Iran ditches the dollar - shit's about to get real

[Tom Sawyer]

I thought that the US was going to go to war with Iran because your President is a psychotic imbecile. Any other reasons would be tertiary at best.

 

[Elixir]

I thought that the US was going to go to war with Iran because your President is a psychotic imbecile. Any other reasons would be tertiary at best.

Cheato, The Great Uniter, is in the process of uniting Iran, Australia, Denmark, Mexico, China and everyone else. Except the USA and Russia, which are to be united as a separate entity from the rest of the world - which they will attack and beat into submission!!

 

[laughing dog]

I thought that the US was going to go to war with Iran because your President is a psychotic imbecile. Any other reasons would be tertiary at best.

QFT

 

[J842P]

I love it! People are complaining about how Trump is really going about foreign policy wrong and our smug Libertarian of the Year Award candidate wants to make it sound like the only complaint was about Trump knocking the ratings of his program with Arnold in charge... during the prayer breakfast.

Can't lead to war. From a simple logistics POV, we need time to mobilize. That'll take months, and will be extremely obvious. However, to make matters worse, the US does not have the military required to occupy Iran. And unlike the Iraq walkover, Iran will fight back. I'd say a military bombing of a nuclear facility would be much more likely than a war. Of course, consequences of even that wouldn't be pleasant.

It could be the trigger that causes the long overdue economic correction in the US. It could be both.

I know, you Ron Paul types just keep hoping for Armageddon.

Right. Because the US would never go to war unprepared with a false sense of the impending scope of the ensuing occupation, after having just made the same mistake. That could never happen.

Are you seriously defending the notion that Iran dropping the dollar as an official numeraire will cause the US to go to war with Iran?

No. Ideas about the petro-dollar getting us into wars have always seemed conspiratorial to me. I think the point is moot, though, because the Trump administration is absolutely packed with old men that can only get hard-ons when they think about invading Iran. I was only arguing against the notion that because the invasion would be a foreign policy catastrophe - for all the reasons enumerated by Jimmy Higgens - that this would somehow prevent the US from invading.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought that the US was going to go to war with Iran because your President is a psychotic imbecile. Any other reasons would be tertiary at best.

You can't just "go to war". You can, in theory, "just bomb" someone, but to "go to war" requires moving a lot of people, guns, bullets, vehicles, planes, and food rations, which takes time to do. Several months.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

J842P has a point - when has something being a bad idea stopped the US from going through with it?

If you take that as his position, without assuming he is in favor or against this move, you will find that, well, he's right. It being a bad idea hasn't stopped the US from lobbing bombs at anyone our fearless leaders think might possibly be a bad guy. As long as it is a small country that can't strike back.

 

[laughing dog]

J842P has a point - when has something being a bad idea stopped the US from going through with it?

If you take that as his position, without assuming he is in favor or against this move, you will find that, well, he's right. It being a bad idea hasn't stopped the US from lobbing bombs at anyone our fearless leaders think might possibly be a bad guy. As long as it is a small country that can't strike back.

That does not mean that it is reasonable to expect the US to embrace a bad idea (attacking Iran) for an imbecilic reasons (they drop the dollar as their official foreign currency of choice).

 

[jonatha]

The reason is contained in the word "petrodollar", which according to people you disagree with was part of the reason for US military action against Iraq and Libya. According to people you disagree with, the use of the dollar as the currency used to buy oil is one of the supports for the value of the dollar. Without that support, what becomes of the dollar?

Iran hasn't been on the receiving end of very many dollars for oil or anything else for awhile. I'm surprised they were still using them in their reports.

Call me back when Saudi Arabia quits accepting dollars for oil (which, as I read it, is not what Iran has done anyway....)

 

[Axulus]

Shit's about to get real.

Iran to Ditch US Dollar in Official Reports



Iran Just Officially Ditched the Dollar in Major Blow to US: Here’s Why It Matters

Iran governor Valiollah Seif’s central bank announced the decision in a television interview on January 29. The change will take effect on March 21, and it will impact all official financial and foreign exchange reports.

“Iran’s difficulties [in dealing]with the dollar,” Seif said, “were in place from the time of the primary sanctions and this trend is continuing,” but when it comes to other currencies, he added, “we face no limitations.”

In a piece published by Forbes, Dominic Dudley contends that this move is significant “in the light of the recent ‘Muslim ban‘” announced by Trump. Iran nationals were added to the order issued by the current U.S. administration, which prompted the Iranian government to vow to stop issuing visas to U.S. citizens.

