Israel Working With Saudi Arabia On Iran “Contingency” Attack

When last week’s Iran nuclear talks were blocked by France, it provided a useful glimpse into just who it was that would benefit politically from a continuation of the regional confrontation. But while the French sabotage was an amusing distraction, it revealed a curious shift in middle-east alliances, namely old “enemies” Israel and Saudi Arabia, both feeling shunned by Big Brother, suddenly becoming the best of buddies. It was only a matter of time before this novel alliance moved beyond just paper and tested how far it could go in real life. Said test may come far sooner than expected: according to the Sunday Times, Israel’s Mossad and Saudi Arabia are planning an attack against Iran if negotiations and talks don’t come to an agreement, and that Saudia Arabia will permit Israel to use their air space for an attack on Iran including full technical support.

According to the Sunday Times, the Saudis would assist an Israeli attack by cooperating with the use of drones, rescue helicopters, and tanker planes. “Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” said the paper citing an unnamed official.

The flipside is that by pursuing an outright attack of Iran, the new Israel-Saudi axis would implicitly go against the wishes of not only Russia but, if John Kerry’s detente posture is to be believed, that of the US itself.

Israel’s PM Natanyahu naturally knows this, so instead he is merely lobbying for even more political support starting in the one country, France, which has aligned itself with the new Middle East axis, even as Israel’s old allies appear to have foresaken it. Jerusalem Post reports:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro on Saturday that there is a “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the “leading states in the Arab world” on the Iran issue – “one of the few cases in memory, if not the first case in modern times.”

 

“We all think that Iran should not be allowed to have the capacities to make nuclear weapons,” he said. “We all think that a tougher stance should be taken by the international community. We all believe that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox.”

 

Saying that an Iran with nuclear arms would be the most dangerous development for the world since the mid-20th century, and stressing that the “stakes are amazing,” Netanyahu urged the world’s leaders to pay attention “when Israel and the Arabs see eye-to-eye.”

 

“We live here,” he said. “We know something about this region. We know a great deal about Iran and its plans. It’s worthwhile to pay attention to what we say.”

 

Netanyahu made the comments as French President Francois Hollande was set to arrive in Israel for talks on Iran on Sunday.

In the meantime, Iran which suddenly finds itself the creme of the international diplomatic circle and is in full compliance with what the US demands, is explaining – via RT – just why a joint attack on its by supposedly former enemies will not happen:

 Iranian political analyst Seyed Mohammad Marandi told RT that an imminent joint attack on Iran was unlikely given the serious ramifications it could provoke for the region.

 

“It is highly unlikely that the Saudis and Israelis would want to attack Iran because at the end of the day both countries would be losers, they would be seen as aggressors and obviously the Iranians would retaliate,” Marandi told RT.

 

Although he consented that the Saudis and Israelis have been moving closer together lately, neither of them stood to gain from attacking Iran.

 

“It would create an economic catastrophe for the world and only the Saudis and the Israelis would be to blame,” said Marandi.

Then again, considering a GDP-boosting economic catastrophe (recall the main reason the US wanted war with Syria is to boost the defense spending budget which lately has been in freefall) is precisely what the Fed and the Congressional muppetmasters want, we wouldn’t sleep too soundly if we were in the Ayatollah’s shoes. Especially now that thanks to Reuters the entire world, and certainly the NSA, know just where all his rainy day funds are located. Because while it is true that neither Israel nor Saudi would gain from attacking Iran, the US most certainly would. And now it has not one but two proxy countries in the region doing its bidding.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/D7ADUvE8SOI/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Whining for Wine

In a few years’ time we might all be whining because there is no more water left in the world apparently. That’s because according to the World Economic Forum “we are now on the verge of water bankruptcy in many places around the world, with no clear way of repaying the debt”. But, if there’s one thing that the world will not be able to put up with, it’s the growing fear that we will actually run out of wine! Whatever will the banksters do then to celebrate their earnings and what will the traders be drinking to jubilate over their growing bubble on the stock exchanges around the world? We could all be whining over the shortage of wine in the years to come. How are we going to drown our sorrows when the bubbles burst yet again? Turning to drink takes on a whole new meaning, doesn’t it with the price of wines set to increase like never before?

