Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

On War (Part 2), The Loss of All US Ground Forces in Iraq. HOLD onto Gold/Silver



April 15, 2008 – Comments (13) | RELATED TICKERS: GLD

The purpose of this column is not to warn of an imminent assault on Iran, though personally I think it is coming, and soon. Rather, it is to warn of a possible consequence of such an attack. Let me state it here, again, as plainly as I can: an American attack on Iran could cost us the whole army we now have in Iraq. William Lind

Petraeus points to war with Iran. April 10, 2008.

The neocons may yet get their war on Iran. Pat Buchanan

"We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with Iraq and Syria and ending with Iran." Wesley Clark's new memoir casts more light on the Bush administration's secret strategies for regime change in Iran and elsewhere. By Joe Conason

This is follow post to my previous post about the impact of the War. The invasion and Occupation of Iraq, is one of the largest investment themes in the market today, it is reflected in the current commodity prices. Gold, oil, commodities, the stock pilling of food by many nation states etc… reflects the widespread belief of prolonged or expanding war.

Many people are expecting President Bush to attack Iran before he leaves office. He has been given “authority” by Congress. If the US attacks Iran, the US ground forces can be cut off from re-supply and will have to eventually surrender or be captured or killed.  Unless, the US uses Nuclear or chemical or biological weapons on the Iranians, which will have severe and long term consequences to the US. 

The Straits of Hormuz that re-supplies the gulf is a narrow channel that can very easily be closed to shipping by mines, rockets, or artillery etc…. The re supply by air is extremely expensive, precarious and relies on the largess of current “allies”, who may not remain allies if threatened externally or internally by their own population.

Rep Ron Paul: Gen Petraeus Iraq Surge Hearing:

The author of Target Iran (video 2:26:):


1.Operation Cassandra, The Speed of US Defeat in Iraq, If the Flanks Collapse, How Iran May Respond by William Lind)

2. Shrapnel:

3.Obama Connects Weak Dollar To Bush Policies 


13 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

so we screw up in iraq and now going after IRAN. I wrote about that blog months ago. But thought it had gotten cooled off after Bush looked like a moron when the different government agencies reported there was no direct nuclear buildup in Iran.

Wow this is nuts, we seriously need Bush out now.

Report this comment
#2) On April 15, 2008 at 6:17 PM, cubanstockpicker (21.21) wrote:

as always, good post abitas

Report this comment
#3) On April 15, 2008 at 6:21 PM, angusthermopylae (37.45) wrote:

I'm a former naval officer who spent some time over in the Gulf, and the points about the Strait of Hormuz can't be over-emphasized.

The cheapest (in my opinion) way for Iran to close off the Straits would be to do the following:

  • a)  Take every two man sea-doo they have, put a guy on the back with an RPG, and threaten every boat that goes through.
  • b)  Drop a couple of hundred barrels filled with concrete and maybe 1 or two mines and claim that the whole Strait has been mined.

For the cost of a single company of troops, empty barrels, and a few weapons, they can absolutely freeze up the entire Gulf and all transport in and out for months.

On the other hand, every multi-milion dollar ship, submarine, and weapon the US has will be tied up for months trying to figure out where it is safe.  Cost:  (guesstimate) upwards of $50 million if none of our ships takes a hit--and in a shooting war, one or two probably would.

No, I'm not  giving the bad guys ideas; this is the nightmare scenario that every force operating in the Gulf worries about.  It's easy, it's cheap, and it's just as effective as our best technology.

Why bring it up then?  Because  a shooting war with Iran is a losing proposition unless we have the determination to absolutely crush the country and occupy it for the next 25-50 years...just long enough for a new generation to take over, if they grow up liking us.  Multiply that by the number of generations you think it would take to find one that will grow up loving the country that crushed their homeland.

Just my two cents--good article, and good points. 

Report this comment
#4) On April 15, 2008 at 10:32 PM, abitare (29.72) wrote:

FYI - Iran’s Oil Bourse

Since the dollar has now fallen below the value of the Euro the opening of the Iranian Oil Bourse would remove one of the last remaining incentives for nations to hold onto the United States dollar. Some even go as far as to speculate this looming opening of the oil bourse being a reason for the harsh rhetoric Washington has used in the recent past towards Iran.

So, what can we expect as the final end-game?

As I’ve stated before in Dollar: Faltering Foundation of US Economic Strength, troubles for the dollar are bubbling up everywhere. Aside from the fact that our own fed has sacrificed our currency (in an attempt to save the banking/financial system), numerous nations have already de-pegged their currencies from the dollar (w/more planning to follow suit). Additionally, OPEC (as of late) has been talking about pricing oil in Euros.

This new action by IRAN, though lacking enough support to change things overnight, is a huge, long-term threat to the dollar, and is a deliberate slap in the face of US global economic power.

Personally, I don’t think the current administration will allow this problem to be passed on to the next. Rhetoric w/regard to Iran’s nuclear ambition will probably soon ratchet up again; a catalyst to action will likely be found, and bombs may be falling from the sky before November 08. However, don’t ever expect to hear (from the mainstream) that this bourse and its threat to the dollar were the real reason as to why. Report this comment
#5) On April 15, 2008 at 11:25 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Hi Aba, Yes you are right and this goes father than you are thinking. Some how I think and I might be wrong but here it is. The TPN I hope I am wrong but the gut tells be other wise.

