One of the most active companies on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, Lundin Petroleum, said on Monday that it had revised downwards its resource estimate for a recent discovery in the Barents Sea, and that it no longer considers that a stand-alone development would be commercial.
Although Lundin Petroleum reported overall increased reserves and contingent resources as of December 31, 2019, its estimate for the Alta discovery in the Arctic waters of the Barents Sea “has been adjusted downwards,” based on the high specification 3D seismic survey and extensive data and analysis from the well drilled for the extended well test conducted in 2018.
Initially, Lundin had expected that the combined gross resource range for the Alta discovery and nearby Gohta discovery was at between 115 and 390 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMboe). As of September 2018, the development concept for Alta was a subsea field development connected to a standalone floating production and storage vessel.
But now, Lundin is revising down its resource estimate, although it did not say by how much, and notes that “a standalone development of the Alta and nearby Gohta discoveries is no longer considered to be commercial.”
The options for development now include a subsea tie-back development to either the Johan Castberg oilfield or another future host development in the area, Lundin said on Monday.
The decreased resource estimate is another blow to the hopes of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) that major discoveries in the Barents Sea could sustain Norway’s oil and gas production into the next decades.
The operators offshore Norway are exploring for oil and gas in both mature areas and in frontier regions in the Barents Sea in the hopes of finding the next giant Johan Sverdrup, which started pumping oil in early October 2019.
Johan Sverdrup will boost Norwegian oil production through the mid-2020s, but the country will need more and larger oil discoveries soon in order to stave off another drop after the mid-2020s.
According to NPD, 48 percent of resources in the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea, and the Barents Sea have been produced. In its annual report for 2019 last week, NPD lowered expectations for the Barents Sea Southeast due to dry wells, but lifted expectations for undiscovered resources in the central parts of the Barents Sea, due to the mapping of several prospects and good work in production licenses.
ISIS Is Back & “Closer To Europe” Than Ever Due To Libya Chaos: Jordan’s King
Islamic State terrorists are now popping up again in reported attacks on military checkpoints in Iraq, but Jordan’s King Abdullah warned this week that ISIS is reemergent and is now much closer to Europe, specifically just across the Mediterranean in Libya.
“We have to deal with the reemergence of Isis,” the king said in an interview this week with France 24 television. The longtime king which Washington sees as a close US regional ally warned that ISIS is regrouping and once again on the rise, despite the ‘territorial caliphate’ having been defeated in eastern Syria last year.
File image of Jordan’s King Abdullah at the White House in 2017, via Bloomberg.
Abdullah warned ISIS is back even in eastern Syria from where it was last ousted, saying his “major concern is that we have seen over the past year the re-establishment and rise of Isis, not only in southern eastern Syria but also in western Iraq.” His comments came just ahead of attending a NATO conference in Brussels on Tuesday.
Such concerns by analysts and politicians are nothing new, but his comments related to Turkey’s role in Libya were the most explosive and interesting at a moment the latest Russian-backed ceasefire attempt between Gen. Khalifa Haftar and the Tripoli Government of National Accord (GNA) has effectively collapsed.
“From a European perspective, with Libya being much closer to Europe, this is going to be an important discussion in the next couple of days,” Abdullah said.
“Several thousand fighters have left Idlib (Syria) through the northern border and have ended up in Libya, that is something that we in the region but also our European friends will have to address in 2020.”
ISIS in Libya, via jihadist propaganda videos.
The king is referencing the reported covert Turkish plan to transfer Syrian ‘rebel’ fighters from Turkish-backed FSA factions to bolster pro-Tripoli forces in Libya.
We previously described this as an arms “rat line” in reverse of sorts. It must be remembered that both Turkish and US intelligence oversaw the transfer of both heavy weaponry and jihadist fighters to Syria from already war-torn Libya for the purpose of toppling Assad in the early years of the Syrian war.
And now, given Turkey’s ongoing military intervention in Libya against advancing pro-Haftar forces, possibly thousands from among the so-called Turkish Free Syrian Army (formerly the FSA), are currently being sent to Libya. There are reports suggesting Turkey is ready to pay $2,000 a month for each Syrian ‘rebel’ willing fight in Libya.
Congressional leaders in 2011 with the LIFG’s Abdelhakim Belhadj.
Roots of ISIS in Libya: Abdelhakim Belhadj was leader of leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), a former Al Qaeda affiliate. Later he emerged as head of Libyan ISIS, according to FOX and other reports. He met with Congressional leaders, even engaging in the above photo op, and was a key US asset in the push to overthrow Gaddafi.
Clearly critical of this plan, King Abdullah appears to be saying this will fuel the escalating chaos and ‘failed state’ nature of Libya which will in turn lead to a resurgent ISIS straight across from Europe’s southern shores.
Abdullah, speaking of the recently authorized Turkish government plan to also send national army troops to fight Haftar, also said this “will only create more confusion” in the country. We should add the unspoken obvious truth that many ‘former ISIS’ terrorists are currently fighting under the Turkish proxy FSA umbrella in northern Syria.
Exclusive: 2,000 Syrian fighters deployed to Libya to support government
Anti-Turkish sentiment could grow after Ankara agrees to help fight against insurgencyhttps://t.co/8JMFySuBGH
A Libyan wing of ISIS did establish itself in Sirte, Libya years ago following the US-NATO military intervention against longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi.
A few years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released two reports detailing enforcement and litigation abuses by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP. Instead of holding firms accountable when they engage in real discrimination against their employees, the agency has become a government arm for securing high-dollar settlements on dubious grounds.
Congress has not moved to rein in this abuse, though that may change if one of the few companies that are finally standing up to the agency prevails against its abuser.
Created by a Lyndon Johnson-era Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces the federal government’s affirmative action and anti-discrimination mandates on federal contractors. It typically does so through routine audits, which are often fishing expeditions. The behavior of its auditors has been widely criticized for decades. Complaints include allegations of arbitrary and abusive exercises of power, waste of resources, and intimidation. There’s no good excuse for this type of bullying by a government agency.
Because the agency has the power to debar contractors—meaning the government will no longer do business with them—companies fear retribution if they defend themselves. One recent exception is Google, which decided that supplying 740,000 pages of documents at the cost of 2,300 man-hours and about $500,000 ought to be enough for the agency to review the firm’s compensation practices. When OFCCP said it wasn’t and Google needed to send over the names of its employees, OFCCP sued. Google won a victory in which a Labor Department administrative law judge—with every incentive to defer to the government—found that OFCCP’s additional demands were “over-broad, intrusive on employee privacy, unduly burdensome, and insufficiently focused on obtaining the requested information.”
This private-sector vindication, however, is an exception to the rule. OFCCP recently extracted its largest ever settlements from Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies—$10 and $7 million, respectively—and, shortly before that, got $4.2 million from Bank of America. But those numbers pale in comparison to the $400 million OFCCP alleges that Oracle Corp. owes to female, Asian, and African American employees. The only thing more astonishing than the amount of money sought is the flimsiness of the government’s case.
To prove its discrimination claim, OFCCP relies entirely on a statistical analysis that fails to reflect the labor market’s great complexity. For instance, the government uses crude controls for employee education and experience, both of which have a large impact on compensation. For education, OFCCP considers only an employee’s degree level but not whether the degree is actually relevant to the job performed. As for experience, it considers only the employee’s age and time at Oracle, omitting both length at the current position—which is where the most useful experience is gained—and the relevance of prior work. OFCCP, in other words, thinks that any employees of the same age and with the same tenure with their current employer possess the same experience.
OFCCP’s analysis also treats employees with the same job title as similarly situated, creating more grounds for discrimination claims. However, a software engineer working on databases does very different work than one who develops artificial intelligence. Yet if the worker in the higher-demand field, who can therefore demand higher pay, happens to be Caucasian or male, while the other is female or a minority, then the government concludes the pay disparity is due to discrimination by Oracle.
In short, the government fails to compare like employees to like, and it doesn’t control for perfectly innocent variables that explain pay differences.
Thankfully, Oracle is fighting back. Unfortunately, the ideas driving the social-engineering agenda are spreading. In 2018, California instituted quotas for the number of women on corporate boards. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) proposes even more interference from the federal government, such as banning contractors from asking about salary or criminal history and requiring significant reporting on employee pay, broken down along demographic lines. For companies that contract with the federal government and employ about a quarter of the American workforce, such invasive requirements carry a hefty compliance cost for government contractors and taxpayers.
Quite a lot is riding on whether Oracle can fend off the government goliath. Given the size of the case, a government victory will almost certainly embolden the social engineers even further.
Who is Q? What is Q? And, perhaps most importantly, why is Q?
Q and the ever-growing worldwide movement it’s inspired have been the objects of fascination, mockery and hatred, but of surprisingly little serious analysis.
Q first appeared in October 2017 on an anonymous online forum called 4Chan, posting messages that implied top-clearance knowledge of upcoming events. More than 3,000 messages later, Q has created a disturbing, multi-faceted portrait of a global crime syndicate that operates with impunity. Q’s followers in the QAnon community faithfully analyze every detail of Q’s drops, which are compiled here and here.
The mainstream media has published hundreds of articles attacking Q as an insanerightwingconspiracy, particularly after President Trump seemed to publicly confirm his connection to it. At a North Carolina rally in 2019, Trump made a point of drawing attention to a baby wearing a onesie with a big Q.
In recent weeks, the tempo of Trump’s spotlighting of Q has accelerated, with the President retweeting Q followers twenty times in one day. Trump has featured Q fans in his ads and deployed one of Q’s signature phrases (“These people are sick”) at his rallies. The President’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has also retweeted Q followers.
Q has noted that the media never asks Trump the obvious question: What do you think of Q? To Q followers, the reason they don’t ask is obvious. They’re afraid of the answer.
In the meantime, Q’s influence continues to spread. Protestors in Hong Kong, Iran, and France have held up Q signs and chanted Q quotes. Q’s revelations are uniting people all over the world who want freedom.
If you’re unfamiliar with Q or only know it through the media’s attacks, I’d like to provide a brief introduction to this extraordinary phenomenon. I’ve followed Q since the first drop, and I’ve grown increasingly impressed by the accuracy, breadth and depth of Q’s messages. Q followers were prepared long in advance for the easing of hostilities with North Korea, the deflation of the mullahs of Iran, and the discovery of Ukraine as a hotbed of corruption for American politicians. They knew a great deal about Jeffrey Epstein’s activities before the public did and anticipate even more shocking revelations to come. As Q likes to say, “Future proves past.” As Q’s predictions come true, they lend retroactive credibility to the entire enterprise.
Q’s followers believe that Q is a military intelligence operation, the first of its kind, whose goal is to provide the public with secret information. Many Q followers think the Q team was founded by Admiral Michael Rogers, the former Director of the National Security Agency and former Commander of US Cyber Command. Some suspect that Dan Scavino, White House Director of Social Media, is part of the team, because the high quality of Q’s writing has the luster of a communications expert.
Q is a new weapon in the game of information warfare, bypassing a hostile media and corrupt government to communicate directly with the public. Think of Q as a companion to Trump’s twitter. Whereas Trump communicates bluntly and directly, Q is cryptic, sly and subtle, offering only clues that beg for context and connection.
Here’s the way it works: Q posts messages (also known as “drops” or “crumbs”) on an anonymous online forum, which are discussed, analyzed, and critiqued by the board’s inhabitants. (The forum has changed a few times after massive online attacks.) Hundreds of social media accounts then spread Q’s latest posting to worldwide followers who share their research, analysis, and interpretations of Q’s latest information.
I’ve compiled a list of Q’s most famous catch phrases and tried to put them into context.
The Great Awakening: We’re living in a unique time in which ordinary citizens around the world are collaborating to understand and expose the corrupt system that rules us. The system thrives on deception, and the overwhelming task of The Great Awakening is to penetrate its lies and reveal the truth.
The first phase of The Great Awakening is heightened awareness of the Deep State – the interlocking governmental entities that operate outside the law to expand their own power. Elections and popular opinion don’t impact the ability of the Deep State to enforce its agenda.
The second phase of The Great Awakening investigates the Deep State’s alliance with other powerful sectors: the media, Hollywood, charities and non-profits, public schools and universities, religious organizations, medical, scientific and financial institutions, and multinational corporations. This phase can be painful, as you discover that “those you trust the most” (in Q’s phrase) are deceiving you. Beloved celebrities, religious leaders, doctors, educators, innovators, and do-gooders are all in on the hoax.
The third phase of The Great Awakening is perhaps the most painful of all. The people who rule us are not merely amoral creatures who view us as collateral damage in their drive for money and power. It’s scarier than that. The potentates we serve are actively trying to harm us. That’s their goal. We’re under coordinated attack.
Dark To Light: Q tells us that what our rulers fear the most is exposure. Bringing their crimes out of protected darkness into the light of public scrutiny destroys their power to deceive. And as their power fades, the darkness of our divided, violent world will yield to the light of freedom, cooperation, and peace.
Where We Go One We Go All (WWG1WGA): Q’s most famous phrase expresses the worldwide egalitarian nature of the movement. Every country is suffering from the system’s oppression, and the whole world will benefit from a rebirth of freedom. In this unique movement, anonymous citizens work in collaboration with the highest-ranking military leaders and the president, and everyone’s contributions are valued. When commenters on the board have thanked Q for his service, Q has replied that no one is above and no one is below. “We work for you.”
These people are sick. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of The Great Awakening is coming to terms with the depravity of our rulers, whom Q has called The Cult. Jeffrey Epstein’s story has helped to awaken people to some of the elite’s crimes. The mysterious temple on Epstein’s island hints at possible future revelations that are frightening in their scope. Q followers believe that The Cult engages in ritual practices that enshrine the shedding of blood and which prey on the innocence of children. The sickness in their souls thrives on brutality, war, and terror. These disclosures will be tough for the public to take.
Trust the plan. The presumed military leaders who created Q and who protected Trump throughout the election and presidency have created a precise path to victory. Despite the seeming chaos of daily events, a steady progression of victories is taking place. The plan includes offensive maneuvers against the Cult’s financial power, legal standing, human supply chains, and military capacity. And, of crucial importance, the plan attacks the Cult’s ability to control the narrative that shapes what the public believes. In this high-stakes game of information warfare, Q plays a vital role by empowering ordinary citizens (like me) to spread the truth.
They want you divided. The hatred that’s growing between races, classes, age groups, religions, and political parties is purposely fomented by the Cult. The more we’re divided and focused on attacking each other, the weaker we become. Q urges us to stay together and to fight the Cult, not each other.
They think you’re sheep. The Cult believes, as Q says, “you’ll follow the stars” – the celebrities in media, Hollywood, and academia who tell you, in coordinated fashion, what you’re supposed to think. Their contempt for you makes them confident they can control you and ensure your surrender to any agenda. Q, on the other hand, offers only clues and can only be understood by high-grade critical thinking, spurred by constant crowd-sourced criticism and reassessment. The essence of the Q movement is to think for yourself.
Bigger than you can imagine. Expand your thinking. Q encourages us to reevaluate everything we think we know. The Cult may date back to ancient times, and through its powerful families, it might have manipulated historical events in ways that we haven’t suspected. The Cult may also possess advanced technology and medical cures that have not been released to the public. One aspect that may be “bigger than you can imagine” is the unfathomable scale of theft from our national coffers, as funds for foreign aid and wars wind up in the Cult’s pockets.
Track resignations. Beneath the surface, a broad and deep cleansing of corrupt players is taking place. Q asked us to track resignations to understand the scope of activity. (Here’s a website that took him up on his request: www.resignation.info) Resignations, retirements, and unexpected deaths from major players in politics, media, charities, and corporations all point to possible deals being made quietly without the public fanfare of arrests. For me, a notable resignation is Eric Schmidt’s abrupt exit from Google, which received little media attention. Schmidt resigned on December 21st, 2017, the same day that President Trump signed an executive order declaring a national emergency related to “serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world.” Further context for Schmidt’s resignation may be inferred from this photo of him in North Korea, apparently in an advisory role. Standing next to him is Bill Richardson, former Governor of New Mexico, the state in which Epstein had a secret ranch. Richardson has been accused by one of Epstein’s victims.
Their need for symbols will be their downfall. The Cult uses certain symbols over and over again, which may serve some ritualistic need, but makes them vulnerable to detection. Q followers are familiar with Y-shaped horns that mimic those of the goat deity Baphomet, owls, pyramids, one eye encased within a pyramid, red shoes, bandaged fingers, and other repeating symbols, including the mysterious black eye that afflicts so many famous people. The Q Army also knows the coded pedophile symbols listed by the FBI. When Q drew attention to the design of Epstein’s temple, alert Q followers noticed how similar it is to the set design of a famous talk show. And the red ring on the hand of dead terrorist Qassam Soleimani prompted Q followers to compile images of similar rings on the hands of powerful people. An excellent source for understanding how these symbols are incorporated into pop culture targeting the young through music videos, TV shows and movies can be found at vigilantcitizen.com.
Nothing can stop what is coming. Nothing. Now comes the pain. The headlines on any given day may sound discouraging for those who want justice to prevail. But these setbacks are temporary, as a juggernaut of justice heads our way. As Q likes to say: We have it all. Massive amounts of irrefutable evidence await the criminals who try to evade their reckoning in court. For those who worry about Trump’s ability to overcome impeachment, election fraud, and assassination attempts, Q assures us: Patriots in control. And no legal tricks can help the criminals escape the ultimate judgment of public disgust. Q promises us that the day is coming when they can’t walk down the street.
You are the news now. The “fake news” decried by President Trump is losing credibility and audience by the day. Q has exposed the 4 A.M. drops that provide the daily talking points to media personnel, so they can all parrot the same propaganda. Q has also named various journalists whom he says take bribes. The media is concentrated within six powerful companies; on the other hand, the Q army is vast, voluntary, and anonymous. Q assures us that our efforts to disseminate the truth through social media and conversations with family and friends are having a huge impact. We are the news now.
We know what happens in the end. God wins. Many times, Q has asked us to pray. He’s quoted the famous Biblical lines of Ephesians 6:12, “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” We’re living through monumental times. It’s comforting that Q believes that if we work together, God wins.
A few years ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released two reports detailing enforcement and litigation abuses by the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, or OFCCP. Instead of holding firms accountable when they engage in real discrimination against their employees, the agency has become a government arm for securing high-dollar settlements on dubious grounds.
Congress has not moved to rein in this abuse, though that may change if one of the few companies that are finally standing up to the agency prevails against its abuser.