As Iran Dumps Dollar, Congress Quietly Slips in Bill for ‘Use of Force Against Iran

On March 21, The Islamic Republic of Iran will cease using the U.S. dollar in all of its financial reporting. The decision to stop using the dollar as a reference has been in the works for some time but was expedited after the Trump administration decided to include Iran as one of the seven countries banned from entering the United States.

Iranian PressTV reported, “Valiollah Seif, the governor of the Central Bank of Iran, was quoted by domestic media as saying that Iran would either replace the US dollar with a new common foreign currency or use a basket of currencies in all official financial and foreign exchange reports.”

Seif reportedly stated the country of Iran needs a much more stable foreign currency, that the dollar is insignificantly found in exchange houses throughout the country, and Iran would be better-suited trading in European Union Euros, Chinese Yen, or in United Arab Emirates Dirham.

Time for some real news. I know, we're supposed to focus all our outrage on whatever the most recent tweet is, but unlike that this is actual news. Of course, you have to be one of those kooks who uses the word "petrodollar" to realize how important this really is.

There are many ways this could play out, none of them good. It could lead to a war that rapidly expands to pull in all the major players. It could be the trigger that causes the long overdue economic correction in the US. It could be both.

This is not news to anyone with a brain. Trump favors a somewhat weaker dollar to help our exports and limit imports. The impact on the dollar will also be minimal, no one will really notice.

 

[dismal]

Call me back when Saudi Arabia quits accepting dollars for oil (which, as I read it, is not what Iran has done anyway....)

Why would that matter?

Let's say Trumps decrees I must now buy my lunch with Polish zlotys instead of US$.

So, before I head down to the deli I exchange $10 for 40 zlotys. ZMFOG there's new demand for zlotys! People are dumping dollars! The zloty is up, up, up and the dollar down, down, down!!1. Let's nuke someone to stop this madness pleeeease!

Now the deli owner has 40 zlotys he can't use so he exchanges them for dollars to buy some turkey and bread. ZMFOG the net effect is absolutely nothing has changed in the demand for either currency.

 

[Axulus]

Call me back when Saudi Arabia quits accepting dollars for oil (which, as I read it, is not what Iran has done anyway....)

Why would that matter?

Let's say Trumps decrees I must now buy my lunch with Polish zlotys instead of US$.

So, before I head down to the deli I exchange $10 for 40 zlotys. ZMFOG there's new demand for zlotys! People are dumping dollars! The zloty is up, up, up and the dollar down, down, down!!1. Let's nuke someone to stop this madness pleeeease!

Now the deli owner has 40 zlotys he can't use so he exchanges them for dollars to buy some turkey and bread. ZMFOG the net effect is absolutely nothing has changed in the demand for either currency.

Not absolutely nothing, it will change the kind of reserves various countries and institutions hold. The impact won't really be that great and, as mentioned previously, Trump favors a weaker dollar.

- - - Updated - - -

J842P has a point - when has something being a bad idea stopped the US from going through with it?

If you take that as his position, without assuming he is in favor or against this move, you will find that, well, he's right. It being a bad idea hasn't stopped the US from lobbing bombs at anyone our fearless leaders think might possibly be a bad guy. As long as it is a small country that can't strike back.

That does not mean that it is reasonable to expect the US to embrace a bad idea (attacking Iran) for an imbecilic reasons (they drop the dollar as their official foreign currency of choice).

Shouldn't Trump be thanking Iran for playing its part to help weaken the US dollar just a little bit?

 

[migrant]

The official reason for going to war is always, of necessity, a cause that people will willingly fight for.
Men will fight willingly for romantic heroic notions like democracy and freedom, but for global conglomerates - not so much.
The fiercest fighter is willing to die for a religious ideal -- how many of those do we have in the west?
Though I agree with J842P's excellent point, the "bad idea' is always a smokescreen in my opinion.
An administration which can achieve this level of global disruption, while claiming the high moral ground,
has obviously developed a wonderful propaganda machine.

 

[J842P]

The official reason for going to war is always, of necessity, a cause that people will willingly fight for.
Men will fight willingly for romantic heroic notions like democracy and freedom, but for global conglomerates - not so much.
The fiercest fighter is willing to die for a religious ideal -- how many of those do we have in the west?
Though I agree with J842P's excellent point, the "bad idea' is always a smokescreen in my opinion.
An administration which can achieve this level of global disruption, while claiming the high moral ground,
has obviously developed a wonderful propaganda machine.

There was a famous United States Marine named Smedley Butler. He was the most decorated soldier of his time, having been awarded two Medals of Honor as well as the Marine Corps highest decoration the Brevet Medal. His military career spanned the Spanish-American war to Word War I.

He ended up writing a book called War is a Racket. His views regarding his military service can be summarized by the following quote:

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm thinking that the Iranian government spent a few days carefully watching the conduct of the White House to determine whether or not Trump really was the massive clueless amateur he appeared to be. Now that they have confirmation of this, they realized that Trump doesn't know enough about foreign policy to consider the currency shift to be a provocative act (which it basically is) and isn't smart enough to take appropriate counter-moves as they maneuver to loosen America's grip around their economic throats. So they can afford to be subtle and outmaneuver him because he has no idea how to play this game.

It reminds me of the first couple of times my son played chess. He thought he understood how the game worked, but the kid he was playing with basically toyed with him to figure out how good he was. So the kid beat him in the first game after about fifteen minutes and said "New game..." Three moves later: "checkmate."

We go to war with Iran, we're going with a President whose knowledge of how wars actually work comes entirely from action movies and television dramas. It's a man who thinks he can bluster and intimidate his enemies into submission or, if that fails, just assumes that the troops are a bunch of badasses who will steamroll their enemies with superior firepower and it'll all be really exciting and heroic. He is EXACTLY the kind of person the Iranian military is specifically trained to defeat: They know they don't have superior technology or firepower, so they rely on subtlety, misdirection, distraction and, when all else fails, swarm attacks. If and when it comes to a shooting war, we are going to have to be very careful about how we maneuver and what we pay attention to because Iran is likely to come at us in a lot of creative, unconventional ways; Donald Trump doesn't do caution, and doesn't pay attention to anything but himself. It would be like John Cena getting into a fight with Jackie Chan.

 

[J842P]

Shouldn't Trump be thanking Iran for playing its part to help weaken the US dollar just a little bit?

Only if we assume Trump is following some sort of coherent ideology. Trump is not an ideological man. In that sense, I don't think comparing him to a fascist makes sense. He is a dangerous narcissist, dangerous in the sense that his judgement and actions cannot be trusted. But fascists tend to be extremely ideological. Say what you will about Naziism, but Nazis believed in *something*. I don't think Trump does, other than feeding his own ego. The big danger here is that he is incredibly susceptible to yes-men that feed his ego. Bannon is likely such a character. I don't think either he nor Bannon are white supremacists. I don't think Trump is exceptionally racists for a man his age - he's just a typical fat cat who has gotten used to his name on the building and definitely harbors prejudices from his generation. However, But Bannon, at least, is an ultra-nationalist. Such an ideology is one that I oppose. Indeed, real white-supremacists exist in the US, but their numbers are small and so are their influence. I think, ironically, the Dems have given them more power by insisting Trump represents them.

 

[J842P]

I'm thinking that the Iranian government spent a few days carefully watching the conduct of the White House to determine whether or not Trump really was the massive clueless amateur he appeared to be. Now that they have confirmation of this, they realized that Trump doesn't know enough about foreign policy to consider the currency shift to be a provocative act (which it basically is) and isn't smart enough to take appropriate counter-moves as they maneuver to loosen America's grip around their economic throats. So they can afford to be subtle and outmaneuver him because he has no idea how to play this game.

It reminds me of the first couple of times my son played chess. He thought he understood how the game worked, but the kid he was playing with basically toyed with him to figure out how good he was. So the kid beat him in the first game after about fifteen minutes and said "New game..." Three moves later: "checkmate."

We go to war with Iran, we're going with a President whose knowledge of how wars actually work comes entirely from action movies and television dramas. It's a man who thinks he can bluster and intimidate his enemies into submission or, if that fails, just assumes that the troops are a bunch of badasses who will steamroll their enemies with superior firepower and it'll all be really exciting and heroic. He is EXACTLY the kind of person the Iranian military is specifically trained to defeat: They know they don't have superior technology or firepower, so they rely on subtlety, misdirection, distraction and, when all else fails, swarm attacks. If and when it comes to a shooting war, we are going to have to be very careful about how we maneuver and what we pay attention to because Iran is likely to come at us in a lot of creative, unconventional ways; Donald Trump doesn't do caution, and doesn't pay attention to anything but himself. It would be like John Cena getting into a fight with Jackie Chan.