Shortage of wine in the world is getting worse according to a survey carried out by Morgan Stanley Research. If we compare 2012’s figures for supply and demand, then there was only just enough wine to cover demand for that year. The report stated: “Data suggests there may be insufficient supply to meet demand in coming years, as current vintages are released”.

Global wine production has been on the up since the late 1990s and there was only a very short period at the start of the financial crisis when consumption fell (between 2008 and 2009). Otherwise it has always been on the increase.

Global Wine Consumption

Global Wine Consumption
  • The US and China are to blame as they have increased their consumption over recent years.
  • The US now accounts for 12% of global consumption.
  • The US has doubled consumption within the last decade.
  • China has doubled consumption every two and a half years over the past five years.
  • China is the 5th importer in the world in terms of wine.
  • Wine consumption has increased by almost 4% since 2007 around the world.
  • The wine sector will have a total value of $306.6 billion by the year 2016.
  • This alone represents an increase of 17.9% by comparison with figures of 2011.
  • The US will consume 400 million cases of wine in 2016 and China will be doing exactly the same.
  • Global wine production is hardly able to keep pace with the growing demand that is being experienced in the sector.
  • France has decreased its land that is dedicated to wine-growing (from 11.6% (2001) of world total to 10.6% in 2012) since it was largely unprofitable. That looks set to change however.
  • Global Wine Production

Global Wine Production

All of that could be good news for the EU since 60% of the world’s wine is still produced there. They could do with gaining the benefits from their wine, rather than just drowning their sorrows, downing a swift one morning, noon and night and three times on Sundays.

Wine might just be the place to invest in the coming years. Or at least, get the bottle in why you can. They might not be around much longer. Can you imagine we would have wine queues and people would be on the wineline?Breadlines? Never heard of them!

Wine - A thing of the past?

Wine – A thing of the past?

Glorifying and extolling the benefits of drinking wine in hallowed ritualization will become a thing of the past, won’t it if we run out of wine in the world? Painting the town red and kick up one’s heels will be what people did in yesteryears. Drinking a pint of milk down the pub with your colleagues just isn’t going have the same ring about it, is it? Well, probably wouldn’t be able to do that either. Milk is too expensive, these days.

Crack open a bottle of whatever you can get your hands on!


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/YCNTBYWqK-U/story01.htm Pivotfarm

Spot The Striking Similarity

Spot the striking similarity.

Below is the US Employment to Population ratio – a nearly perfect, multi-decade low flatline since Lehman…

 

… And compare it to the NYSE stock index divided by the Fed’s balance sheet: a nearly perfect, multi-decade low flatline since Lehman…

 

Funny how the phrases “improving unemployment” and “record stock market” are so dependent on one’s perspective… and the denominator.

 

* * *

 

In the meantime, here is the propaganda:

 

But even that pales in comparison to the one real winner from the “New Normal”:


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/2GAP1ySOk6Q/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: Is It Wrong To Be Anti-Government?

Submitted by Brandon Smith of Alt-Market blog,

It is natural for a society to search for explanations and motivations in the wake of a man-made tragedy. It is also somewhat natural for people to be driven by their personal biases when looking for someone or something to blame. In recent years, however, our country has been carefully conditioned to view almost every criminal event from an ideological perspective.

The mainstream media now places far more emphasis on the political affiliations and philosophies of “madmen” than it does on their personal disorders and psychosis. The media’s goal, or mission, if you will, is to associate every dark deed whether real or engineered to the political enemies of the establishment, and to make the actions of each individual the collective shame of an entire group of people.