Report this comment
#6) On April 16, 2008 at 10:01 PM, abitare (29.72) wrote:


Thank you. Good to hear from you again. I think I might have had to much X-mas egg nog when I was writing on your blog. :)  


Thank you for the reply and your Service to our country. I think Iran could close the Straits and keep it closed indefinately. I do not think a US ships could make it or would risk going thru the Straits if the US went to war with Iran.


Good find. thank you for the post.  

I will state for the record. I do not really think the US would be foolish enough to start a war with Iran. It does not mean it would not happen.

Iran is doing fine helping the insurgents sniper, RPG, rocket attack and IED American forces at every opportunity. Iran does not need to risk its' own destruction in an open conflict when the current strategy seems to be working fine. Also Americans can only increase the hostilities of the local Iraqis by using one of the only "tools in their toolshed" = FIREPOWER. Firepower and airstrikes will typically create far more enemies then it can kill. It is a leason lost from Vietnam.

Report this comment
#7) On April 17, 2008 at 2:30 AM, StockSpreadsheet (64.13) wrote:

If America wanted to go to war with Iran, it would probably be best to take out Syria first.  The the supply lines, (which would be long), could go from Syria, (maybe starting in ports in Israel and/or Lebanon in addition to Syrian ports), through Iraq and then into Iran.  The Mediterranean is not likely to be closed by anyone, so those lanes should remain open.

Iran could still make a mess of the world economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz, (through which about 1/3 of the world's oil flows), and by bombing the various fields around the Gulf, (ending up with a similar mess as when Sadam blew up the fields in Kuwait, with all the resulting smoke and polution, only on a much bigger scale).   

Potentially, attack from Pakistan would be possible, but the eastern part of Iran is very mountainous and lightly populated, so it would be rough fighting through difficult natural terrain, many infrastructure choke-points and very few strategic targets all to finally get to the western 1/3 of the country, (where all of the oil and the vast majority of the Iranian people live).  Plus, the Pakistani people are not that thrilled with their government's support of our actions in Afghanistan, so they would probably be even more upset by our actions against Iran.  This is doubly true since the main route for our supplies would need to go through the port of Karachi, which just happens to be the most militant anti-government section of Pakistan.

I had thought that Bush might attack before now.  However, with his popularity having fallen so far, then an attack after the elections in November would probably make more sense, politically, since attacking before then would assure a Democrat victory, while waiting until after then means that McCain might still have a chance to win.  Wintertime is not the best time to fight in the Gulf, but politics would probably trump military planning in this case.

Let's hope this all stays conjecture and never becomes fact.


Report this comment
#8) On April 17, 2008 at 8:46 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Thank you angusthermopylae, for serving and for protecting me. I just have one dumb question. If everyone is so worried about the Strait of Hormuz and build a canal across the country like in Panama? If they can build a country out of the sea why can't they have a back up plan in case anything goes wrong? I know nothing about this and just wondering? Thank you all for your patience. LQ

Report this comment
#9) On April 18, 2008 at 8:29 AM, abitare (29.72) wrote:


Good post. Sorry it toook so long for me to reply.


build a canal

Not practice or feasible. The Panama Canal was a huge undertaking.

Report this comment
#10) On April 18, 2008 at 8:58 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Oh what about a pipe line like in Alaska?

Report this comment
#11) On April 18, 2008 at 10:30 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Ok Aba, Sometimes you can be so naive. Do I think that we in the next 6 years will be at war in Iran? Sometimes I think I will wake up to the news that we at war. Then the logical part of me kicks in and looks at what is happening in the News. Then I look at other events like the Pope coming to the White House and then I know that we won't be in the war. He was sent to tell Bush to back down that there are other plans and was given his marching orders. I  know I sound like a nut job but this happen before with Carter to Reagen. Will there be a Nuclear War I hope not but I think there is something much worse waiting to happen and  I don't think that this country will be involved Until near the end. As we get closer to the elections I think that events will take place and Ron Paul gets elected or taken out. Not sure which. Time will tell. 2 different types of bombs on Japan, agent orange in Nam. Those are just 2 examples. No testing on chemical's  affects used on our everyday items. Teflon, plastic for baby bottles,flame retardants on cloths,and the list goes on. Then there are the things we import. Lead anti freeze and what not. CIA trained ben lauden and we can't find him? They don't want to find him. The time is not right. I love the people of other countries  but I don't trust any of the worlds gov.  Now look at the trivia they are putting on all 3 major news channels and I wonder what they are hiding now. (Joke  I figure I have 3 more years before hiding in the kattycomes of old.) As Rockefeller said  awhile back  there are to many people in the world  for the resources. So yes I  think there will be another major war and it is going to be real bad. Rock ON. LQ.

Report this comment
#12) On April 19, 2008 at 5:07 PM, abitare (29.72) wrote:


All spending comes from somewhere. Resources are of limited quanity, to use them on "bridges to no where" or for other mal investments is a waste. It there is wealth it is better to leave it with the producer to find the best investment for those resources. The government is the king of mal investments. 

Report this comment
#13) On April 19, 2008 at 9:27 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

SO true So true. But I have one question. Who profits the most?  Is the answer the Banking cartells and who is the grand master that runs it?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners