Security and What to Do About It. New York: Ecco, 2010. 6 Brenner J. America the Vulnerable: Inside the New Threat Matrix of Digital Espionage, Crime, and Warfare. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. Google Scholar 7 Kello L. The meaning of the cyber revolution: perils to theory and statecraft. Int Security 2013;38:7–40. Google ScholarCrossref 8 Peterson D. Offensive cyber weapons: construction, development, and employment. J Strat Stud 2013;36:120–24. Google ScholarCrossref 9 Dunn Cavelty M. Cyber-terror—looming threat or phantom menace? The framing of the US cyber-threat debate. J Informat Technol & Polit 2008;4:19–36. Google ScholarCrossref 10 Rid T. Cyber war will not take place. J Strat Stud 2012;35:5–32. Google ScholarCrossref 11 Lawson S. Beyond cyber-doom: assessing the limits of hypothetical scenarios in the framing of cyber-threats. J Informat Technol & Polit 2013;10:86–103. Google ScholarCrossref 12 Benson DC. Why the internet is not increasing terrorism. Security Stud 2014;23:293–328. Google ScholarCrossref 13 Valeriano B, Maness RC. Cyber War Versus Cyber Realities: Cyber Conflict in the International System. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Google Scholar 14 Gartzke E. The myth of cyberwar: bringing war in cyberspace back down to earth. Int Security 2013;38:41–73. Google ScholarCrossref 15 Lindsay JR. Stuxnet and the limits of cyber warfare. Security Stud 2013;22:365–404. Google ScholarCrossref 16 Lindsay JR. The impact of China on cybersecurity: fiction and friction. Int Security 2014;39:7–47. Google ScholarCrossref 17 Opall-Rome B. Israeli cyber game drags US, Russia to brink of Mideast war. Defense News, November 14, 2013. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131115/C4ISRNET07/311150020/Israeli-Cyber- Game-Drags-US-Russia-Brink-Mideast-War. Google Scholar 18 Lindsay JR, Gartzke E. Cross-Domain Deterrence as a Practical Problem and a Theoretical Concept. Cross-Domain Deterrence: Strategy in an Era of Complexity, Gartzke E, Lindsay JR (eds.), La Jolla, CA: Manuscript, 2016. Google Scholar 19 Carcelli S, Gartzke E. Blast from the Past: Revitalizing and Diversifying Deterrence Theory. Working Paper. La Jolla, CA, 2016. Google Scholar 20 Powell R. Nuclear Deterrence Theory: The Search for Credibility. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Google Scholar 21 Gartzke E, Lindsay JR. Weaving tangled webs: offense, defense, and deception in cyberspace. Security Stud 2015;24:316–48. Google ScholarCrossref 22 Lindsay JR. Tipping the scales: the attribution problem and the feasibility of deterrence against cyber attack. J Cybersecurity 2015;1:53–67. Google Scholar 23 Posen BR. Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991. Google Scholar 24 Cimbala SJ. Nuclear crisis management and ‘Cyberwar’: phishing for trouble? Strat Stud Quart 2011:117–131. Google Scholar 25 Goldstein A. First things first: the pressing danger of crisis instability in U.S.-China relations. Int Security 2013;37:49–89. Google ScholarCrossref 26 Gompert DC, Libicki M. Cyber warfare and Sino-American crisis instability. Survival 2014;56:7–22. Google ScholarCrossref 27 Talmadge C. Assessing the risk of chinese nuclear escalation in a conventional war with the United States. Int Security (Forthcoming).