Created by a Lyndon Johnson-era Executive Order 11246, OFCCP enforces the federal government’s affirmative action and anti-discrimination mandates on federal contractors. It typically does so through routine audits, which are often fishing expeditions. The behavior of its auditors has been widely criticized for decades. Complaints include allegations of arbitrary and abusive exercises of power, waste of resources, and intimidation. There’s no good excuse for this type of bullying by a government agency.
Because the agency has the power to debar contractors—meaning the government will no longer do business with them—companies fear retribution if they defend themselves. One recent exception is Google, which decided that supplying 740,000 pages of documents at the cost of 2,300 man-hours and about $500,000 ought to be enough for the agency to review the firm’s compensation practices. When OFCCP said it wasn’t and Google needed to send over the names of its employees, OFCCP sued. Google won a victory in which a Labor Department administrative law judge—with every incentive to defer to the government—found that OFCCP’s additional demands were “over-broad, intrusive on employee privacy, unduly burdensome, and insufficiently focused on obtaining the requested information.”
This private-sector vindication, however, is an exception to the rule. OFCCP recently extracted its largest ever settlements from Goldman Sachs and Dell Technologies—$10 and $7 million, respectively—and, shortly before that, got $4.2 million from Bank of America. But those numbers pale in comparison to the $400 million OFCCP alleges that Oracle Corp. owes to female, Asian, and African American employees. The only thing more astonishing than the amount of money sought is the flimsiness of the government’s case.
To prove its discrimination claim, OFCCP relies entirely on a statistical analysis that fails to reflect the labor market’s great complexity. For instance, the government uses crude controls for employee education and experience, both of which have a large impact on compensation. For education, OFCCP considers only an employee’s degree level but not whether the degree is actually relevant to the job performed. As for experience, it considers only the employee’s age and time at Oracle, omitting both length at the current position—which is where the most useful experience is gained—and the relevance of prior work. OFCCP, in other words, thinks that any employees of the same age and with the same tenure with their current employer possess the same experience.
OFCCP’s analysis also treats employees with the same job title as similarly situated, creating more grounds for discrimination claims. However, a software engineer working on databases does very different work than one who develops artificial intelligence. Yet if the worker in the higher-demand field, who can therefore demand higher pay, happens to be Caucasian or male, while the other is female or a minority, then the government concludes the pay disparity is due to discrimination by Oracle.
In short, the government fails to compare like employees to like, and it doesn’t control for perfectly innocent variables that explain pay differences.
Thankfully, Oracle is fighting back. Unfortunately, the ideas driving the social-engineering agenda are spreading. In 2018, California instituted quotas for the number of women on corporate boards. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) proposes even more interference from the federal government, such as banning contractors from asking about salary or criminal history and requiring significant reporting on employee pay, broken down along demographic lines. For companies that contract with the federal government and employ about a quarter of the American workforce, such invasive requirements carry a hefty compliance cost for government contractors and taxpayers.
Quite a lot is riding on whether Oracle can fend off the government goliath. Given the size of the case, a government victory will almost certainly embolden the social engineers even further.
“It’s The ‘Bill Clinton’ Of Cities”: Traveling Bankers Stunned By San Francisco’s Squalor
All of those bankers who flocked to San Francisco this past week for the JP Morgan Health Care Conference were met with an unexpected – and wildly unappreciated – surprise.
While it’s reputation as the epicenter of Silicon Valley evinces images of untold wealth and riches, San Francisco’s ultra-liberal policing agenda protects those who commit petty drug and nuisance offenses. This has transformed the city – which, with its burgeoning homeless population, is in the midst of a crisis – has been transformed into a feces-covered “slum” on par with Mumbai or Manila.
As the head of one pharmaceutical association told Bloomberg, visitors complaints about the overpriced hotel rooms and street-side squalor get worse every year.
“It comes up with our members every year,” said Steve Ubl, chief executive officer of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, which represents the world’s largest drugmakers. “It gets worse and worse in terms of concentration and cost. It’s outrageous.”
The health-care industry’s marquee event for the year, where dealmakers meet and hobnob with other industry luminaries, also highlights the uncomfortable wealth disparity in the city.
The health-care industry’s premier event, a celebration of innovation and money to be made, also highlights San Francisco’s vast wealth disparities as well-to-do attendees hobnob at parties while stepping around people living in cardboard boxes. This year’s confab comes as the city is grappling with heightened attention on its troubles, with its homeless crisis worsening, tech companies facing backlash and President Donald Trump lashing out at California’s policies.
In a blow to the city’s booming conference industry, Oracle recently said it would move its annual OpenWorld conference to Las Vegas after too many attendees complained about the pricey hotel rooms in SF.
And in a blow to the area’s reputation as a corporate destination, Oracle Corp. last month said it would hold its OpenWorld conference in Las Vegas after more than 20 years in San Francisco because of the city’s pricey hotels and street conditions. The move is estimated to cost $64 million in lost revenue.
“San Francisco has squandered its place in the sun,” said John Price, CEO of Greffex Inc., an Aurora, Colorado-based genetic engineering company, who traveled to the conference fresh off a business trip to Asia. “San Francisco is the Bill Clinton of cities. It squandered itself with its flaws.”
Attendees have been complaining about the JPM conference – which usually attracts about 10,000 people – for years, flooding social media with stories about the city’s high prices and squalor.
The JPMorgan gathering at the Westin St. Francis, which attracts about 10,000 people, has long drawn the ire of some attendees. Conference-goers have taken to Twitter and blog posts to express concerns about the homeless situation and watching city officials clean up human feces, all while spending thousands of dollars on hotel rooms and resorting to holding meetings in bathrooms.
JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon weighed in during an interview with Maria Bartiromo of Fox Business that aired Tuesday. When asked about complaints about the conference’s location, he said it’s “not quite that bad.”
Attendees “know where they’re going, they plan for it the same time of the year,” he said, pointing out the city’s Chase Center venue as a new location for functions. Still, he said San Francisco has been hurt by bad policy and the bank is going to become “deeply involved” in the city.
One woman who regularly attends the conference said the homeless situation has gotten “much worse” in the city over the past five years, and added that she doesn’t feel safe walking around the city at night.
“I’ve been coming to JPM for five years, and the homeless situation has gotten much worse,” Selin Kurnaz, co-founder and CEO of New York-based Massive Bio, said at a party Monday night in the Tenderloin. “I feel unsafe walking around at night, especially as a young woman.”
