Until that happens, Iran's economy is under thread of being Iraqed. The U.S. is having a solvency problem, but America isn't short on bombs, missiles, or worse. One of the calming arguments against attacking Iran was such an attack would start a worldwide financial collapse. Well, the collapse is happening and taking with it one of the arguments against militarily attempting to stop Iran's nuclear program.
So, therefore, I think Iran may be in a good position to devise a new financial market -- likely one that is Islamic in principles that forbids usury, for example -- but until Iran makes its peace with the West, any economic system devise is in danger of being obliterated by warmongers both domestic and foreign.
Until that happens, Iran's economy is under thread of being Iraqed. The U.S. is having a solvency problem, but America isn't short on bombs, missiles, or worse.
My conviction that this will not happen is the reason why I refer to the "Suez Moment" in my article.
I think that the true "Suez Moment" was around August of last year the US was politely told - probably on one of Paulson's trips to China - that an attack on Iran would undermine China's confidence in the dollar....
The rest has been posturing, with the US "surge" being allowed to succeed, in no small part because Al Sadr went off to pursue his religious studies in Qom, Iran.
The possible exception was the weird matter of the B52 flying around armed with nuclear tipped cruise missiles, and the even more weird fact that we got to read about it....
Was this indeed pure incompetence, or a
Dr Strangelove Moment
nipped in the bud by officers who wanted nothing whatever to do with starting World War 2.5 .......?
While the article is found in the tin foil hat end of the media spectrum, the official "incompetence" explanation does not hold water for me, because in that case no-one in the military would have had any interest in the public ever hearing about it.
