* actual numbers may be dated, however, the true character of each nation should be obvious to the most casual observer!
Iran has yet to violate the JCPOA treaty that was signed by many countries almost four years ago. Have you read it?
There seems to be some angst in major media today, 01JUL2019, when they heard that Iran has announced that it has exceeded 300kg of enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6). Really? Did they not read the treaty and know what “triggered” this action? Did they not hear Iran warn about this during late-May and earlier last month? This should have been no surprise.
I had shared my own concerns of the heightened tensions between the US Empire and Iran in a post about a week ago when I mentioned:
A nations character is determined by its actions over time. The US’s character in domestic and world affairs has been going downhill for decades, even over a century. This nation has long passed the time when the world might see us as a “shining city on a hill”.
It takes TWO in any relationship, and in this case, the US has been nothing but a bully in “victim-blaming” Iran .. from when the CIA assassinated their president in 1953 to this April when Trump said:
“floods once again show the level of Iranian regime mismanagement in urban planning and in emergency preparedness.”
.. WHILE whole swaths of the US Midwest were underwater. You can’t make this up. Every administration assumes that the stupid American people will just nod their head and agree with main-stream-media and their masters, the US government (deep state, politicians and thousands of bureaucrats that suck the life out of the American taxpayer).
Moon of Alabama cuts to the chase about what is really going on here:
Iran does that [exceed 300kg UF6] within the frame of the JCPOA. It is not breaching it. Article 26 of the joint plan states that the U.S. will refrain from reimposing sanctions and that Iran will react in case that happens:
The United States will make best efforts in good faith to sustain this JCPOA and to prevent interference with the realisation of the full benefit by Iran of the sanctions lifting specified in Annex II. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from re-introducing or re-imposing the sanctions specified in Annex II that it has ceased applying under this JCPOA, without prejudice to the dispute resolution process provided for under this JCPOA. The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions.Iran has stated that it will treat such a re-introduction or re-imposition of the sanctions specified in Annex II, or such an imposition of new nuclear-related sanctions, as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part.
For the record, on 08MAY2019, the US broke the JCPOA when it reimposed sanctions on Iran. Period. There should be ZERO crocodile tears from the US on this latest development.
In addition to this, Mood of Alabama points out that on 03MAY2019:
the State Department removed sanction waivers that allowed Iran to export low enriched uranium in exchange for natural uranium:
In addition, any involvement in transferring enriched uranium out of Iran in exchange for natural uranium will now be exposed to sanctions. The United States has been clear that Iran must stop all proliferation-sensitive activities, including uranium enrichment, and we will not accept actions that support the continuation of such enrichment.We will also no longer permit the storage for Iran of heavy water it has produced in excess of current limits; any such heavy water must not be made available to Iran in any fashion.
Linked to this is the US’s attempt to isolate Iran in all this by its threat to keep EU (European Union) partners (especially Germany, France and the U.K.) from trading with Iran.Do you see any similarities to how the US treated Japan in 1940 for force them to fire first? (from a 15JUN2019 post):
Especially damning was the economic manipulation FDR orchestrated against Japan the year before Pearl Harbor and the fact that his administration was well aware of the Japanese fleet’s route to Pearl but decided to keep the US Navy in Hawaii in the dark. So much for that “surprise”.
Deja vu, all over again. When will the masses learn? Oh yes, we are in the process of erasing our history, how convenient!
But there is some good news, according to Zero Hedge:
Europe announced that the special trade channel, Instex, that will allow European firms to avoid SWIFT and bypass American sanctions on Iran, is now operational.
The EU has *alls! This is great news and the price of oil reflected this event.
This also has some more unintended consequences for the US playing “hard-ball” with Iran (on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia you know, because what other reason would the US be upset with Iran about?). Zero Hedge again points out this aspect of the empire that has some more cracks in it:
Here is a simpler summary of what just happened: this was the first official shot across the bow of the USD status as a global reserve currency, and not by America’s adversaries but by its closest allies. And once those who benefit the most from the status quo openly revolt against it, the countdown to the end of the USD reserve status officially begins.
Yes. You may ask why would I be happy about the economic mayhem that is bound to occur when the effects of this ripple out through all the US economic “spinning-plates”? It is because the only way for the US Empire to quit thinking that “American Exceptionalism” gives it a license to operated above the law (natural law) in the whole world without penalty, the only way the US Empire finally understands that it can no longer be the world’s policeman, that the only way the US political class / elites and deep state finally come to terms with the immorality of its ways (not practicing the golden rule on the macro level) is for the financial rug be pulled out from under it so the “beast” (i.e. swamp) can finally be starved (i.e. drained).
I yearn for the day that the American people (together (doubtful) OR separately (ideally) in various federations of states and city-states) get back to that moment in time when the American Revolution concluded when life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were the top three in the minds of those that finally threw off the British Empire’s micro-managing / taxing agenda.
For the current US government who never saw a treaty that it couldn’t eventually break, it is no wonder why the political elite never wanted this deal with Iran to work, as one can see in the intro to the 2015 treaty:
The E3/EU+3 (China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, with the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) and the Islamic Republic of Iran welcome this historic Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which will ensure that Iran’s nuclear programme will be exclusively peaceful ..