For anybody traveling to SF in the near future, here’s a tip. In addition to looking up which restaurants and attractions you want to visit, it might not be a bad idea to take a look at the shit map.
Trump’s response to the attack on two US military bases showcase a hopeful about-face on a dark age agenda which many thought could lead nowhere but World War III in the immediate days following Soleimani’s murder on January 3.
Immediately after the Iranian counter-attacks occurred on Wednesday morning at the same hour of Soleimani’s assassination, Iran’s Foreign Minister stated:
“Iran took & concluded proportionate measures in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter targeting base from which cowardly armed attack against our citizens & senior officials were launched. We do not seek escalation or war, but will defend ourselves against any aggression.”
Iran’s retribution was more moderate than many analysts imagined as fore notice was delivered to the Iraqi government 30 minutes before rockets were launched giving American military personnel in the bases ample time to seek shelter.
In Trump’s remarks the following day, the President stated:
“Iran appears to be standing down, which is a good thing for all parties concerned and a very good thing for the world… ISIS is a natural enemy of Iran. The destruction of ISIS is good for Iran, and we should work together on this and other shared priorities.”
Although Trump’s speech characterized Iran as a “major supporter of terrorism” and Gen. Soleimani as a “top terrorist”, his assertion that a common interest exists between the USA and Iran in the combat of ISIS is a spectacular break from the neocon agenda. This break is also one of many in a long line of internal struggles emanating from the corridors of American power in the days since Soleimani’s murder. This includes the memo written to the Iraq government by William Seely, commanding general of the Iraq Task Force saying: “We respect your sovereign decision to order our departure.” Seely’s memo created a major crisis amongst the radical war hawks like Mark Esper and Mark Milley who raced to deny the memo’s validity.
Recent revelations published in the Wall Street Journal demonstrating the incredible back channel discussion set up by Trump through the Swiss embassy in Tehran in the hours after Solemenei’s murder also play into this “movement of sanity” within the USA.
The Paradox of America Resolved
This contradictory behaviour is undoubtedly not so confusing for leading figures among Eurasia’s intelligentsia who are not ignorant to the battle occurring within America between nationalists who genuinely wish to end “the forever wars” in the Middle East vs those Pax Americanists embedded throughout the neoconservative and neo-liberal establishments who would rather burn the earth than abandon their dark age ideology. Trump’s many calls for positive relations with Russia and China over the past 3 years terrify these groups, and this potential US-Russia-China alliance has represented a real threat which today’s London-steered impeachment debacle, and years of Russia-gating has always aimed to derail.
With the impeachment bill now sitting in the republican-dominated Senate, the neocons loyal to the Military Industrial Complex which Trump has so loudly criticized have major leverage on the President and are using it.
If you are thinking “why would any republican ruin their careers by supporting a democrat-driven impeachment bill against a republican leader?” then you haven’t realized that the drive for war with Iran (as well as Russia and China) is not a matter of “practical politics” for our later day fanatics of the evangelical pre-millennial garb like John Hagee or Benny Hinn who sincerely believe it is man’s duty to usher in Armageddon and fulfill their twisted view of prophecy. Nor is it an issue for their Israeli counterparts who believe essentially in the same prophecy with the small exception that the Savior’s arrival amidst the fires of war will be occurring for the first time rather than the 2nd. If you are reading this thinking “certainly no one could be so nuts”, then let this televised prayer led by Rev. John Hagee and Benny Hinn cause you to think twice:
Bill Kristol, a leading figure behind the neocon cult and co-author of the dystopian Project for a New American Century Manifesto has already poured tens of millions of dollars into billboards, commercials and lobbying teams gunning for Trump’s impeachment. Kristol tweeted on October 17, 2019 that “If Trump is not impeached and removed, the corruption will get even worse, the White House even more lawless, the violations of norms even more routine. The case for impeachment isn’t merely retrospective; it’s prophylactic. And it isn’t merely just; it’s urgent.”
The most recent commercial promoting Trump’s impeachment which Kristol’s think tank Republicans for the Rule of Law released raised the argument that since republicans supported Nixon’s impeachment in 1973, republicans should impeach Trump today.
This argument obviously overlooks the problem that while Nixon actually appeared to have committed crimes, nothing even approximating illegal activity has occurred in Trump’s case.
Things are not as black and white as many believed until recently.
Iran’s recent military exercises with Russia and China have demonstrated clearly in the minds of saner Americans that no war with Iran is possible without taking Russia and China on as well. Putin’s brilliant maneuvers in the Middle East have led to the destruction of the Anglo-American plot to grow radical Islam as a geopolitical tool first against the Soviet Union in the 1980s and then against nation states more generally since the Soviet Union’s collapse. For this reason, Putin’s enemies throughout the neocon world and British intelligence have never forgiven him. Although China has not brought much military might to bear in the Middle East, the Belt and Road Initiative has provided a gateway to a durable peace which cannot be overlooked, as BRI projects in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon and beyond have given the Middle East a new chance for a future.
The question still remains whether or not Trump can continue to move away from the WWIII agenda and into this positive alliance.
Conspiracy Theories Abound Over Mysterious Drone Formations In Colorado, Nebraska, And Kansas
After more than three weeks of mysterious drones hovering in the skies over the Central U.S., nobody knows where they are coming from, or why they are there.
Around Christmas, we wrote about large, non-governmental unmanned aircraft flying in mysterious patterns across the skies in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas. Since then, sightings have increased, as some have described the drones as approximately 6 feet wide with red and white lights, but nobody knows where they are from or who owns them.
The sightings have gotten the attention of FBI, the FAA, and the U.S. Air Force in the last several weeks, who have all launched investigations into the mysterious drone sightings. According to eyewitnesses, these drones can move “much faster than a regular aircraft,” and that would seem to indicate that they are highly advanced.
The A.P. News reports that local, state, and federal agencies have offered little explanation into the sighting in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas, which has sparked conspiracy theories among residents who are trying to explain the unexplainable.
“Even if the military has plausible deniability with this, defense contractors might be involved,” Dan Carlson, a retired meteorologist, said. “By the time they’ fess up to it, they’ll have been in the sky for four years.”
Carlson said the drones had been spotted four times this year near his home in Sidney, Nebraska.