I could sift through a long list of terror attacks and mass shootings in which the establishment media jumped to the conclusion that the perpetrators were inspired by the beliefs of Constitutional conservatives, “conspiracy theorists”, patriots, etc. It is clear to anyone paying attention that the system is going out of its way to demonize those who question the officially sanctioned story, or the officially sanctioned world view. The circus surrounding the latest shooting of multiple TSA agents at Los Angeles International Airport is a perfect example.

Paul Ciancia, the primary suspect in the shooting, was immediately tied to the Liberty Movement by media outlets and the Southern Poverty Law Center, by notes (which we still have yet to see proof of) that law enforcement claims to have found on his person. The notes allegedly use terms such as “New World Order” and “fiat money”, commonly covered by those of us in the alternative media. The assertion is, of course, that Paul Ciancia is just the beginning, and that most if not all of us involved in the exposure of the globalist agenda are powder kegs just waiting to “go off.” The label often used by the MSM to profile people like Ciancia and marginalize the organizational efforts of liberty based culture is “anti-government.”

The establishment desires to acclimate Americans to the idea that being anti-government is wrong; that it is a despicable philosophy embracing social deviance, aimless violence, isolation and zealotry. Looking beyond the mainstream position, my question is, is it really such a bad thing to be anti-government today?

Conspiracy Realists

The terms “anti-government” and “conspiracy theorist” are almost always used in the same paragraph when mainstream media pundits espouse their propaganda. They are nothing more than ad hominem labels designed to play on the presumptions of the general population, manipulating them into dismissing any and all alternative viewpoints before they are ever heard or explained. The establishment and the media are ill-equipped to debate us on fair terms, and understand that they will lose control if Americans are allowed to hear what we have to say in a balanced forum. Therefore, their only fallback is to bury the public in lies so thick they won’t want to listen to us at all.

The Liberty Movement now has the upper hand in the war for information. The exposure of multiple conspiracies in the past several years alone has given immense weight to our stance, and reaffirmed warnings we gave long ago.

When we spoke out against the invasion of Iraq, commissioned by George W. Bush on the dubious claim that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were an immediate threat to the security of our nation, we were called “liberals” and “traitors.”  Today, Bush and Cheney have both openly admitted that no WMD’s were ever present in the region. When we attempted to educate the masses on the widespread surveillance of innocent people by the NSA, some of them laughed. Today, it is common knowledge that all electronic communications are monitored by the Federal government. When we refused to accept the official story behind the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious program, we were called “kooks”. Today, it is common knowledge that the Obama Administration purposely allowed U.S. arms to fall into the hands of Mexican cartels. When we roared over the obvious hand the White House played in the Benghazi attack, we were labeled “racists” and “right wing extremists.” Today, it is common knowledge that the White House ordered military response units to stand down and allow the attack to take place. I could go on and on…

Events that were called “conspiracy theory” by the mainstream yesterday are now historical fact today. Have we ever received an apology for this slander? No, of course not, and we don’t expect one will ever surface. We have already gained something far more important – legitimacy.

And what about Paul Ciancia’s apparent belief in the dangers of the “New World Order” and “fiat money”? Are these “conspiracy theories”, or conspiracy realism? The Liberty Movement didn’t coin the phrase “New World Order”, these political and corporate “luminaries” did:

 

 

Is economic collapse really just a fairytale perpetrated by “anti-government extremists” bent on fear mongering and dividing society?  Perhaps we should ask Alan Greenspan, who now openly admits that he and the private Federal Reserve knew full well they had helped engineer the housing bubble which eventually imploded during the derivatives collapse of 2008.

Or, why not ask the the White House, which just last month proclaimed that “economic chaos” would result if Republicans did not agree to raise the debt ceiling.

Does this make Barack Obama and the Democratic elite “conspiracy theorists” as well?

It is undeniable that government conspiracies and corporate conspiracies exist, and have caused unquantifiable pain to the American people and the people of the world. Knowing this, is it not natural that many citizens would adopt anti-government views in response? Is it wrong to distrust a criminal individual or a criminal enterprise? Why would it be wrong to distrust a criminal government?

The Purpose Behind The Anti-Government Label

When the establishment mainstream applies the anti-government label, they are hoping to achieve several levels propaganda. Here are just a few:

False Association: By placing the alleged “anti-government” views of violent people in the spotlight, the establishment is asserting that it is the political philosophy, not the individual, that is the problem. They are also asserting that other people who hold similar beliefs are guilty by association. That is to say, the actions of one man now become the trespasses of all those who share his ideology. This tactic is only applied by the media to those on the conservative or constitutional end of the spectrum, as it was with Paul Ciancia. For example, when it was discovered that Arizona mass shooter Jared Loughner was actually a leftist, the MSM did not attempt to tie his actions to liberals in general. Why? Because the left is not a threat to the elitist oligarchy within our
government. Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, are.

False Generalization: The term “anti-government” is so broad that, like the term “terrorist”, it can be applied to almost anyone for any reason. The establishment does not want you to distinguish between those who are anti-government for the wrong reasons, and those who are anti-government for the right reasons. Anyone who questions the status quo becomes the enemy regardless of their motives or logic. By demonizing the idea of being anti-government, the establishment manipulates the public into assuming that all government by extension is good, or at least necessary, when the facts actually suggest that most government is neither good or necessary.

False Assertion: The negative connotations surrounding the anti-government stance also suggest that anyone who defends themselves or their principles against government tyranny, whether rationally justified or not, is an evil person. Just look at how Washington D.C. has treated Edward Snowden. Numerous political elites have suggested trying the whistle-blower for treason, or assassinating him outright without due process, even though Snowden’s only crime was to expose the criminal mass surveillance of the American people by the government itself. Rather than apologizing for their corruption, the government would rather destroy anyone who exposes the truth.

False Shame: Does government criminality call for behavior like that allegedly taken by Paul Ciancia? His particular action was not morally honorable or even effective.  It helped the establishment's position instead of hurting it, and was apparently driven more by personal psychological turmoil rather than political affiliation. But, would it be wrong for morally sound and rational Americans facing imminent despotism within government to physically fight back? Would it be wrong to enter into combat with a totalitarian system? The Founding Fathers did, but only after they had exhausted all other avenues, and only after they had broken away from dependence on the system they had sought to fight. Being anti-government does not mean one is a violent and dangerous person. It does mean, though, that there will come a point at which we will not allow government to further erode our freedoms. We will not and should not feel shame in making that stand.

I do not agree with every element of the “anti-government” ethos that exists in our era, but I do see the vast majority of reasons behind it as legitimate. If the establishment really desired to quell the quickly growing anti-government methodology, then they would stop committing Constitutional atrocities and stop giving the public so many causes to hate them. If they continue with their vicious bid to erase civil liberties, dominate the citizenry through fear and intimidation and steal and murder in our name, then our response will inevitably be “anti-government”, and we will inevitably move to end the system as we know it.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/t4tOQcrEB6w/story01.htm Tyler Durden

What Is A Gold Standard?

Given our earlier discussion of Nobel winner Sargent’s comments on Greece and the gold standard, and the ongoing melt-up in asset markets due to the ‘limitless money-printing’ of central banks around the world, we thought it worth a look at what a gold standard is (and is not). Before 1974, U.S. dollars were backed by gold. This meant that the federal government could not print more money than it could redeem for gold. While this constrained the federal government, it also provided citizens with a relatively stable purchasing power for goods and services. Today’s paper currency has no intrinsic value.

It is not based on the value of gold or anything else. Under a gold standard, inflation was really limited. With floating value, or fiat, currency, however, some countries have seen inflation reach extremely high levels—sometimes enough to lead to economic collapse. Gold standards have historically provided more stable currencies with lower inflation than fiat currency. Professor Larry White asks, should the United States return to a gold standard?