Yes, it is that word “peace”. The US Empire has not nor has never wanted peace. Free trade is the antidote to war, and the state knows this!
American exceptionalism gives those in power the encouragement to make believe that any means necessary are acceptable to accomplish the American Dream on a global scale.
The US Empire is morally bankrupt. As in society and community circles, a person’s actions, when compared to their words, determine the type of character they really are. The habitual liar’s history goes a long way in understanding what, if anything, that comes out of their mouth can be believed.
From Moon of Alabama comes a right understanding of the current situation with Iran, especially after the US immediately accused Iran of attacking oil tankers off their shore WITHOUT any evidence. As with the WMDs in Iraq, the Malaysian passenger jet shot down over Ukraine and “chemical weapons” attacks in Syria, the Western governments and their media know that the masses of people will only pay attention to the first few snippets of news and will never think again months and years later as to what really happened after careful investigations are completed.
To say that the attacks were provocations by the U.S. or its Middle East allies is made easier by their evident ruthlessness. Any accusations by the Trump administration of Iranian culpability will be easily dismissed because everyoneknows that Trump and his crew are notorious liars.
We do have a history of US government lying going back years, decades and even centuries, ask the American Indians about US treaties!
We know the damned lies from the US government as well. The US republic, or federation or democracy is not exempt from the DNA of the state. Murray Rothbard in his essay, “Anatomy of the State,” wrote of how states preserve their power with a number of tools, most notably an alliance with “intellectuals.” In return for power and positions, the “intellectuals” work diligently to persuade “the majority” that “their government is good, wise and, at least, inevitable.”
To think that the swamp was actually created recently is a fallacy as much as expecting Donald Trump to drain this swamp. Ain’t happening, ever. His very position depends on the existence of the swamp, both those in official government position as well as in and around the deep state including a subset of the elite.
It did not take long after the American Revolution to see that lies, damned lies and statistics were to be at the core of the general government and subsequently into the state governments (especially after Lincoln violently reacted to even the thought of state’s rights) and beyond.
One of the first major liars on the scene was Alexander Hamilton. Suck a duplicitous liar Hamilton was in that he could speak out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing in his Federalist Papers essays, and then spending the rest of his life doing exactly the opposite. He defended states’ rights and federalism in these essays but when pressed by Jefferson and Madison, he “would often backtrack and advance positions he favored during the Philadelphia Convention, namely for a supreme central authority with virtually unlimited power, particularly for the executive branch.” This was “the real Hamilton,” who “made a habit of lying when the need arose.”
It was Hamilton who first spread the outrageous, ahistorical lie that the states were never sovereign and that the Constitution was somehow ratified by “the whole people” and not by state conventions, as required by Article 7 of the Constitution itself. It was Hamilton who John C. Calhoun must have been thinking about when he warned of “intellectuals” reinterpreting the constitution in a way that would essentially destroy it. Hamilton’s lifelong goal was to subjugate the citizens of the states to the central government and render the states irrelevant and powerless. The most Hamiltonian of all presidents, Abraham Lincoln, finally achieved this goal.
So it must be of no surprise that the wars of 1812, Mexican-American War in the 1840s, the so-called, mis-named Civil War of the 1860s, the American Indian wars, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII were ALL started based on lies by the US government. So much for the Greatest Generation who I refer to as their actual designation, the Silent Generation, as they did little to investigate the lies that catapulted the US into a two front war that distracted the public enough about US government failure to engineer a recovery from the Great Depression. Especially damning was the economic manipulation FDR orchestrated against Japan the year before Pearl Harbor and the fact that his administration was well aware of the Japanese fleet’s route to Pearl but decided to keep the US Navy in Hawaii in the dark. So much for that “surprise”.
We all should be aware of the lies since the close of WWII (the damned lie that the US had to have “unconditional surrender of Japan”, that only allowed the US government a live experiment of what nuclear weapons could do on two Japanese civilian population centers, and then settle for the same terms Japan offered in May 1945). The lies about the Korean War (our bombing of dams in North Korea causing so many innocent deaths will not be soon forgotten, can you blame them for retaining nuclear weapons?). The lies about Vietnam (yes, the Gulf of Tonkin incident that changed the course of that war under LBJ was made up), about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria all point to a major character flaw in the US government. Topping all this was the revelation by the hero Edward Snowden that the US government was indeed spying on all its citizens, capturing not just meta-data but actually phone, e-mail, text communications for the past two decades.
So now that we have the context, let us look briefly into the whole Iran thing. Historically, it must be noted that in 1953, the CIA actually assassinated the democratically elected president of Iran, a secular nationalist, Mohammad Mossadegh, the elected leader of the Majlis, Iran’s parliament. Operation Ajax was conceived by MI6, the UK’s foreign spy agency, and the CIA would organize the coup. Kermit Roosevelt, a grandson of former US President Teddy Roosevelt, was the CIA officer in charge. Like North Korea, damned lies like this will be hard to be forgotten for generations of Iranians!
It should also be noted that in the late 1970s, many Iranians were students of mine in electronics classes in the US Navy. These are an honorable people with a rich heritage. I believe those who doubt this can watch this Rick Steve’s documentary accomplished five years ago about the Iranian people:
Fast forward to 2019. Moon of Alabama paints the near-term context:
In early May 2018 U.S. President Trump broke the nuclear deal with Iran and sanctioned all trade with that country. Iran reacted cautiously. It hoped that the other signatories of the nuclear deal would stick to their promises and continue to trade with it. The year since proved that such expectations were wrong.
Under threat of U.S. sanctions the European partners stopped buying Iranian oil and also ended their exports to it. The new financial instrument that was supposed to allow payments between European countries and Iran has still not been implemented. It is also a weak construct and will have too little capacity to make significant trade possible. Russia and China each have their own problems with the United States. They do not support trade with Iran when it endangers their other interests.
Meanwhile the Trump administration increased the pressure on Iran. It removed waivers it had given to some countries to buy Iranian oil. It designated a part of the Iranian armed forces, the Revolutionary Guard Corp (ICRG), as a terrorist entity. On Friday it sanctioned Iran’s biggest producer of petrochemical products because that company is alleged to have relations with the ICRG.
Why? Regime change is the M.O. (modus operandi) of the US Empire. It matters not the lives this endeavor may cost, Trump, his cabinet, his and his cabinet’s kids will not show up in any casualty lists, neither will war-hawks like Obama, Hillary, and others who happen to wear a “D” on their suits and pantsuits instead of an “R”. I am sure, the agenda is the same as in 1953 except for getting the United Kingdom what they wanted, Iranian oil, now the US Empire is accomplishing this on behalf of Israel, the empire’s new buddy and will satisfy Saudi Arabia as well.
How does a nation without nuclear weapons (in a proverbial “gun-free”zone) stay independent? History shows that when Libya gave up their nuclear ambitions, it is then when they were regime-changed. However, its actions to date are very honorable (especially if you compare their actions to that of the USA!):
The strategic patience Iran demonstrated throughout the year since Trump killed the deal brought no result. Trump will stay in power, probably for another five and a half years, while Iran’s economic situation continuous to get worse. The situation requires a strategic reorientation and the adoption of a new plan to counter U.S. pressure.
I am impressed by Iran’s response to this pressure from a global bully. It would be interesting to see how many parallels this effort has with Russia and even China as the US Empire threatens any nation that refuses to bow down to American Exceptionalism with sanctions and tariffs. From a Middle East Policy expert, Elijah J. Magnier, we see this four point plan outlined:
The first step suggested by Sayyed Ali Khamenei is for Iran to develop its resources and reduce imports to a minimum level in the years to come. Iran’s imports range from 40 to 65 billion dollars a year (in 2010, Iranian imports reached $65.4 billion while in 2017, they amounted to $51.6 billion). These imports are mainly related to machinery, computers and phone system devices, pharmaceuticals and medical instruments, electrical machinery, wheat, cereals and corn, rice and soya beans, transport vehicles, iron and flat-rolled steel, and organic chemicals.
The second recommendation is for Iran to behave on the premise that it has no loyal and established friends. The Leader of the revolution indicated that relationships with countries should be based on mutual interest rather than strategically established. Iran should count on its capabilities to defend its existence and continuity, without isolating itself. Countries may stand with Iran for their common benefit and interest, but such alliances should be considered related to circumstances and opportunities rather than taken for granted.
The third recommendation would be to ease domestic pressure on all political parties, including reformers (Mehdi karroubi, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard). The Iranian leadership considers national unity of paramount importance in this period of crisis that may last for another five years if Donald Trump is re-elected. Moreover, Iran has taken a unified stand against US sanctions; moderates such as President Hassan Rouhani and his Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif have adopted hard-line positions, similar to those of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps.
The Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fourth recommendation is that Iran relies much less on oil export revenues in the future. Iran’s annual crude petroleum shipments are worth 21 to 27 billion dollars, representing 4.3% of the world market share. The Iranian leader suggested increasing and diversifying other domestic products Iran could export, mainly but not exclusively to neighbouring countries. This measure is meant to lessen the effect of US sanctions on Iranian energy exports, in place not only under the Trump administration but also under previous US administrations throughout the life of the “Islamic Revolution” (1979).
I also wonder how the US’s “founding fathers” might have also approached this same strategy in its battle against the British Empire and its King George from 1775 – 1783.
Beyond this four-point plan, there is another shift happening:
Trump continues to call for negotiations with Iran but he can accept nothing but a total capitulation. Trump also proved that the U.S. does not stick to the agreements it makes. There is therefore no hope for Iran to achieve anything through negotiations. There is only one way to counter Trump’s maximum pressure campaign and that is by putting maximum pressure on him.
Neither Washington, nor the anti-Iranian countries in the Middle East, nor the other nuclear deal signers have so far paid a price for their hostile acts against Iran. That will now change.
Marine Traffic – Oil Tanker ONLY
Iran’s coast and reach can have a huge impact on the oil business
Iran will move against the interests of the U.S., Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It will do so in deniable form to give the U.S. and others no opening for taking military actions against it. Iran has friends in various countries in the Middle East who will support it with their own capabilities. The campaign Iran now launches will also create severe damage for other countries.
In the last 30 days we have seen the shift start as “things” start to happen in the oil shipping channel, is this coincidence or is that part of a strategy either by MI6/Mossad/CIA or by Iranian forces?