28 Hearing to Receive Testimony on U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Cyber Command in Review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2014 and the Future Years Defense Program, 2013. 29 Carter AD, Steinbruner JB, Zracket CA. Managing Nuclear Operations. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1987. Google Scholar 30 Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters. “Nuclear Command and Control System.” In Nuclear Matters Handbook 2015. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2015, 73–81. 31 Bracken PJ. The Command and Control of Nuclear Forces. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1985. Google Scholar 32 Blair B. Strategic Command and Control. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1985. Google Scholar 33 U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. A Historical Study of Strategic Connectivity, 1950-1981. Special Historical Study Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Secretariat, Historical Division, July 1982. Google Scholar 34 Gregory S. The Hidden Cost of Deterrence: Nuclear Weapons Accidents. London: Brassey’s, 1990. Google Scholar 35 Sagan SD. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. Google Scholar 36 Eric S. Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Demascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety. New York: Penguin, 2014. Google Scholar 37 George Lee B. Uncommon Cause: A Life at Odds with Convention, Volume II: The Transformative Years. Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, 2016. Google Scholar 38 Ambinder M. Failure shuts down squadron of nuclear missiles. The Atlantic 2010. Google Scholar 39 Blair B. Could terrorists launch America’s nuclear missiles? Time 2010. Google Scholar 40 Government Accountability Organization. Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications: Update on DOD’s Modernization. GAO-15-584R. Washington, DC, June 15, 2015. http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-584R. Google Scholar 41 Resilient military systems and the advanced cyber threat. Washington, DC: Defense Science Board, 2013. Google Scholar 42 Information Technology: Federal Agencies Need to Address Aging Legacy Systems. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office, 2016. Google Scholar 43 Futter A. The double-edged sword: US nuclear command and control modernization. Bull Atomic Scientists June 29, 2016. http://thebulletin.org/double-edged-sword-us-nuclear-command-and-control-modernization9593. Google Scholar 44 Haney C. Department of defense press briefing by Adm. Haney in the pentagon briefing room. U.S. Department of Defense, March 24, 2015. http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/607027 45 Baran P. On Distributed Communications Networks. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1962. Google Scholar 46 Clark DD. A cloudy crystal ball: visions of the future. Plenary presentation presented at the 24th meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force, Cambridge, MA, July 17, 1992. 47 Abbate J. Inventing the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999. Google Scholar 48 Long A, Green BR. Stalking the secure second strike: intelligence, counterforce, and nuclear strategy. J Strat Stud 2014;38:38–73. Google ScholarCrossref 49 Wolf M, McElvoy A. Man Without a Face: The Autobiography of Communism’s Greatest Spymaster. New York: Public Affairs, 1997. Google Scholar 50 Fischer BB. CANOPY WING: The U.S. war plan that gave the East Germans goose bumps. Int J Intell CounterIntell 2014;27:431–64. Google ScholarCrossref 51 Engelberg S, Wines M. U.S. says soldier crippled spy post set up in berlin. The New York Times 1989. Google Scholar 52 Owens WA, Dam KM, Lin HS. Technology, Policy, Law, and Ethics Regarding U.S. Acquisition and Use of Cyberattack Capabilities. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009. Google Scholar 53 Herrick D, Herr T. Combating complexity: offensive cyber capabilities and integrated warfghting. Atlanta, 2016. 54 Hoffman D. The Dead Hand: The Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race and Its Dangerous Legacy. New York: Random House, 2009. Google Scholar 55 Boulding KE. Conflict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Google Scholar 56 Brodie B, Dunn FS, Wolfers A et al. . The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1946. Google Scholar 57 Wohlstetter A. The delicate balance of terror. Foreign Affairs 1959;37:211–34. Google ScholarCrossref 58 Kahn H. On Thermonuclear War. Princeton University Press, 1960. Google Scholar 59 Snyder GH. Deterrence and Defense: Toward a Theory of National Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961. Google Scholar 60 Trachtenberg M. History and Strategy. Princeton University Press, 1991. Google Scholar 61 Gavin FJ. Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012. Google Scholar 62 Gartzke E, Kroenig M. Nukes with numbers: empirical research on the consequences of nuclear weapons for international conflict. Ann Rev Polit Sci 2016;19:397–412. Google ScholarCrossref 63 Powell R. Nuclear brinkmanship with two-sided incomplete information. Am Polit Sci Rev 1988;82:155–78. Google ScholarCrossref 64 Schelling TC. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960. Google Scholar 65 Zagare F. Rationality and deterrence. World Polit 1990;42:238–60. Google ScholarCrossref 66 Schelling TC. Arms and Influence: With a New Preface and Afterword. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Google Scholar 67 Slantchev BL. Feigning weakness. Int Organ 2010;64:357–88. Google ScholarCrossref 68 Powell R. Nuclear brinkmanship, limited war, and military power. Int Organ 2015;69:589–626. Google ScholarCrossref 69 Blainey G. Causes of War, 3rd edn. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988. Google Scholar 70 Fearon JD. Rationalist explanations for war. Int Organ 1995;49:379–414. Google ScholarCrossref 71 Powell R. In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Google Scholar 72 Reiter D. Exploring the bargaining model of war. Perspect Polit 2003;1:27–43. Google ScholarCrossref 73 Wagner RH. War and the State: The Theory of International Politics. University of Michigan Press, 2010. Google Scholar 74 Betts RK. Is strategy an illusion? Int Security 2000;25:5–50. Google ScholarCrossref 75 Gartzke E. War is in the error term. Int Organ 1999;53:567–87. Google ScholarCrossref 76 Kaplow JM, Gartzke E. Knowing unknowns: the effect of uncertainty in interstate conflict. New Orleans, 2015. 77 Sagan SD, Waltz KN. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate. 3rd ed, New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2012. Google Scholar 78 Gartzke E, Kaplow JM, Mehta RN. Offense, defense and the structure of nuclear forces: the role of nuclear platform diversification in securing second strike. Working Paper, 2015. 79 Gartzke E., War bargaining and the military commitment problem. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 2001. 80 Powell R. War as a commitment problem. Int Organ 2006;60:169–203. Google ScholarCrossref 81 Carson A, Yarhi-Milo K. Covert communication: the intelligibility and credibility of signaling in secret. Security Stud Forthcoming.
The media drumbeat for the Green New Deal agenda and the many cries for government to reduce the carbon footprint to save the planet make you wonder where all this is coming from and why.
Some commentators fear that this is less a grassroots initiative and more a Power Elite agenda for reducing and eventually eliminating national sovereignty and creating their long-stated goal of a collectivist One World Government.
One answer lies largely in the 1968 creation and agenda of the “Club of Rome” some 50 years ago. It was founded during a meeting at David Rockefeller’s private estate in Bellagio, Italy.
Club members, including Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Soros, Bill Gates, Queen Beatrix of the Netherland,s and Mikhail Gorbachev, believe humanity requires “a common motivation, namely a common adversary” in order to realize their goal of world government. They choose the threat of environmental catastrophe. (Listen to: “The Club of Rome, Originators of the Global Warming/Climate Change Scam.”)
Ever since, the Club of Rome has been establishing a network of 33 national associations. and their many tentacles of influence have been systematically propagating their catastrophic future vision into the mainstream of global public opinion.
They have been doing this through their controlled mass media cartel as well as their philanthropic foundations and corporations to fund research grants to approved “scientists” to advance their hypotheses, including man-made global warming and the dying off of the polar bears, as being “settled science.”
Today their theories and proposed action plans have entered the educational establishment, think tanks, and activist organizations, the mass media, political action committees, and Capitol Hill.
Leading advocates include many public figures and such prominent Beltway representatives as Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) on the Senate Committee on Appropriations and Congressman Paul Tonko (D-NY) the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change.
What is veiled from the inattentive majority is the role of elitists, who are leaders in finance, corporations, foundations, think tanks, universities, and mass news and entertainment media, as well as in civil government.
Sociologist G. William Domhoff’s book, “Who Rules America,” demonstrates that public policy agenda-setting, “begins informally in corporate boardrooms, social clubs, and discussion groups, where problems are identified as ‘issues’ to be solved by new policies. It ends in government, where their policies are enacted and implemented.”
The initial impetus for policy change and initial resources for research, planning, and formulation come from corporate and personal wealth channeled into tax-free foundations, universities, policy-oriented think tanks, and non-governmental organizations in the form of endowments, grants, and contracts.
Moreover, corporate presidents, directors, top wealth holders, key advisors, and their lawyers also sit on the governing boards of many such institutions to guide and monitor the progress of their plans.