He said the drones flew in pairs with impressive vertical and horizontal speed.
“I do not buy into the conspiracy theories. I am not living in fear of an alien invasion,” he said.
He speculates the drones are part of a high-tech military program, practicing search-and-recovery operations, pursuing items that have been hidden during the daytime for nighttime exercises.
The U.S. Air Force told A.P. that they are not conducting drone operations or training missions in Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas.
Colorado Department of Public Safety investigated the drone sightings and discovered that out of the 90 drone reports from Nov. 23 to Monday, 12 were small drones that can easily be bought on Amazon.
Authorities used a heat-detecting plane between Jan. 6 through Monday, and found of the 23 drones spotted, 13 were small drones. Four sightings of the 23 were considered unidentified.
The FAA told A.P. that investigators are still looking into the reports.
“We take every drone-sighting report seriously. Multiple FAA divisions are continuing to work closely with federal, state, and local stakeholders on this issue,” FAA spokesman Ian Gregor wrote in an email.
“I have repeatedly told CNN and our other media the following if you don’t want to propagate more mass murders: Don’t start the story with sirens blaring. Don’t have photos of the killer. Don’t make it 24/7 coverage. Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story. Localize the story to the affected community. And make it as boring as possible in every other market.”
Dr. Park Dietz, Forensic Psychologist, on how to stop mass shootings
Video games. 4chan. “Toxic masculinity.” These are just a few of the media’s favorite folk devils when it comes to assigning blame for mass shootings in America. However, there is startling evidence that how the media covers these tragedies makes them culpable in perpetuating future ones.
This might sound like an outlandish claim, but it’s supported by evidence from no less an authority than the National Institutes of Health. It’s related to a well-established phenomenon of copycat suicides known as the Werther Effect. Other countries’ medias have taken steps to minimize the Werther Effect through self-imposed industry standards on suicide reporting, and many of these standards have parallels with the coverage of mass shootings.
The American media currently has no industry standard practices for how to cover either suicides or mass shootings. However, one can easily see the difference between how mass shootings and suicides are covered. Whereas suicides are treated as somber tragedies, mass shootings often have the sensationalism turned up to 11. There’s a detailed discussion of the shooter’s life story, motives and methods. Strong evidence suggests that this both encourages and instructs potential mass shooters.
Statistically speaking, mass shootings represent a tiny portion of all deaths in the United States. For example, 2017 was the deadliest year for mass shootings in America with a total of 117 people killed. For context, 102 people die from automobile accidents every day according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute.
Despite the low frequency of these tragedies, the media pays outsized attention to them for self-serving reasons, which are both political and economic: There’s a demonstrated anti-gun agenda amongst America’s media. And there’s the ongoing shift in the media’s business model to attention-based revenue that results in ever-more sensational news coverage and “clickbait” headlines.
The lurid attention to mass shootings is profitable for America’s press, cable news networks, and social media companies – despite the consequences encapsulated by the Werther Effect. Thus a look at the role the American media plays in perpetuating these rampage killers is in order.
The history of the Werther Effect is quite curious. Goethe’s novel was a cultural phenomenon at the time. Melancholic men were dressing in blue jackets and yellow pants in emulation of the novel’s protagonist, Werther, who was effectively a stand-in for Goethe himself. Some men took their love of the novel one step further by committing suicide with a pistol in the same manner as Werther, who ends his life at the end of the novel after being rejected by the woman he loves. This led to the book being banned in several places.
The term “Werther Effect” was first coined by researcher David Phillips in 1974. Further studies in 1985 and 1989 by Phillips and his team found that suicide rates, as well as other accidents, increased after a well-publicized suicide. The Werther Effect impacts the young and the elderly – but not the middle-aged. Those who commit copycat suicides tend to be of a similar age to the original suicide they are copying.
The Werther Effect for mass shootings was found to be 13 weeks by the study conducted by Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University.
For his part, Phillips mostly blamed the media. He believed that people who were having a hard time felt that in some way they had been given “permission” to end their life by a high-profile suicide. He compared this with similar studies about other risk-taking behaviors such as taking drugs. People were more likely to engage in such activities if someone else had done so first.
In the case of a mass shooting, potential shooters are not just given a sick kind of “permission,” they are also given a script from which to follow – a ready-made game plan that they can copy and tweak to best fit their purposes. The shooter in El Paso, Texas directly referenced the manifesto of the Christchurch mosque shooter, for example.
Suicides due to the Werther Effect, in addition to being similar with regard to age group, were also similar with regard to method. This is important to remember when considering those mass shootings which are, in effect, a highly dramatic form of suicide. Some shooters seek to get out alive. But for many, the intended effect is being killed by police in the act of shooting other people.
Curiously, the Werther Effect is not an inevitability, but is largely a function of how the media reports on the suicide in question. For example, there were fears that the suicide of Kurt Cobain would lead to a rash of suicides. However, in the media coverage of Cobain’s death, the focus was primarily on the need for mental health care and the suffering of his family due to his suicide. The result was that there was actually a decrease in the suicide rate around the time of his death.
The Media’s Role in Creating the Werther Effect
The United States is anomalous when it comes to coverage of suicide, in that it has no national professional code on how suicides should be covered. Norway forbids publicizing suicide in any way in its media, while other countries have a much more moderate, but sensible, approach. For example, in the United Kingdom, journalistic practice is to not romanticize the death, use lurid photos, or use the word “suicide” anywhere in a headline.
Not only does the United States not have rules against celebrating or glamorizing suicide – either as an industry-standard journalistic practice or by government fiat – the United States media has a lurid fascination with suicide in general as well as suicide by cop and its close cousin the mass shooting.
There is an equally lurid motto for this principle in the American media: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
Note the coverage in the New Zealand media of Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque shooter. His face is blurred out in all media coverage. The government of New Zealand requested that other countries not show footage from the shooting, which was live streamed. While the jailing of no less than eight people who shared the shooters video is an extreme reaction that infringes upon freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas, it shows just how committed New Zealand was to prevent any glorification of the shooter.
The media does this for two reasons: First, it moves units. Newspapers and other media are businesses and do what creates the greatest profits. However, there is another, more sinister and cynical reason that can be credibly put forward: The American media has a left-wing political agenda that includes the wholesale banning and confiscation of private firearms.
Mass shootings are, in terms of sheer number of deaths, a blip on the radar. The euphemism “gun violence” is often used to mask this, which lumps murders and suicides into the same statistic. While suicides are undoubtedly tragic, they’re not what one thinks of when hearing the term “gun violence.” All told, there were 11,004 gun homicides in 2016. While this sounds like a lot, some context is in order: 34,436 died of car crashes in the United States in the same year.
Neil deGrasse Tyson came under fire for pointing this out – that not only do gun deaths not amount to a lot in the grand scheme of things, but “mass shootings” are even less.
Indeed, what counts as a “mass shooting” is a political game that deliberately excludes mass shootings. Vox, Mother Jones, The Washington Post and the Congressional Research Service all keep detailed records of mass shootings. Each of these deliberately exclude gang violence in their tallies.
For context, a total of 888 people have died in mass shootings since 1982. That’s a total of 1 percent of all gun deaths, approximately two-thirds of which are suicides. In 2017 alone, police killed 1,189. Americans should be concerned about mass shootings and any other topic where public policy might be able to reduce the number of deaths.
But Mark Manson and others have discussed how mass shootings are not only something virtually every American doesn’t have to worry about, but panicking and virally boosting the incidents might also be creating more of them (along the same lines as the Werther Effect). Sam Harris has discussed how new legislation is probably not the answer, but a different view of public social violence is.
It’s worth noting that, like terrorism, the intended effect of a mass shooting is attention and fear. When society reacts hysterically to mass shootings without proportion, it is playing into the hands of the agenda of the mass media as well as the intended shooter.
How the Werther Effect Works in Mass Shootings
That the Werther Effect has some analog with mass shootings is difficult to dispute. First, mass shootings are largely a product of the post-1968 world – i.e., the world after gun control. What’s more, shooters have studied the actions of other shooters to understand how to commit their crimes.
FBI Director James Comey certainly believed that media predictions of mass shooters contributed to the phenomenon in the United States. After the Orlando shooting, he said:
“You will notice that I am not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families, and so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition.”
More than simply a desire to see these shootings not reported, the FBI is actively investigating potential copycat criminals in the wake of mass shootings, such as the ones that took place in Dayton and El Paso. A study conducted by Mother Jones located no fewer than 74 copycat killings (attempted or executed) of the 1999 Columbine shooting alone. The casualty toll of these attacks included 89 deaths, 126 injuries and nine suicides.
There is more than just circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a Werther Effect for mass shootings. Indeed, this has been studied. The National Institute of Health produced a meta-study of mass shootings that concluded what most people probably already suspect: that there is an imitative effect. It’s not that mass shootings are “contagious” as such. Contagion is something belonging to the world of epidemiology and virology, not psychology. It’s that mass shooters tend to imitate one another.
Where do they get the information to imitate one another? While the National Institute of Health hedges a bit on whether or not mass shootings are “contagious” in the same way that other violent and dangerous behaviors are, it is very clear that the media plays a key role in disseminating the information about how to commit a mass shooting.
Gang bangers might observe how to commit a mass shooting first hand, but we know of no mass shooter in a non-gang related sense who witnessed a mass shooting personally, then used that knowledge to commit his own. On the contrary, they learn what they know about mass shootings from the media.
What’s perhaps most interesting is that the NIH study found that it didn’t matter if the portrayal of a mass shooting was even factual or realistic to be an influence on a mass shooter. Even merely describing the behavior of a shooter had the effect of influencing later shooters.
The report specifically called out the media’s portrayal of mass shooters, however. They cite the reporting ad nauseum of the personal life details of the shooter, his crimes, and even the manifesto (an increasingly de rigeur part of any mass shooting) that have an imitative effect on future mass shooters.
Government censorship need not be the answer. Consumer pressure as well as a voluntary industry-wide set of standards could literally save lives.
How the Media Portrays Mass Shooters
Consider the portrayal of mass shooters in the media. The very act of being the obsession of the news and social media is a sort of social status attractive to the type of person flirting with the idea of being a mass shooter. The life story of a mass shooter can provide a point of resonance and relatability, as similar criminals tend to fit a similar profile. The portrayal of shooters wielding guns or even looking menacing in photographs projects an aura of danger and toughness that can be attractive to those who are hanging on the edge. Manifestos can inspire further action, especially if one of the goals of the manifesto is to create terror and panic – mission accomplished. Detailed reports of what happened can provide a sort of instruction manual for future shooters.
All of this combined provides a very powerful and attractive cocktail enticing further mass shootings.
Note that the suggestion here is not to ban the reporting of mass shootings. This would also be a mistake. The public has a right to be informed of significant events and mass shootings are no exception. However, the manner in which mass shootings are reported on is the problem – the emphasis on the personal narrative of the shooter, the views that motivated him to commit the crime, and the gory details of his dubious success are what is at issue.
The report from the NIH is unambiguous in its belief that a change in media policy could very well directly lead to a decrease in mass shootings in the United States:
“If the manner with which the media (legacy, new, social) report a mass shooting event plays a role in promoting further mass shootings, changing these reporting methods could decrease imitation.”
There are likewise alternatives with regard to the portrayal of mass shooters in the media beyond tactics like withholding their names or blurring their faces. For example, mass shooters are often treated as dangerous, powerful men. This makes mass shooting attractive to a certain unstable psychological profile. On the other hand, shootings could just as easily be portrayed as the shameful act of a cowardly individual. Coverage could likewise emphasize punishment in cases where the shooter is apprehended alive.
What’s more, the shooter’s rationale could be downplayed in coverage. Descriptions could be very surface, for example “Islamic jihad” or “white nationalism.” Eschewing discussion of the personal and biographical information about the shooter would likewise have a similar effect. The NIH points out that repeatedly reporting years of bullying as the motive portrays rampage killing as the only response to being bullied.
Finally, there is the question of duration and frequency on which mass shooters are reported. When a mass shooting occurs, the coverage tends to be wall-to-wall for days. This certainly belies an agenda on the part of the media. What’s more, coverage of the shooting as it unfolds could be eschewed entirely, which would not only lessen the coverage, but also prevent conspiracy theories arising later when inconsistencies between “breaking news” and the full story arise.
The main thing, however, is to make the coverage as general and nonspecific as possible. This is the best way to reduce the overall “excitement” and “prestige” (such as it is) enjoyed by the shooter and his actions. Even seemingly innocuous terms like “lone wolf” can glamorize a shooter.