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/LzunsWxtbEE/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Not Exactly The Smartest Way To Smuggle Gold…

Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man blog,

Thailand is known for a lot of things– quintessential white sandy beaches, hard partying nightlife, quiet Buddhist reverence…

But what a lot of people don’t realize is that Bangkok is probably one of the most important cities in the world when it comes to illegal trafficking.

Human trafficking. Narcotrafficking. Money laundering. Weapons. Forged documents. Etc.

Bangkok is just as vital to these industries as New York or London to the global financial sector.

And now, thanks to India’s sagging economy, they can add one more to this list: gold smuggling.

Recently, India has been in a state of economic turmoil. Beset on all sides by spiraling inflation, economic stagnation, and a rapidly depreciating currency.

In response the Indian government imposed capital controls in a feeble attempt to curb gold imports and reduce its widening current account deficit.

This constitutes theft, plain and simple. By eliminating options to hold anything other than rapidly depreciating paper, Indian politicians essentially stole the purchasing power of people’s savings

India’s government banned gold coin imports outright. And tight restrictions were placed on the importation of other bullion products, replete with excessive taxation and duties to pay.

The private sector hasn’t exactly taken this lying down. History shows that whenever governments create prohibitions, smugglers and bootleggers will always step in to fill the void.

And because of its traditional gold ties, regional commerce, and generous transportation options, Thailand has now become a major transit point for international gold smuggling destined for India.

The World Gold Council recently released its quarterly data on global gold trends, and the numbers are very clear: India’s gold demand cratered, dropping 32% because of the restrictions.

In Thailand, however, gold demand is up 125% from the 3rd quarter of 2012.

I’ve noticed this on the ground; there’s been a surge of gold shops and new inventory in the marketplace, particularly the small ‘biscuit’ bars that are easier to smuggle.

Much of this is bound for India.

Indian customs officials say that the amount of gold seized has soared over 300% this year.

They claim to have found people hiding gold just about everywhere you could imagine– from airplane lavatories to betwixt their butt cheeks. Not exactly the smartest way to smuggle gold… Just imagine being the buyer of those bars!

Of course, most of the gold is making its way into the country. The borders are too porous and there’s just too many people going through.

Based on the markup that gold sells for in India and the cheap cost of air travel in this part of the world, a smuggler can net nearly $10,000 on a single trip bringing 5kg of gold into India.

That’s a fairly solid payoff for a day’s work, though there are obviously risks involved.

But as much as I admire the swashbuckling, unbridled capitalist spirit of these smugglers sticking it to politicians, there is definitely an easier way.

This whole episode really underscores the importance of having at least a portion of your gold (and paper savings) safely held overseas where your home government can’t control it.

If you have gold overseas and some funds in a foreign bank account, then your savings will be protected from the disastrous consequences of capital controls.

Digital currencies like Bitcoin may also be an alternative to paper money; they’re growing in popularity in places like Argentina where people continue to be beaten down by extractive government policies and capital controls.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ig6tVj15JgA/story01.htm Tyler Durden

BTFATH Is The New BTFD

Emerging in early 2010, when it became quite clear that the stock market will never have a sustained decline under Bernanke’s central planning (since validated three years later, when even the tiniest drop in the “market”, if not Bernanke’s balance sheet, is bought with unprecedented fury and excitement) the term BTFD became the staple mantra of traders 5 year old (or younger, or older) everywhere.

Unfortunately, now that the BOJ has joined in the Fed’s liquidity tsunami fray (with rumors that it will expand its monthly monetizations as soon as early 2014, and with the ECB hinting it too will start monetizing debt shortly), the D in the BTFD no longer exists for the simple reason that the S&P is now a straight line exponentially higher (on strong fundamentals according to financial comedy tv no less). Perhaps that is why as the following Google Trends chart shows, we can now wave goodbye to BTFD and replace it with our own humorous creation to explain Bernanke’s “market” – BTFATH.

We are confident that the logical question of just what comes after BTFATH will be answered promptly.


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/LZOihkyXo8k/story01.htm Tyler Durden