In mid May 2019, one year after Trump destroyed the nuclear deal, a demonstration of capabilities damaged four tankers which anchored near Fujairah in the UAE. There was no evidence to blame the attack on Iran. The incident was a warning. But the U.S. ignored it and increased the sanction pressure on Iran.
Yesterday two tankers with petrochemical products were attacked while crossing the Gulf of Oman. Coming only a few days after Trump sanctioned Iran’s petrochemical exports points to Iran’s involvement. But again no evidence was left in place to blame the incident on Iran.
Early reports seem to indicate drone use in the latest attacks:
Meanwhile the owner of the Kokuka Courageous, one of the stricken ships, said that the damage to its ship was not caused by mines but by drones:
Two “flying objects” damaged a Japanese tanker owned by Kokuka Sangyo Co in an attack on Thursday in the Gulf of Oman, but there was no damage to the cargo of methanol, the company president said on Friday.
…
“The crew told us something came flying at the ship, and they found a hole,” Katada said. “Then some crew witnessed the second shot.”
Drones also are the M.O. of the US Empire. Ask anyone in the Middle East! I do not rule out Iranian involvement, but they know that any Iranian fingerprint would be dealt with swiftly.
At the US Empire’s core, there seems to be an alliance of disgusting personalities. Iran’s leadership is very aware of this team they call the “B-team”:
That the US immediately jumped to make allegations against Iran—w/o a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence—only makes it abundantly clear that the #B_Team is moving to a #PlanB: Sabotage diplomacy—including by @AbeShinzo—and cover up its #EconomicTerrorism against Iran.
I warned of exactly this scenario a few months ago, not because I’m clairvoyant, but because I recognize where the #B_Team is coming from.
Moon of Alabama goes on to call out these war-jockeys:
The “B-team” includes Trump’s National Security Advisor John Bolton, Israel’s Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahoo, Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia and Mohammed bin Zayed of the UAE.
So the focus that was on Syria from this alliance has now shifted to Iran yet again as it seems that Russia has subtly been able to shore up Venezuela for the time being.
The deep state is looking for a war, it needs war profits (in addition to the drug trade) to continue it existence, and at some point in the future, it will follow-through on something, somewhere.
So sad. So sick.
The sad truth remains, as Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are all well aware:
Politics is indeed the poison that honorable people must reject outright. The problem is in a democracy, “the people” are given the “political power” (in principle only) to get what they want. Dividing people into groups while inciting violence from time to time tends to keep our eyes off the most evil element of our society, our tyrannical and narcissistic governments.
Expect the lies, damned lies (and statistics) to continue.
I find it very sad, that the United States of America (formerly known as the ‘united States of America’), had to eventually devote an entire day, or weekend, once a year to honor all our war dead. Who would have thought, in the early days of this republic, that the military deaths of 1.3 million men would one day be the sum total of over 240 years of war and strife.
It would have been one thing IF a majority of these deaths had been due to other nations attacking us, UNPROVOKED, but this is not the case. The United States has NEVER been attacked unprovoked for these major conflicts and wars. Not the War of 1812, not the Mexican-American War, not the so-called Civil War when seven states exited the “union”, not the Spanish-American War, not WWI, not WWII (if you have any doubts, read “Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor“), not the Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War I or even Gulf War II against Iraq and Afghanistan (no, the 9/11 attacks were NOT directed from these two countries, do your research!).
I have become convinced that the creation and adoption of the US Constitution led us to become a warfare state, that even with Thomas Jefferson (who was away during the Philadelphia exercise that removed the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the Constitution we have today in 1787) as president, even he could not keep this republic, this federation of states from war.
From this 2010 Mises Institute article where H.A. Scott Trask shares excerpts from Chapter 3 of Reassessing the Presidency, edited by John V. Denson, it is clear that Jefferson’s view would have led to many fewer wars, and less of a need for a national holiday to honor all who died, not fighting for our freedom, as that has been our natural right from the begining, but fighting wars that enrich the monied class (protectionist and mercantile segment that looks to find a partner in government and the state and its power) of people in the United States, now known as the Military-Industrial Complex.
Here is Jefferson’s dream:
… the happiness of his countrymen would be promoted best by a policy of “peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” He envisioned his country as a peaceful, agrarian-commercial federal republic of self-sufficient farmers and mechanics slowly spreading across space to fill in the beautiful and bountiful land vouchsafed them by Providence. Possessing “a wide and fruitful land,” “with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation,” and “kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe.” America, Jefferson believed, had the blessed opportunity to keep itself free from the incessant rivalries, jealousies, and conflicts of the Old World. For Jefferson, the wise and patriotic statesman would take advantage of his country’s fortunate geography and situation by defending a policy of national independence, neutrality, and noninvolvement in European affairs.
So what did Jefferson attempt to do to keep these United States from the typical knee-jerk reaction to try to fix problems in other countries and somehow believe in American Exceptionalism? He reduced the standing army substantially (from well over 6000 men to around 3000 men) and relying on the major factor that actually allowed the thirteen colonies to wear down the British Empire, state militias. Not perfect, the fact that every state had a ready force in its own citizens that had armed themselves with state of the art muskets and rifles, would be more than enough to allow a DEFENSE of these states should a foreign power attempt an invasion.