Some observers say that what appears to be an organic, grassroots, bottom-up movement is actually a well-oiled, top-down machine. They point out that funding is selectively provided by their philanthropic foundations and charities. One of the many Council on Foundations’ Affinity Groups, namely the Environmental Grantmakers Association, is the funding epicenter of the environmental movement.
This has been documented by a report from the Congressional Committee on Environment and Public Works on how a club of billionaires and their foundations control the environmental movement.
According to its own website, the Club of Rome is composed of “scientists, economists, businessmen, international high civil servants, heads of state and former heads of state from all five continents who are convinced that the future of humankind is not determined once and for all and that each human being can contribute to the improvement of our societies.”
The Club of Rome is advancing the agenda of Thomas Malthus who argued that population was held within resource limits by two types of checks: 1) positive ones, which raised the death rate, and 2) preventative ones, which lowered the birth rate. The positive checks included hunger, disease and war; the preventative checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, homosexuality, postponement of marriage, and celibacy.
Their vision, as stated in their 1991 publication, “The First Global Revolution: A Report to the Club of Rome,” reads “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
In his memoirs, David Rockefeller (1915-2017), the founder-funder, wrote: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have … attacked the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions.
“Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
And that is why the well-funded Green Socialism’s drumbeat continues to intensify.
Editor’s note: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” concluded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013. These findings are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.
The essence of a cryptocurrency is spelled out, literally, it’s right there: Crypto, meaning secret. Bitcoin circa 2008/2009, the peer-to-peer, digital medium of exchange which both:
Assures user confidentiality/anonymity.
Makes available a public ledger open to the users to disclose the nature of each and every last transaction – full transparency of historical transactions.
This was indeed unique. Individual users are able to conceal their privacy. Blockchain technology allows for a real-time distributed ledger. This ledger is available on a decentralized network of computers shows exactly how much Bitcoin is out there; preventing people from spending the same token twice (amongst other safeguards).
Many people came to immediately appreciate this unique viability. This duality is what allowed for a medium of exchange that could function outside of the traditional, usurious banking system.
Many people that were the early users saw that this feature set was compromised early, a decade ago, when Bitcoin and many other cryptocurrencies soon thereafter became mechanisms of investment speculation – Blockchain technology is what the original institutional investors saw as the selling point to their clients in the financial market landscape.
Many people saw that the rise of cryptocurrency exchanges as having both benefits and drawbacks, an exchange such as Coinbase.
And as of last year, many users could see that the entity Coinbase, with it’s IPO, is now bringing the world of regulatory compliance – with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) being that first layer of such compliance. This really changes the face of “cryptocurrency”.
And now this: Coinbase has entered into a contract with the United States’ Department of Homeland Security. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of the U.S. Homeland Security has given a $1.36 million contract to crypto exchange giant Coinbase for “business application” and “application development software”
This vague language is pertains to surveillance. As evidenced here (from the Federal Procurement Data System online database):
And it turns out that Coinbase has already engaged in a handful of deals directly with the surveillance apparatus:
There have already been a handful of contracts with the government – in the name of surveillance. I spent nearly a decade working in the belly of the beast of the world of finance capital. I can see where this is going. This is the beginning of a long and beautiful relationship between publicly traded cryptocurrency exchanges and surveillance, secret police-types.
As a matter of fact, one does not have to have had a single day of experience working in the field. Any proper dissident can see what is happening here.
The deal inked on September 16, 2021 was the first one I have referred to in this blog post. This is the beginning of the end of cryptocurrencies.
The very same Department of Homeland Security that is currently set to monitor all “domestic, Far-Right, White nationalist, extremist (etc etc with their labels)” is now slowly permeating into oversight and monitoring of the use of the once legit, now so-called cryptocurrency realm.
Cryptocurrencies had the potential to completely gut and render the current central banking system and it’s failed USD reserve currency arrangement right through the ground. But no longer. And this is exactly why the mother of all bombs blast potential must be drained from cryptocurrencies, by our ever-increasing technocratic, oligarchical, corporatist state of surveillance capital in the coming age of Davos-flavored Communitarianism.
My prediction is that all unregulated cryptocurrencies will result in confiscation within two years. Or, upon potential arrival of an IMF-backed, universal digital currency implemented worldwide – all cryptocurrencies will be neutered overnight.