How You Can Combat the Werther Effect
No one is suggesting that the Werther Effect is the primary or even the only cause of mass shootings. It is, however, a contributing factor. As such, working against it should be explored as a means of harm reduction overall. Given that mass shootings have only increased since the introduction of gun control measures, it is arguable that working to combat the Werther Effect will do more to prevent future mass shootings than will taking away guns from law-abiding citizens. While violent crime in general is down sharply since the 1990s, mass shootings are up.
One does not have to call upon the federal government to institute speech codes to impact the behavior of the media. Consumer pressure can move things in this direction in the same way that, for example, consumer pressure has largely ended animal testing among boutique cosmetic brands. What’s more, one can begin taking personal responsibility for how one shares information about mass shootings in social media. When one has the urge to share an article about a recent mass shooting, particularly one with gory or lurid details or detailed information about the shooter’s biography or ideology, one can simply choose not to do this. Finally, one can inform one’s friends and family about the Werther Effect of mass shooting media coverage (for example, by sharing this article) in the hopes that they will begin similarly refusing to share this information.
The Attention Economy and the Media
A big contributing factor in the viral spread of mass shootings is not just the increased role of social media in how people get their news. It’s also the decline of a centralized news media. While this certainly has a number of positive attributes (most people reading this probably get a significant portion of their news from alternative and independent media sources), it also has its downside.
For example, legacy media no longer relies on subscribers for the lion’s share of their revenue. Instead, they get their money from page clicks on the Internet, which are then pitched to advertisers as a symbol of their overall strength as an advertising avenue. This means that the business model of the average newspaper or magazine has shifted from getting long-term subscribers to getting as many clicks as possible. Studies have shown that people are far more likely to click on sensationalized news stories and “clickbait” than anything else. What this means is that legacy media has a high incentive to publish the most outrageous, sensational, and lurid version of events when reporting the news.
Mark Mason calls this principle the Kardashian Rule. It is also known as the Attention Economy. Social media, round-the-clock cable news coverage, and both new and legacy media now operating on a page-view economy all contribute to this phenomenon.
Put simply, whatever gets the most attention then spreads the furthest and generates the greatest amount of income for the company in question, be it Facebook or the New York Times. Mass shootings generate big business for the media, so they help to fuel the attention directed toward them.
Refusing to share articles about mass shooters can be one way that consumers begin reversing this trend.
When it comes to the problem of mass shooters and other rampage killers, there is no set of easy answers. This is perhaps what is most frustrating about the problem. However, it is also empowering to realize that small choices made by consumers every day of their lives can start making an impact on how the media portrays mass shooters, and in turn reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States. It might not have the visceral impact of a new, shiny piece of legislation, but ultimately it’s more effective – without trampling on the liberties of others.
A final thought: What do suicides and mass shooters have in common? The common denominator might well be a loss of all hope caused by social isolation and depression. Both underscore the need for a healthy civil society and social connections. In addition to refusing to participate in the viral outrage mill, reaching out to people around you who seem to be having a hard time can be seen as doing your part.
None of this is “sexy” or high profile, but these are arguably the only effective weapons we have to stop mass shootings.
Trump Secretly Threatened Europe With Auto Tariffs If It Didn’t Declare Iran In Breach Of Nuclear Deal
A bombshell revelation from The Washington Post a day after France, Britain and Germany took unprecedented action against Iran by formally triggering the dispute resolution mechanism regulating conformity to the deal, seen as the harshest measure taken by the European signatories thus far. The European powers officially see Iran as in breach of the deal which means UN and EU punitive sanctions are now on the table.
But according to ThePost, how things quickly escalated to this point is real story: “Days before Europeans warned Iran of nuclear deal violations, Trump secretly threatened to impose 25% tariff on European autos if they didn’t,”says the report.
This came as a “shock” to all three countries, with one top European official calling it essentially “extortion” and a new level of hardball tactics from the Trump administration.
File image via AFP/Getty
After the US leveraged the new tariffs threat according to the report, European capitals moved quick to trigger the mechanism, which involved the individual European states formally notifying the agreement’s guarantor, the European Union, that Iran is in breach of the nuclear deal.
This followed the Jan.6 declaration of Tehran’s leadership to no longer be beholden to uranium enrichment limits. And that’s where things got interesting as Washington’s pressure campaign dramatically turned up the heat on Europe.
“Within days, the three countries would formally accuse Iran of violating the deal, triggering a recourse provision that could reimpose United Nations sanctions on Iran and unravel the last remaining vestiges of the Obama-era agreement,” the report continues.
However, the report notes France, the UK, and Germany were already in deep discussion on moving forward with triggering the mechanism. “We didn’t want to look weak, so we agreed to keep the existence of the threat a secret,” a European official cited by WaPo claims.
Trump’s threats of auto tariffs to gain trade concessions with the Europeans is certainly nothing new, but using the same to dictate foreign policy is, notes WaPo’s diplomatic correspondent John Hudson.
Interestingly, in Wednesday’s joint statement the European signatories attempted to distance their drastic action away from Washington’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign. “Our three countries are not joining a campaign to implement maximum pressure against Iran,”they said.
The statement also underscored Europe hopes to use the mechanism “to bring Iran back into full compliance with its commitments under the JCPOA” and in the words of one official quoted in The Guardianto prevent nuclear advancement to the point that the Iranians “learn something that it is not possible for them to unlearn”.
Now that the mechanism has been enacted, the clock starts on 65 days of intensive negotiations before UN sanctions would be reimposed if no resolution is reached. Specifically a blanket arms embargo would be imposed among other measures, and certainly it would mark the deal’s final demise, given the Europeans are Iran’s last hope for being equal partners in the deal.
Also interesting is that in the hours before The Washington Post report was published, Iranian FM Zarif charged that the EU investigation into Iran’s alleged non-compliance meant Europe is allowing itself to be bulled by the United States.
Indeed the new revelation of the secret threats attempting to dictate Europe’s course appear to confirm precisely Zarif’s words to reporters earlier on Wednesday: “They say ‘We are not responsible for what the United States did.’ OK, but you are independent” he began. And then added a stinging rebuke: “Europe, EU, is the largest global economy. So why do you allow the United States to bully you around?”