Jefferson’s defense policy was to maintain a peacetime military establishment composed of a small standing army (about 3,000 men) to defend the frontier against hostile Indians and possible Spanish incursions from the Floridas, and a small naval squadron to protect American commerce from the depredations of third-rate powers, such as the Barbary states of North Africa. Jefferson possessed a classical republican aversion to large military and naval establishments both for their expense (which required either taxes or debt to maintain) and their potential threat to the liberties of the people.
Far from being idealistic or Utopian, Jefferson’s vision and policies were based on a realistic understanding of America’s geopolitical situation in the Atlantic world. He believed that it would be pure folly and extravagance to build a large oceangoing fleet, composed of hundreds of frigates and ships-of-the-line. He rightly surmised that building such a fleet would alarm the British and encourage a preemptive strike by their navy in the event of hostilities. Thus, building a fleet could actually increase the possibility of war with England.
Jefferson rejected the Federalist axiom that in order to have peace one must prepare for war — the theory being that the more powerful a country was in armaments the less likely it was to be attacked. Jefferson doubted both the wisdom of this theory and Federalist sincerity in invoking it. He believed that history demonstrated that the more a country prepared for war, the more likely it was to go to war. First, having a powerful military force offered a temptation to rulers to engage in wars for conquest and glory.14 And second, far from deterring aggression, a powerful navy and army often frightened other nations into building up their own forces and forming hostile alliances, tempting them to instigate hostilities for the purpose of gaining a strategic advantage or weakening their rival.
Let us look then to how Jefferson handled and reacted to the tribute the Barbary Coast pirates were demanding of American commercial shipping attempting trade in the world on the free and open seas:
Early in his first term, Jefferson was faced with the question of whether he should use the naval force inherited from the Federalists to protect American trade in the Mediterranean. The pasha of Tripoli, the leader of one of the four Barbary powers on the northern coast of Africa (the others being Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis), demanded additional tribute from the United States as the price for allowing American shipping to trade in the Mediterranean free of piratical raids by his navy.
This was a true test of how “limited” this republic might be when faced with a threat, in this case, half the way around the world.
It does have to be noted that at this point, President Jefferson had at hand a naval force and would not have to rely on Congress to utilize another tool called:
… to vest sovereign authority to use force against enemy nations and their subjects with private parties only. Exercising that power, Congress could authorize so-called privateers to engage in military hostilities, with neither government funding nor oversight (other than after-the-fact judicial determinations of prizes by the prize courts).
Yes, engaging privateers to carry out a mission.
Jefferson actually had a significant navy (more than what he would have desired) that had been enhanced during his predecessor’s (John Adams) term BUT was NOT initiated by President Adams or Congress.
This rabbit trail is especially interesting to this former US Navy sailor that demonstrates that society itself can indeed direct the private initiative to provide port security as well as international trade security means. From this very informative article called “Privately Funded and Built U.S. Warships in the Quasi-War of 1797-1801”:
In 1798, the United States faced an undeclared naval war with France. The existing tax-funded vessels of the U.S. Navy consisted principally of three large frigates–not the ideal weapons for coping with the French threat on the seas. Therefore, a number of self-interested citizens undertook to provide nine additional fighting ships. These privately funded frigates and sloops-of-war served with distinction. Most of them were considered outstanding examples of naval architecture. Some saw action only against France. Others lasted through the Barbary Wars and even the War of 1812.
The lesson to be drawn from this little-known episode in U.S. history seems clear. Effective naval fighting forces can be financed and constructed largely if not entirely by means of voluntary contributions. National governments need not direct the process, and taxes need not be used to fund the projects.
I contend that this method would be much more effective and efficient than the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) method which is to start wars and intervene in other countries around the world (i.e. Syria, Venezuela, etc) to drive the demand for over-priced and poor-quality weapons (i.e. F-35, Littoral Class, Super Carriers, etc):
Back to the main focus of this post, how did Jefferson do when faced with this treat? He indeed did send the frigates USS Philadelphia, USS President, and the USS Essex, along with the schooner USS Enterprise to the Barbary Coast via Gibraltar (at the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea) which constituted America’s first navy to cross the Atlantic. These frigates brought the following speed and power:
They carried 24-60 guns, were up to 175 feet long, displaced up to 1,600 tons, .. had crews of 200-450 men, and were comparable to the cruisers of World War II. With rare exceptions, no frigate could survive one-on-one combat with a ship-of-the-line. However, because frigates were faster than ships-of-the-line, they could usually escape from those more powerful vessels. Owing to their combination of speed and significant firepower, frigates often served as scouts for the battle fleet, as escorts for convoys of merchant ships, or as commerce raiders acting independently. In 1800, the most powerful warships of the U.S. Navy were the 44-gun frigates United States, Constitution, and President.
So was this a “shock-and-awe” moment? No. This action was deliberately annoying in the same way the militia was annoying to a larger force in the colonies backed by a much larger British Empire from 1775 to 1782. Off the coast of Africa, the US Navy harassed the larger forces that harassed our shipping by demanding tributes.
Upon reaching Gibraltar in the late summer, the naval squadron found two Tripolitan cruisers on blockade duty awaiting American vessels. The American squadron chased off the two cruisers; the schooner Enterprise engaged one of them in battle and captured it; and the squadron proceeded to Tripoli where it blockaded the harbor. Thus, for the second time in only four years, the United States found itself in an undeclared naval war.
Jefferson sent additional forces to the Mediterranean each year until, by the summer of 1805, almost the entire American navy was deployed off the shores of Tripoli.
In addition to escorting American merchant vessels and blockading Tripoli (in 1801 and 1803–1805), the American fleet bombarded Tripoli five times in August and September of 1804.
By the early summer of 1805, facing a renewed and even more destructive series of bombardments from the American navy, and hearing of the fall of the town of Derbe to a land force composed of Americans, Greeks, and Tripolitan exiles commanded by William Eaton (the former American consul at Tunis), the pasha sued for peace and signed a treaty ending the war. The June 1805 treaty abolished annual payments from the United States to Tripoli and provided for the payment of a $60,000 ransom for more than 200 American captives, mostly sailors from the U.S. frigate Philadelphia that had been captured after running aground off Tripoli in 1803.
In the end, a land effort by the Marines finally accomplished an end to free trade on the open seas. Up until this time, Europe itself paid these tributes while the American’s fought for the ability to use the oceans as free-trade zones.
How many US military deaths came from this limited engagement?
35 combat deaths
39 other deaths (disease, etc)
Total of 74 deaths of American sailors and Marines in four years.
Compared to the balance of wars that our government engaged in over the course of the following 220 years, this is impressive. I applaud you Thomas Jefferson for doing this honorable thing.
Subsequent larger wars, War of 1812 (15,000 US military deaths), Mexican-American War (14,000 US military deaths) and Civil War (750,000 US military deaths) were horrendous. It was actually at the conclusion of the War Against Southern Independence that the southern women first decided to honor ALL of the fallen soldiers (USA and CSA) of that horrific conflict, as mentioned in this article towards a “Decoration Day” which eventually became ‘Memorial Day’:
In January 1866, the Ladies’ Memorial Association in Columbus, Georgia, passed a motion agreeing that they would designate a day to throw flowers on the graves of fallen soldiers buried at the cemetery, Gardiner said.
However, the ladies didn’t want this to be an isolated event, so Mary Ann Williams, the group’s secretary, wrote a letter and sent it to newspapers all over the United States.
“You’ll find that letter in dozens of newspapers,” Gardiner said. “It got out, and it was republished everywhere in the country.”
In the letter, the ladies asked people to celebrate the war’s fallen soldiers on April 26 — the day the bulk of Confederate soldiers surrendered in North Carolina in 1865.
“That’s what many people in the South considered to be the end of the war,” Gardiner said. Even though Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered on April 9, “there were still 90,000 people ready to fight. And until those 90,000 surrendered on April 26, the war was effectively still going on,” Gardiner said.
At the end of the day, it was the illogical violent reaction, on the part of Abraham Lincoln, towards seven southern states (former American colonies) that had asked for a divorce from this voluntary federation of states established first by the Articles of Confederation (agreed to in Congress 15NOV1777 and ratified and in force 01MAR1781) and eventually by the US Constitution (Created 17SEP1787, Ratified 21JUN1788 and in force 04MAR1789) that ramped up US military deaths!
Why would seven states seek separation towards divorce? Why in 1861? In a 2017 Paul Craig Roberts article sharing the thoughts of Thomas DiLorenzo:
The rate of federal taxation was about to more than double (from 15% to 32.7%), as it did on March 2, 1861 when President James Buchanan, the Pennsylvania protectionist, signed the Morrill Tariff into law, a law that was relentlessly promoted by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party .. The South, like the Mid-West, was an agricultural society that was being plundered twice by protection tariffs: Once by paying higher prices for “protected” manufactured goods, and a second time by reduced exports after the high tariffs impoverished their European customers who were prohibited from selling in the U.S. by the high tariffs. Most of the South’s agricultural produce –as much as 75% or so in some years — was sold in Europe.
Having separated, the seven states decided in Montgomery, Alabama to take almost an identical constitution and return toward 1775 economic principles that aligns with Thomas Jefferson’s:
The Confederate Constitution outlawed protectionist tariffs altogether, calling only for a modest “revenue tariff” of ten percent or so. This so horrified the “Party of Great Moral Causes” that Republican Party-affiliated newspapers in the North were calling for the bombardment of Southern ports before the war. With a Northern tariff in the 50% range (where it would be after Lincoln signed ten tariff-raising pieces of legislation, and remained in that range for the succeeding fifty years) compared to the Southern 10% average tariff rate, they understood that much of the trade of the world would go through Southern, not Northern, ports and to them, that was cause for war. “We now have the votes and we intend to plunder you mercilessly; if you resist we will invade, conquer, and subjugate you” is essentially what the North, with its election of lifelong protectionist Abraham Lincoln as a sectional president, was saying.
This action by a new federation of seven states threatened northern industry and businessmen. This was the source of fear that had Lincoln reinforce in his 1st inaugural address on 04MAR1861 to try to entice the southern seven states back into the union by declaring:
Lincoln then pledged to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which he in fact did during his administration, returning dozens of runaway slaves to their “owners.” Most importantly, seven paragraphs from the end of his speech he endorsed the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already passed the House and Senate and was ratified by several states. This “first thirteenth amendment” would prohibit the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. It would have enshrined slavery explicitly in the text of the Constitution. Lincoln stated in the same paragraph that he believed slavery was already constitutional, but that he had “no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.”