Lebanon is under unprecedented economic and social pressure, paying the price for Hezbollah’s military capability that causes a threat to “Israel”. The options offered by those (US, EU and “Israel”) effectively participating in cornering Lebanon -notwithstanding decades of domestic corruption and mismanagement – are limited to two: either disarm Hezbollah or push Lebanon toward a failed state and civil war. However, the “Axis of the Resistance” has other options: Iran has responded to the request of Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah by regularly sending to Lebanon food supplies and medicine. It is now sending oil tankers, which are expected to reach the country in the coming weeks via the Syrian port of Tartous. Iran is rushing to support one of its strongest allies in the “Axis of the Resistance”, Hezbollah, which is suffering severe domestic pressure, as are the entire Resistance Axis members in their respective countries. Hezbollah’s supporters of all persuasions are affected by the acute socio-economic crisis. But will Hezbollah succeed in overcoming the inevitable result of the current long-term crisis? How serious are the challenges?
In one of his private meetings, Sayed Nasrallah said: “Israel considered that Hezbollah’s military capability constituted a “vexing danger” at the first years of its existence. The level of danger moved up to “challenge” in 2000 when “Israel” withdrew from Lebanon, to the “serious menace” level after the 2006 war, and to “existential danger” after the wars in Syria and Iraq.”
In line with what the Secretary-General of Hezbollah believes, it is common knowledge that “Israel” possesses nuclear weapons. Therefore, no other power in the Middle East can be considered an “existential threat” to “Israel”. However, according to the Israeli military leadership, Hezbollah possesses accurate missiles carrying hundreds of kilograms of explosives each. Thus, Hezbollah needs only ten missiles – not hundreds – to hit 6 electric stations and 4 water desalination plants over the entire geography to render life impossible for a vast number of Israelis. The Israeli leadership stated that there is no need to count the precision missiles that could hit any oil platform, ship or harbour and destroy any airport control tower in any future war.
Consequently, there will be not many Israelis willing to stay, and it is conceivable to believe that a considerable number of Israelis would leave. This scenario constitutes an existential threat to “Israel”, indeed. In this case, as the military command says, “Israel” will never be able to coexist with such an existential threat looming over its head generated from the other side of the Lebanese border. Hezbollah possesses hundreds of precision missiles spread over a wide area in Lebanon, Syria, and mainly along the fortified eastern mountainside that offer ideal protection for these missiles. So what are “Israel’s” options?
Following the failure to subdue Hezbollah in 2006 in the 3rd war, the victory of the “Axis of Resistance” in the Syrian conflict, the prevention of the division of Iraq and the fall of Yemen under Saudi Arabia’s control, the area of influence of the Resistance Axis expanded, as well as its theatre of operations. Consequently, the danger to “Israel”, to the US’s goals and hegemony in West Asia, significantly increased.
The nuclear dossier is not that far away from the threat the “Axis of the Resistance” is confronted with. By increasing its nuclear capability, Iran forced President Joe Biden to put the nuclear negotiation at the top of its agenda during (former) President Hassan Rouhani’s mandate. Whatever has been said about the possibility of future progress in the nuclear talks in Vienna, lifting sanctions on Iran – while Iraq is labouring under heavy financial debt, Syria is subjected to a severe economic blockade, and Lebanon faces a becoming degraded state -seems unrealistic to the US.
To the west and “Israel”, releasing Iran’s frozen funds – which exceed $110 billion – at a time of maximum financial pressure and heavy sanctions, is not logical. Moreover, allowing Iran to sell and export its oil and lifting the maximum pressure means that all the previous US efforts to curb Iran’s will and progress are due to fail just when the results of these sanctions are turning in favour of the US in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Consequently, maintaining economic pressure on the “Axis of Resistance” has become a US necessity and strategy. With this in mind, the US failed to comply with the nuclear agreement, to improve the leverage of the US negotiator and impose its conditions over Iran to include, above all, its relationship with its allies and the maintenance of hundreds of sanctions in place.