Yeah, I don't know. The US would stomp on Iran in the conventional sense. Any subsequent occupation would predictably be a disaster. But do recall that Iran was a country that fought a long, bloody stalemate against Iraq, a country that we defeated militarily twice in short order. It is also good to point out that during the Iraq-Iran war, we aided Iraq, and gave them the means (i.e. materials) to produce chemical weapons, as well as the logistics and intelligence to use them against Iranian columns.

Coincidentally, this is why I dismiss State Department pearl-clutching against the use of "chemical weapons!" Maybe when they prosecute the persons responsible for the above I will take what they say more seriously.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm thinking that the Iranian government spent a few days carefully watching the conduct of the White House to determine whether or not Trump really was the massive clueless amateur he appeared to be. Now that they have confirmation of this, they realized that Trump doesn't know enough about foreign policy to consider the currency shift to be a provocative act (which it basically is) and isn't smart enough to take appropriate counter-moves as they maneuver to loosen America's grip around their economic throats. So they can afford to be subtle and outmaneuver him because he has no idea how to play this game.

It reminds me of the first couple of times my son played chess. He thought he understood how the game worked, but the kid he was playing with basically toyed with him to figure out how good he was. So the kid beat him in the first game after about fifteen minutes and said "New game..." Three moves later: "checkmate."

We go to war with Iran, we're going with a President whose knowledge of how wars actually work comes entirely from action movies and television dramas. It's a man who thinks he can bluster and intimidate his enemies into submission or, if that fails, just assumes that the troops are a bunch of badasses who will steamroll their enemies with superior firepower and it'll all be really exciting and heroic. He is EXACTLY the kind of person the Iranian military is specifically trained to defeat: They know they don't have superior technology or firepower, so they rely on subtlety, misdirection, distraction and, when all else fails, swarm attacks. If and when it comes to a shooting war, we are going to have to be very careful about how we maneuver and what we pay attention to because Iran is likely to come at us in a lot of creative, unconventional ways; Donald Trump doesn't do caution, and doesn't pay attention to anything but himself. It would be like John Cena getting into a fight with Jackie Chan.

Yeah, I don't know. The US would stomp on Iran in the conventional sense.

Yes, and the Iranians KNOW this, which is why they will not even ATTEMPT to fight a conventional war against the United States.

But do recall that Iran was a country that fought a long, bloody stalemate against Iraq, a country that we defeated militarily twice in short order.

Not exactly a fitting comparison, given how all three wars started. To begin with, Iraq declared war on Iran when its military was still disorganized and the Islamic Revolution had only JUST gained control of the government. Unsurprisingly, Saddam was kicking their asses for the first few months and everyone was expecting Iran to surrender in short order. They changed tactics, got creative, got DESPERATE, and managed to turn the ride. In fact, by some accounts, the only reason the war lasted as long as it did was because the Iraqis managed to get passive and then active support from the United States to keep the Iranians from completely boxing them out.

By comparison, Desert Storm was a war that involved the United States systematically assembling an enormous military force right on the border of a country that was still recovering from the Iran-Iraq war and whose leaders (for some reason) didn't really expect we would go through with it. The second Iraq war was barely a dim shadow of the first.

Coincidentally, this is why I dismiss State Department pearl-clutching against the use of "chemical weapons!" Maybe when they prosecute the persons responsible for the above I will take what they say more seriously.

I continue to find it amusing that the only country in the world to have ever used a nuclear weapon in danger -- and also refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty -- is threatening a country that has never used one, has declared they don't want one, and actually HAS signed and ratified the treaty

 

[braces_for_impact]

I swear this topic pops up at least once a year, with different country's names. Color me unimpressed. I know, I know. one day you'll be right, and then who will be laughing huh? HUH?

Speaking of it...what is it with libertarians, financial catastrophe, the gold standard, and the fed? Are the Pauls out hawking silver again?

 

[Axulus]

I swear this topic pops up at least once a year, with different country's names. Color me unimpressed. I know, I know. one day you'll be right, and then who will be laughing huh? HUH?

Speaking of it...what is it with libertarians, financial catastrophe, the gold standard, and the fed? Are the Pauls out hawking silver again?

It's the cabal of Jewish bankers that control the currency and the Fed that will supposedly lose billions when a country refuses to transact in the US dollar. These Jews will then start a war against said country to protect their wealth. Their banking system also leads to regular financial catastrophes as they sit in their rooms smoking cigars and laughing while they get richer and the rest of us get poorer. Going back to gold standard is the only way we can take back the power that these Jews have. Don't you know anything?

 

[repoman]

You are right, Axulus.

Check this out as well:



Together we can fight this fifth column.