This may have sounded good to those in the southern states, but then the abuse they felt the previous 35 years rose up in their minds when they heard Lincoln’s following words:
“The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere” (emphasis added).
The “duties and imposts” he referred to were the tariffs to be collected under the new Morrill Tariff law. If there was to be a war, he said, the cause of the war would in effect be the refusal of the Southern states to submit to being plundered by the newly-doubled federal tariff tax, a policy that the South had been periodically threatening nullification and secession over for the previous thirty-three years.
Once in power, Lincoln’s cabinet was not in favor of war at their first meeting. Since Lincoln wanted to ensure collection of Southern port tariffs, he wanted to hold on to the forts still in his possession at Fort Pickens (Pensacola) and Fort Jefferson (Key West) in Florida and Fort Sumter (Charleston) in South Carolina.
By the end of March 1861, influenced by the fears both northern and western (Midwest today) businessmen had about a free trade zone adjacent to the northern states and the thought of Mississippi River trade being more expensive, war seemed to be the only alternative thought of in the North. Lincoln, a lawyer, knew secession was legal under the Constitution, so he decided to call this a general insurrection that under a 1807 act was under the President’s purview:
Whenever there is an insurrections in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.
Lincoln then proceeded to resupply Fort Sumter, not just with food, but with troops forcing those guarding Charleston harbor to fire on the fort before the supply ships arrived. This accomplished Lincoln’s desire. The coastal defenses around Fort Sumter firing on a US held fort would inflame the hearts of all who remained in the union, or so Lincoln thought.
No one died in this bombardment, and if Lincoln had relented and finally agreed to peace negotiations that had been attempted all of March 1861, things would have been much different.
No need for “Memorial Day”. Thanks Abraham, thanks GOP! Not!
A President’s (Abraham Lincoln) unilateral decision (he failed to call Congress into session until well after war preparations were underway, not until 04JUL1861) to call up 75,000 volunteers on 15APR1861 sealed the deal towards a war. This notice extended to all the states that were in sympathy to the original seven states, and as a result, Virginia and other states would again vote on secession and four more would do so.
Lincoln’s subsequent actions like placing the Maryland legislators who favored southern independence in prison, placing cannon aimed at the Delaware statehouse, closing down hundreds of newspaper presses that called him out on his actions as well as his placing thousands of newspaper press on prison ships indicated the type of tyrant the office of president could produced. This was in my opinion, America at its darkest moment, so far, in its history. By the end of this conflict, ‘total war’ would be adopted as innocent civilians and their homes would be the target of this standing army followed by military occupation of all southern states.
War and military occupation are at the very root of the GOP DNA.
Ever since enacting our existing Constitution in 1787/1788, the US has had issues controlling itself. To pay down the war debt, instead of staying the course with the states deciding on their payback schedule, the general government jumped in for the power grab. It has been rough sledding every since.
So here we are in 2019, while US propaganda spins the latest twists of the expanding trade war with China, one of my favorite bloggers, Moon of Alabama, does a great job of setting the context and teasing the truth out of this current situation.
I can only think that Trump sees his time as short even if it is two terms and he sees this area of US policy as the only place he can “play” with the big boys, and perform his legacy business strength, the “Art of the Deal“.
Other areas like foreign policy are in the hands of the neocons and the domestic games hold little real interest to him (except it gives him plenty of material to Tweet about).
Moon of Alabama is balanced enough to say:
Some aspects of China’s trade behavior can and should be criticized. But overall China sticks to the rules of the game, while the U.S. is now breaking these.
It was not China that moved U.S. factories to its country. U.S. managers did that because the U.S. economic system is based on greed and not on the welfare of its citizens.
There are much better ways to get China to change its trade behavior than by bullying and ever increasing tariffs and sanctions.
Bullies don’t play by the rules, from US/Israel/French nuclear development that the US vetoes the UN on WHILE picking on Iran which has dotted the “I” s and crossed all the “T” s .. to the way the US waged war on itself especially in 1864/1865 with the total war mantra, killing civilians, burning homes, stealing silverware, raping the wives and slave women and wrecking havoc over a large portion of the South, bullies never play fair.
Non-bullies almost have to until the bully is significantly weakened, but having over 5000+ nukes with multiple warheads keeps the US in “business”.
Back to the China tariff “strategy”:
The U.S. started a trade war with China by suddenly putting up high tariffs on Chinese products. China countered with tariffs on U.S. products, but was ready to negotiate a fair deal. The negotiations about an agreement were held in English in the United States. The U.S. provided a written draft.
When that draft reached China and was translated to Chinese the relevant party and government institutions were aghast. The U.S. demanded that China changes several of its domestics laws. It essentially demanded a complete change of China’s trade policies and, most infuriating, was unwilling to go back to the old tariff rates, even if China would comply. It wasn’t Xi who rejected the uneven deal, it was the whole Chinese government.
You see, historically, the US likes to portray an “evil bogeyman” in foreign policy struggles like it likes to paint the “lone gunman” in domestic shootings:
U.S. propaganda is always pointing to one person that solely cases everything and therefore deserves all the hate. It once was Saddam, Saddam , Saddam. Then Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Ghadaffi, Assad, Assad, Assad, Putin, Putin, Putin. Now it is Xi, Xi, Xi.