With the arrival of President Ibrahim Raisi to power and his plans to give little time for the nuclear negotiation, the US sees itself faced with two very bitter choices: either allowing Iran to become a nuclear power or removing all sanctions so as to persuade Iran to delay its entire nuclear capability. Both decisions are impossible choices and inconvenient for the US administration. Thus, the US needs to hit Iran’s allies without negotiating with Tehran, because it refuses to include it – as well as Iran’s missile program – in any nuclear talks.
Suppose the maximum pressure on Lebanon fails to weaken Hezbollah. In that case, Washington needs to evaluate future steps to choose between the nuclear threat or the “Axis of the Resistance” threat to “Israel”. And if the US opts for the 2015 nuclear agreement –which is unlikely – then “the Axis of Resistance” will experience a strong revival, recovering from the extreme US pressure. Whatever America’s choice is, it has become more than evident that Iran will eventually become a nuclear power and offer more than adequate support to its allies to keep them strong enough to face whatever challenges.
In Lebanon, Hezbollah cannot provide and has no intention of replacing the services provided by the state. Nevertheless, it is involved in the food supply through “al-Sajjad” cards delivered to families needing to buy food at a sharply reduced price, which raised the number from 150 000 to 200 000. It is supporting thousands of families who have reached the level of extreme poverty. Moreover, Hezbollah brought medication from Iran (more than 500 types) to cover some of the country’s needs when pharmacies are closing their doors and lacking essential medical supplies.
Furthermore, in the coming weeks, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah have agreed on delivering Iranian oil to Lebanon. Hezbollah will receive the gasoline from the supply to its forces and for covering its daily movements. Hospitals are at the top of the list of those expected to receive the Iranian oil distributed by Hezbollah to prevent their shutting down. Many hospitals closed more than half of their departments. Other medical facilities transferred their patients to hospitals that still have fuel to generate electricity for the next few days. In various parts of Lebanon, hospitals are asking many patients to leave due to the lack of diesel fuel for electricity. The American University of Beirut Medical Centre stopped ventilators and other lifesaving medical devices for the lack of fuel oil.
Also, Hezbollah is expected to deliver Iranian oil to the owners of tens of thousands of private electric generators. The lack of electricity in the country boosted the presence of thousands of privately-owned generators who, for decades, offer their paid services to compensate for the lack of electricity. These are expected to benefit from the oil delivered by Hezbollah to secure electric power supply for people. The shortage of diesel fuel for the owners of generators reached a critical degree in the current hot summer, raising the level of discontent among the population.
Also, diesel fuel will be provided to some municipalities to secure waste removal from the streets for fear of the spread of disease. Al-Amanah Company is also expected to distribute the Iranian oil and diesel to dozens of stations approved by it and other local gasoline stations spread throughout the Lebanese territory.
But Hezbollah will not satisfy everyone in the country and is not able to prevent internal deterioration within the Shia society (-the majority of Shia stand with Hezbollah, but there are others in the Amal movement under the control of Speaker Nabih Berri and not Hezbollah) in the first place and among its allies in the second place. The social decline is at a peak, and Iran’s support is insufficient unless Iran fully achieves its own recovery – if sanctions are fully lifted – and its domestic economy recovers. As far as it concerns Iran, the consent to its allies is mandatory because the “Axis of the Resistance” is united and all share the same vocation.
However, it is not in Iran’s capability to take on the entire burden of Syria and Lebanon’s economy. Iran supported Syria financially throughout the decade of war but is in no position to finance all the needs of the state. Also, Hezbollah started as a popular resistance force against the Israeli occupation, intending to impose deterrence and protect the state from Israeli violations and ambitions. It has been heavily involved in social support to the deprived Shia sect and managed to cover many infrastructure and service holes left by the incapability of the state. But the challenge faced in the last couple of years is beyond Hezbollah’s competencies and probably beyond the means of the state itself.
It should be borne in mind, though, that the flow of the Iranian oil into Lebanon carries with it several potential risks:
First: The risk of an Israeli strike on the supply lines. This will require Hezbollah to strike back “Israel” to maintain the balance of terror and deterrence equation. The tension in the military situation between “Israel” and Hezbollah will reach its climax without going to an all-out war because “Israel” prefers “campaigns between wars” to control the damage that may result from the confrontation. However, if “Israel” strikes the Iranian oil tankers or other countries try to stop the oil from reaching Lebanon, Iran would reply and it is not expected to stop sending its tankers to Lebanon.
Second: The supply route passes through areas not controlled by Hezbollah. What will the other anti-Hezbollah groups do? Will Hezbollah find a solution to convince the (hostile) Druze, Sunni and Christians spread along its supply road to avoid intercepting its trucks, or would it be forced to face groups and be dragged into an internal battle? How will Hezbollah guarantee the cohesion of its areas from the Beqaa to the southern suburbs of Beirut and even to the South of Lebanon so that its environment would be safe from the sectarian incitement the US manipulates and drags the country toward it?
There is no doubt that Lebanon is heading toward the dissolution of the state in a fast-paced manner. This will lead to the security forces’ weakness in general and push each sect or party to provide the necessary support to the membership of its society. Lebanon is expected to live again in the 1980s era when social services were reduced, waste spread in the streets, health and education levels declined, security forces were inefficient and hopeless, and warlords were emerging out of it.
From a specific aspect, the US-Israeli blockade is relatively in the interests of Hezbollah because it receives its financial support in foreign currency. Hezbollah is a regular and coherent organisation, and it will increase its revenue from the sharp devaluation of the local currency, the selling of medicine, oil and food. Hezbollah is expected to sell gasoline and diesel at prices relatively lower than the market price. Furthermore, it is also expected to allow other areas in Lebanon to have access to all the reached products. That will permit Hezbollah to expose greedy Lebanese merchants who monopolise and stockpile medicines and gasoline to starve the market and increase prices. These Lebanese merchants will be forced to sell their goods if these are no longer a rarity in the market. The goods are currently sold on the black market at prices unaffordable to the majority of the inhabitants.
What Lebanon is suffering from is the result of decades of corruption conducted by the US friends who held the political power in the country. The downgrading of Lebanon is primarily due to the US and Israeli interventions and influence in this country: It has lost the name “Switzerland of the East” forever. The disadvantage for Hezbollah will be the security chaos, the fragmentation of the security forces and their inability to impose their authority, and the spread of poverty to hit all walks of life. It is also expected to see the country suffer different sabotage acts, bribes, further corruption- and to become a fertile platform for the Israeli intelligence to operate in. A possible and potential scenario will force Hezbollah to “clean up” the roads to ensure the continuity of its supplies, link all Shia areas together and impose “self-security” to reduce their vulnerability.
Time’s arrow cannot be reversed, and Lebanon will not return to what it was before, not for the next ten years at least. There is a possibility to create Lebanese cantons with different warlords without engaging in a civil war. Each Lebanese party would end up arming its group to support its people and area, not to engage in a battle with other parties, but to defend itself.
The collapse is the master of the situation. The US has prevented Lebanon from benefiting from Chinese and Russian offers to rebuild the country and stop it from deteriorating further. Moreover, the US forbad Europe and the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries from helping Lebanon in this crisis as they used to in the past. After all, Lebanon needs 3 to 4 billion dollars to stand on its feet and regain some of its strength after halting subsidies on various items that gobble up its cash resources.
But the challenge remains for the “Axis of Resistance” members, struggling to survive and resist the US hegemony and confront the US projects to dominate West Asia. Unless the “Axis of Resistance” members take the initiative and move from a defensive to an offensive position and impose new equations that prevent starvation of the population, this pressure will remain and even increase with time. However, supposing the US pressure is maintained, and the “Axis of the Resistance” adopts only survival mode: In that case, Lebanon’s people and the country’s stability will pay an increasingly heavy price, both now and in the years to come.
The adverse effects, that is, the illnesses and deaths associated with the Covid vaccines, are showing up in large numbers before the Big Pharma medical establishment can vaccinate everyone. Consequently, the medical establishment and the compliant presstitutes are ramping up the fear and pushing ahead faster to achieve their agendas before the dire consequences of the […]