So now what? The “negotiations” that supposedly Trump is so good at (like 4D chess moves, etc) seems to have no real pattern. Maybe that is his genius, random chaos?
“There is no longer an orderly policy process in Washington to coordinate, moderate, or control policy formulation or implementation. Instead, a populist president has effectively declared open season on China.”
So what is the end game here? Does he want this to become a war that he can blame the neocons on (since they are itching for another conflict to insure the Military-Industrial Complex is well “fed” with government revenue, up to $1.2T annually IF you count the ten different accounts that make up the “military” budget).
China will response in kind and asymmetrically. It now restarts to buy oil from Iran. Ambassador Freeman sees no way how the U.S. could win the game.
The White House issued an executive order Wednesday apparently aimed at banning Huawei’s equipment from U.S. telecom networks and information infrastructure. It then announced a more potent and immediate sanction that subjects the Chinese company to strict export controls.
The order took effect Thursday and requires U.S. government approval for all purchases of U.S. microchips, software and other components globally by Huawei and 68 affiliated businesses. Huawei says that amounted to $11 billion in goods last year.
So basically, US chip manufacturers are feeling the same way as soybean farmers .. what did Trump do to our market? Consumers may never know the deal they might have had with solar panels.
Maybe Trump has had enough of the presidency and wants to “kick the can” to the next president to deal with, landmines like rising Walmart prices WILL hit his core base, if they can connect the dots.
All the talk from US President on tariffs lately and how China ripped the US off on $5B worth of trade yada, yada, yada. I honestly felt like puking. Here is this reality TV star .. errr I mean president of the USA totally falling for the whole “trade deficit” economic term made popular every now and then to distract citizens (direct tax slaves) from what is really going on.
One would think that twelve years (and more in many cases) of public education would have introduced kids and young adults to the realities of economics, but you must understand that this is “government” education. Need I say more?
I am so glad that Justin Amash (Republican Representitive – MI) called out Pres. Trump on this aversion of his tariff war and his protectionist tendencies and their unintended consequences:
Why is the president of the US, philosophically, the “people’s choice” (part of the balancing attribute of this “experiment” to tweak “representative government” of the executive, legislative and judicial branches), totally all in on making sure that certain producers in the US are protected from foreign competition?
Well, truth be known, there is and has been a consistent propensity since the nation’s birth toward having the general government (as it was called back in 1787 when the coup de’tat that jettisoned the Articles of Confederation and adopted the Constitution in secret) building protective bridges with the republics budding industries (like railroad, steel manufacturing, canal building, etc).
The Whig party from the early 19th century was all about the big business – general government “partnership” (dysfunctional co-dependency) that utilized tariff income, mainly from the southern ports to fund canal projects in the north and subsidize the steel industry since it was new and vulnerable to foreign competition. Abraham was big into this mercantilism philosophy that continued to grow (imagine a government program growing like a cancer) and demand more and more tariff revenue that led to the “Tariff of Abominations” in the 1828 that South Carolina almost decided NOT to pay this tariff:
It set a 38% tax on 92% of all imported goods. Industries in the northern United States were being driven out of business by low-priced imported goods; the major goal of the tariff was to protect these industries by taxing those goods. The South, however, was harmed directly by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce, and indirectly because reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they imported from the South.
One would think that especially our political leaders would want to learn from history, but in fact, they want short term political bonds with big business to secure funding for the next political election season. By definition, a democracy (which this republic has become) is never interested in long term consequences to the decisions made, it is almost as bad as full on Marxism, socialism and communism in the way it treats future generations of a nation/region.
Last year when Pres. Trump first issues this threat of a tariff increase, Martin Armstrong (of Armstrong Economics) shed some truth on the matter:
The big problem is that Trump FAILS to understand how the economy truly functions. Imposing tariffs on foreign imports because they can produce something more efficiently is NOT protecting American jobs – its is imposing higher costs on the American public.
If America cannot compete against foreign steel and aluminum, the answer is not tariffs, but TAX REFORM and UNION REFORM. If unions fail to understand that demanding higher wages in an UN-competitive manner will only lead to the loss of jobs, then end result cannot be prevented by tariffs.
Once upon a time, New York City was the largest port in the United States. Because of unions and outrageous demands, little by little they killed their own jobs. Shipping moved to New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Virginia. What used to be a viable industry today is just a shadow of what it once was. No matter what the field, everything is subject to competition. Imposing tariffs is simply subsidizing overpaid jobs and higher taxes.
Another popular independent media personality, Pete Raymond, also pointed out to Pres. Trump that 150 years ago, Bastiat had already settled this issue:
What is hilarious is that even Bastiat in 1845 when he wrote this piece, (called “Candlestick Makers’ Petition” directed at the French Parliament) said:
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
Even in 1845 (and in 1828) there were plenty of books, musty books, on shelves unused and unread by government officials. The same holds true today, the idiots are elected while the wise refuse to wield power, the ugly and self-serving political type.
I do hope that some of you are aware of the Candlestick Makers’ Petition as Frederic Bastiat had a way in his short life to make economics simple enough that even a politician could understand. A teaser clip is below. Enjoy Mother’s Day celebrations today!
-SF1
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun …
