Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
There is a vast difference between making an error and deliberately concealing intelligence from the American people. The newly declassified White House documents do not describe mere bureaucratic incompetence. They allege a coordinated effort to downplay and suppress intelligence regarding Chinese election meddling while protecting the reputation of the agencies involved. Democracy has been obliterated.
According to the documents released by the White House, intelligence officials obtained information indicating that Chinese actors had acquired approximately 220 million American voter records. The administration also alleges that reports connecting China to election-related intelligence were softened or omitted from senior intelligence briefings and that documents later surfaced from burn bags designated for classified destruction. These are allegations contained in the released material and remain subject to ongoing investigation rather than established judicial findings. Trump stated that those tasked with discarding of the documents failed to perform their tasks, leaving a trail of evidence for his administration to uncover.
What infuriates me is the double standard that has infected Washington. Imagine for one moment that the political parties were reversed. Suppose documents emerged alleging that a Republican administration had concealed intelligence pointing to foreign interference by one of America’s chief geopolitical adversaries. Suppose classified records were reportedly found in burn bags after years of being withheld. Cities would burn. Trump would be publicly executed in the streets like Mussolini.
Instead, we are told to remain patient and trust the very institutions accused of suppressing the information in the first place.
Government employees do not swear an oath to protect an agency. They swear an oath to the Constitution. When bureaucrats begin deciding what elected officials should or should not know because they dislike the political consequences, they cross a line that no free society should tolerate. Intelligence belongs to the nation—not to unelected officials who believe they know better than the people they are supposed to serve.
China spent decades acquiring American technology, purchasing farmland, infiltrating universities, stealing intellectual property, conducting cyber espionage, and expanding influence across every major strategic sector. To pretend that election-related data would somehow be off limits demonstrates either astonishing naivety or deliberate blindness. Neither explanation inspires confidence.
A foreign government may have decided the results of the 2020 US Presidential Election. The American public should be absolutely outraged and insisting on answers from past administrations. On the hook for billions in tariffs, China has numerous motives for wanting Trump out of office. America appeared weak on the international stage under Biden.
If officials truly possessed intelligence suggesting that China had compromised massive amounts of voter information and failed to pursue every available avenue to expose and confront it, that level of complacency would be nothing short of treasonous against the public trust. Whether those actions ultimately meet any criminal standard is for investigators and the courts to determine. But if public servants knowingly placed institutional or political interests above the security of the nation, the American people deserve complete accountability.
What has always astonished me is how Washington treats transparency as the enemy instead of the cure. Every scandal follows the same script. Deny. Delay. Classify. Seal the records. Attack anyone asking questions. Years later, documents quietly emerge showing that far more was known than anyone admitted at the time. By then, the damage has already been done.
This is exactly why public confidence continues to collapse. It is not because people have suddenly become cynical. It is because governments repeatedly ask citizens to ignore contradictions that become impossible to ignore. Every concealed report, every sanitized briefing, and every document hidden from public scrutiny chips away at the legitimacy of the institutions themselves.
If these newly released records withstand scrutiny, then the outrage should not be confined to one political party. Every American, regardless of ideology, should demand answers. A government that cannot be trusted to honestly confront foreign threats cannot expect the public to simply accept assurances that everything is under control.
Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Something has fundamentally changed in America, and it should concern everyone regardless of politics. The press was never supposed to decide what the public is allowed to hear. Their job was to report the news. Somewhere along the way, they decided their real job was deciding which information is acceptable and which information should be filtered before it ever reaches the public.
When President Trump delivered his address on the newly released election-related documents, several major television networks chose not to carry it in full. ABC and NBC declined to air the speech on their broadcast networks. CBS began airing it but cut away before it concluded, while other outlets focused immediately on commentary and fact-checking rather than simply letting viewers watch the entire address for themselves. Whether one agrees with the President or not is beside the point. The public should be able to hear a presidential address in full and make up its own mind. The editorial decisions themselves became part of the story.
The press increasingly tells people what to think before they have even been allowed to hear what was said. Every story arrives prepackaged with analysis, approved conclusions, and a warning label. The assumption seems to be that the public cannot be trusted to evaluate information on its own. Yet, as the press is refusing to broadcast an announcement from a sitting president, one can see that the legacy media’s loyalty is to the actors behind the curtain. The deep state is controlling the narrative—you’ve been warned.
ABC is no longer simply a television network. It sits inside one of the largest entertainment conglomerates on the planet. Disney acquired ABC decades ago, transforming what was once a standalone broadcaster into another division of a multinational corporation whose interests extend far beyond journalism. When news becomes one business unit among countless others, people naturally begin asking whether protecting the corporate brand becomes just as important as reporting the story.
NBC is owned by Comcast through NBCUniversal, placing one of America’s largest news organizations under the umbrella of a telecommunications and media giant with billions invested across broadcasting, internet infrastructure, film, advertising, and entertainment. The larger these corporations become, the fewer truly independent voices remain. Consolidation has reshaped the media landscape until a handful of companies control what hundreds of millions of people watch every day.
CBS operates under Paramount Global, another massive media conglomerate whose holdings span television, streaming, film, publishing, and digital media. Once again, the question is not simply who owns the network. The question is whether concentrating so much influence over news and entertainment into the hands of a few multinational corporations ultimately serves the public interest.
If the press believes a president is wrong, then report the facts, investigate the claims, and challenge them where appropriate. Deciding millions of viewers should not even hear the speech is censorship and a direct assault on the First Amendment. The “news” should not vary from organization to organization. The censorship became blatant during the COVID years, but now, the public is under direct assault.
Every era has had its gatekeepers each convinced that the public should receive only the version of events they deemed acceptable. When institutions begin deciding that some information is too dangerous for people to hear, public confidence inevitably erodes. Trust cannot be demanded; it must be earned through openness, transparency, and the willingness to let the facts stand on their own. The deep state believes the masses are puppets to be programmed. WAKE UP. The truth is available for those who seek it out.
Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
The IMF has once again reduced its outlook for global growth, pointing to persistent geopolitical tensions, expanding trade barriers, and growing uncertainty surrounding conflicts stretching from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Global output is now expected to grow at roughly 3% this year, a pace well below the historical average.
Modern economists often separate military conflict from economic performance as though they are unrelated subjects. Every prolonged conflict diverts resources away from productive investment and toward military production. Steel that might have built factories instead becomes armored vehicles. Microchips are directed into missile systems rather than consumer electronics. Governments absorb increasing amounts of capital through debt issuance while businesses delay investment because they cannot predict where the next geopolitical crisis will emerge. Those developments do not remain confined to defense ministries. They eventually work their way into every household through higher prices, slower growth, and declining purchasing power.
Europe is steadily increasing defense budgets after decades of reducing military expenditures. Germany has abandoned many of the fiscal restraints that once defined its economic policy. Poland continues purchasing military equipment on a scale unprecedented in its modern history. Finland has spent years constructing extensive underground civil defense infrastructure capable of sheltering nearly its entire population. Governments are discussing emergency preparedness, strategic stockpiles, expanded ammunition production, and even renewed conscription. These are not isolated policy decisions. They represent an entire continent reorganizing itself around the assumption that geopolitical confrontation will remain a defining feature of the years ahead.
Every additional defense commitment must ultimately be financed either through taxation, inflation, or borrowing. Since raising taxes remains politically unpopular, governments overwhelmingly choose debt. The United States is approaching $40 trillion in federal obligations. France continues struggling with chronic deficits while attempting to finance both social spending and military expansion. Britain faces rising borrowing costs alongside growing defense commitments. Similar pressures exist throughout much of the developed world because every government believes it can postpone today’s expenses until tomorrow’s taxpayers arrive.
Most forecasting models begin with the assumption that political conditions remain reasonably stable. Once that assumption disappears, many of the underlying projections quickly lose their value. Energy markets respond to military developments rather than supply and demand alone. Shipping costs fluctuate because of security concerns instead of commercial activity. Capital begins seeking jurisdictions perceived as politically safer rather than merely offering higher returns. Central banks discover that adjusting interest rates cannot reopen disrupted trade routes or restore confidence damaged by expanding conflicts.
Wars have always carried two battlefields. One is fought with soldiers and weapons. The other is fought on government balance sheets, in bond markets, and through the purchasing power of national currencies. Politicians generally devote far more attention to the first battlefield because the second is less visible to the public. Yet history repeatedly shows that financial exhaustion has brought down governments every bit as effectively as military defeat. That is why the economic consequences of prolonged conflict deserve far greater attention than another routine revision to a global growth forecast.
Posted originally on Jul 20, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION: Are you just supporting Trump with his conspiracy theory about the 2020 election?
Joshua
ANSWER: The fact that the press keeps blasting Trump claiming the 2020 was not rigged and in Pennsylvania they claim Trump lost every legal challenge so that somehow proves he was wrong is just absurd. Courts are also political. Why do they fight so hard about which president will appoint people to the Supreme Court if the law was just the law?
Rigging elections have been a passtime for thousands of years. Even Joseph Stalin commented on that practice famously saying its the people who count the votes who decide everything. That is so true and that rose to the surface during the Scottish Referendum. When the ethnic Russians of Crimea voted to separate from the mother-land of ethnic cleansing Ukraine with its Neonazi agenda, because the EU did not like the outcome they claimed Russia rigged the vote. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution declaring it invalid under pressure. They pulled the same stunt in Romania declaring the election invalid. The press routinely publishes fake polls to deliberately try to swing elections. The historical record for thousands of years is one continuous Greek tragedy when it comes to rigged elections.
In 1948, the Chicago Daily Tribune was so certain that New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey would defeat President Harry S. Truman that they ran the now-infamous front-page headline “Dewey Defeats Truman.” This is considered one of the most legendary blunders in American journalism.
Newsweek’s famous Madam President versions of the magazine were selling for a few hundred dollars as another token of elections. MS NOW had the audacity to say Trump’s view of the 2020 election was a conspiracy theory, but Russia did interfere in 2016 against Hillary to Trump’s benefit. The sheer dishonesty in MS NOW’s reporting has surpassed CNN in its worse days. It is just too much and is becoming a major factor in the polarization of the United States that computer has been warning about. The investigation demonstrated that Hillary made up the story and the Democrats even paid a fine for that fake news.
The Obama administration was actively involved in investigating and responding to alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, that was entirely based on the infamous “Steele dossier,” which was funded by the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign that was found to have been fabricated and the Democrats were fined for this action. It was as corrupt and imprisoning an opponent which is what President Wilson did to Eugene Victor Debs (1855–1926) because he was anti-war. To have a president imprisoning an opponent to influence an election is outrageous, but Obama used the Intelligence and FBI to investigate the opposing party in an election.
The Inspector General’s report on the FBI’s investigation into Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign also proved John McCain (1936–2018) was feeding info to Comey to stop Trump because McCain was a ruthless Neocon who wanted war. McCain provided the FBI the Christopher Steele dossier which was funded by Hillary. It was that report which McCain received from Hillary that was then used before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court by the FBI to obtain the wiretap on former Donald Trump campaign official Carter Page. This was even AFTER the Department of Justice found no probable cause for the wiretap.
The Inspector General’s report has confirmed indeed that Senator John McCain provided the cover for Hillary since it was a Republican who handed FBI Director James Comey the Steele report even after the FBI had terminated the former British intelligence officer as a source. Russian-born lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin worked closely with the research firm Fusion GPS which commissioned the infamous Steele Dossier on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC to smear Trump and begin the entire Russia-Gate affair. Interestingly, Akhmetshin also attended the infamous Trump Tower meeting.
John McCain was also the sponsor of the Magnitsky Act, which was to punish Russians for claiming that Magnitsky was killed in a Russian prison. But it was the Clintons who gave the wink and nod for the bankers to try to take over Russia by blackmailing Yeltsin for the 2000 election. McCain led the charge among Republicans to support Schumer’s resolution to deny any investigation into the Magnitsky affair. The Senate vote was a resounding 98-0 to deny the questioning of ANY Americans by Russia.
It was McCain who was leading the attack on Russia for sanctions and trying to stop the pipeline into Europe. McCain was also setting up his own version of the Clinton Foundation.
Let us not forget that the hackers who broke into John McCain’s laptop were operating from Ukraine. The hacking that the Democrats have blamed Russia for was operating in Ukraine, not Russia. That was retaliation for the Democrats installing their people after the coup and told the people if they overthrew this government, then they would be on their own. The motive to hack the Democrats had nothing to do with Russia. It was all in Ukraine.
I grew up in the 1960s. My father had taken me to Willingboro, New Jersey to listen to John F. Kennedy during the 1960 election. I shook his hand being just 11 years old like Bill Clinton, but that did not inspire me to become president. The country was also deeply divided and I would hear people rant against JFK as they do against Trump today, but then it was because he was Catholic insisting the Pope would run the country. It was the religious hatred that fostered the English Civil War nearly 300 years before. Then it was the resurfacing Protestant Reformation. It took the assassination to gloss-over that division.
Based on historical records, Richard Nixon did believe that the 1960 election had significant problems, but he ultimately chose not to challenge the official results, prioritizing national unity over a protracted legal fight. Nixon understood the deep division in the country was based on religion. He put the country first.
Nixon and his campaign identified what they considered serious issues, particularly in critical states like Illinois and Texas. These included allegations of voter fraud, ballot irregularities, and the effectiveness of the Kennedy campaign’s use of political machines. Privately, Nixon maintained that he had legitimate grounds for contesting the outcome. Despite these beliefs and significant pressure from his party, Nixon explicitly refused to demand a recount or challenge the results. He made a public statement on November 8th, 1960, conceding the election, and further solidified this stance during a subsequent press conference.
Nixon’s decision was largely driven by a desire to avoid a constitutional crisis and what he saw as a damaging national spectacle. He also expressed concern that a prolonged legal battle would undermine the public’s faith in the democratic process, especially given the tense Cold War context. He famously stated:
“I could think of no worse example for nations abroad, who were trying to preserve their own freedom, than that of the United States arguing over the outcome of its election.”
In short, Nixon viewed the election as “stolen” in a political sense, but he made a conscious choice to put the country’s stability ahead of his personal ambition, forgoing a challenge to prevent what he saw as a national crisis. Hillary never took the high road, and the press thinks it has the right to decide elections and when it turns out against them, they divide the country with their personal animosity.
Nigel Farage came to our 2019 WEC in Rome. He said of course he came. Our computer was the only one to forecast that BRIXT would win. Every London newspaper said BREXIT would fail. The press tries to manipulate society with their fake news all the time. They have attacked Nigel with every breadth they take ever since. They are just so damn prejudiced that FREE PRESS to them is distort the facts to push their personal agenda. To me, that is just treason.
Nevertheless, the historical record is abundant with fake elections. The historian Cassius Dio (c. 155–c. 235) wrote about the laws passed to combat electoral corruption and how leaders manipulated the Roman system. For instance, he noted that under Augustus, bribery was punished by a five-year exclusion from office and that candidates had to deposit a sum of money to deter corruption. A modern scholar has specifically identified “electoral bribery and the challenge to the authority of the Senate” as a theme in Dio’s history of the late Republic.
The historian/biographer Suetonius (Late 1st/early 2nd-century AD), author of the 12 Caesars, in his Life of Augustus, he mentions that Augustus passed a law to curb bribery . He also reports on Julius Caesar’s consolidation of power, noting that after Caesar took control, he “used to recommend some of the candidates to the people, who, of course, followed his recommendation.” This is a clear instance of an election being controlled from the top.
The historian Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 120) recorded the specific ways in which laws were manipulated. In his Annals, he writes about how the lex Papia Poppaea, which gave preferential treatment to candidates with children, was exploited by childless men through “fictive adoption,” adopting someone just for the election and then freeing them afterward. This led to a senatorial decree to stop the abuse. Tacitus also records the end of meaningful elections under Emperor Tiberius, when the power to elect magistrates was transferred from the people to the Senate.
The orator and Statesman Cicero, while not a historian in the same sense, his speeches and letters are a primary historical source. His Pro Plancio is a defense of a client, Gnaeus Plancius, who was prosecuted for ambitus, the crime of electoral bribery and corruption. In this speech, Cicero details the illegal methods used to secure votes, such as organized political clubs (sodalicia) designed to facilitate bribery. The legal term ambitus itself, which means “going about” or canvassing, came to represent the entire problem of illegal electioneering in Rome. The Democrats were caught canvassing votes door-to-door getting people to sign mail-in ballots.
Mollie Hemingway, American author, columnist, and political commentators, wrote a book, Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. The Democrats used COVID to to control the election. They began claiming that the Wisconsin election would be a “super spreader” of the coronavirus. “[W]ith voters’ very lives at stake,” the New York Times wrote, “the legitimacy of the election” would be in question.
“They will kill people to stay in power, literally,” said Democratic strategist James Carville on election night. In the end, there was no spike of cases from voting, despite hundreds of thousands of people showing up to the polls.
The first report of pneumonia in China was December 30th, 2019. The World Health Organization claimed it was an unknown virus on January 5th, 2020. Two days later they said it was a new variety of SARS, then just 3 days later the first PCR tests were shipped. I have stated that I was told that the WEF had informed “friends” that a virus was coming well before December 30th. That is why I refused to be vaccinated and instructed my family to not get vaccinated.
The COVID scam was created (1) for climate change, and (2) to interfere in the US 2020 election.
Posted originally on Jul 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Iran has issued a warning that key airports and ports in the United Arab Emirates should be evacuated if the United States launches further strikes on Iranian civilian infrastructure. The statement, carried by Iranian media, specifically mentioned Dubai International Airport, Abu Dhabi International Airport, Fujairah Port and Jebel Ali Port. The warning comes amid escalating military exchanges between Washington and Tehran, raising fresh concerns over the security of critical Gulf transport and trade hubs. UAE authorities and the United States have not officially responded to the latest remarks.
Military adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mohsen Rezaei, stated that if U.S. attacks continue, Iran will move from retaliatory strikes to an “offensive and destructive” phase, potentially deploying ground forces and expanding the war’s scope.
Posted originally on Jul 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION: Thank you so much for your article on the private blog. You give the details and behind-the-scenes view that others have no idea about at all. You had forecast back in 2018 that Iran reached a major turning point that would escalate their militant posture. That forecast was on point. Do you see any options here for the US regarding Iran?
Jim
ANSWER: The 2018 marked a significant turning point where Iran adopted a more confrontational and militant posture. This shift was primarily a direct response to the US decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal and re-impose crippling sanctions, which fundamentally altered the strategic landscape for Tehran. That was the most significant shift. President Donald Trump’s announcement in May 2018 that the U.S. was withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This move was met with defiance from Iran and set the stage for a series of militant escalations. The US argued the deal was flawed for not addressing Iran’s ballistic missile program and regional influence, while Iran viewed the withdrawal as a breach of international trust.
In response to US pressure and the re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, only saw that Iran took several actions demonstrating a more militant and defiant stance. In August 2018, Iran’s Defense Minister declared that developing the country’s missile program was the nation’s “top priority,” and they announced plans to unveil a new fighter jet. This was a clear signal that they would not be deterred by United States sanctions aimed at curbing their military capabilities. They are historically a proud nation.
In September 2018, President Hassan Rouhani publicly stated that Iran would “never decrease our defensive capabilities” and would increase them “day by day,” specifically pointing to their missile program as a key source of national strength that angered the West. From their perspective, they saw disarming was unacceptable when Israel would not take the path. That would be like the USA abandoning all nuclear weapons without a corresponding action by Russia and China.
Iran’s military leadership urged the formation of a regional coalition involving Russia, Syria, Pakistan, and Iraq to stand against what they saw as a US-led coalition, including Saudi Arabia and Israel. This signaled a move to consolidate opposition against United States influence in the region. This confirmed our model’s forecast for a change in trend in 2018.
While ruling out the possibility of a direct military conflict with the USA at the time, Iran’s top leaders stressed the need for its armed forces to remain vigilant and boost their capabilities. The nation also showed a willingness to resist the economic pressure from sanctions by developing domestic mechanisms to bypass them.
The Paradox of a Regime That Can’t Afford Peace
Iran’s state media reported about 600 vessels taking part in a Gulf naval drill in September 2018, with Iran vowing a “pounding reply” awaited its enemies, showcasing its military readiness. At the time, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei downplayed the likelihood of a full-scale military conflict in 2018. However, the overall actions and rhetoric from Iran, from prioritizing military development to forming regional alliances, was clearly indicating a shift toward a more militant and defiant posture in response to US economic pressure.
As our model warns, we are in the final up-leg of Iran, where we are likely to see the overthrow of the government in 2027. However, between then and now, the government is fighting for its survival domestically between a division politically, which implies that the hardliners will become more authoritarian. This trend is by no means unique to just Iran. We are witnessing political divergences everywhere and we move into 2028 with a deepening economic recessionary contraction.
There are only three options for Trump. First, he washes his hands and walks away. That does not seem plausible. Second, he escalates bombing military targets and infrastructure, hoping to bring them back to the table, which I do not see working for the reasons provided on the Private Blog. The last and THIRD option is all-out war with a grand-scale invasion putting boots on the ground. That would be political suicide.
This is already the most unpopular war the Neocons have orchestrated. Some 68% of Americans now believe the Iran war is “not worth fighting.” Overall, 69% of Americans hold an unfavorable view of the president’s handling of the situation in Iran. These figures indicate that opposition to the war in Iran is very high, reaching levels exceeding those on Vietnam. I was 18 at the time, so I remember. By May 1971, a Gallup poll found that 61% of Americans believed it was a mistake to have sent troops to fight in Vietnam. By every measure, this war is THE MOST UNPOPULAR in American history.
Iran is well aware of the political divisions within the United States. Back in 1979, this revolutionary government understood taking the American hostages was a powerful political tool. The timing was a deliberate and final humiliation for President Jimmy Carter, who had devoted enormous effort to securing the hostages’ release but was defeated in the November 1980 election by Ronald Reagan. By releasing them at the exact moment Carter was leaving office, Iran was seen as denying him a final political victory and symbolically elevating the incoming president. Do not underestimate them. They are playing 3-d Political Chess.
Netanyahu and his Neocon cohorts have thoroughly screwed the United States this time. They always assume they win just because the US has the largest military. The decision to fund the Iraq War entirely through borrowing had a unique impact. By 2023, interest payments on the war debt were absorbing roughly $250 billion per year in servicing costs. Unlike previous major U.S. conflicts, which were partly paid for by raising taxes, this approach ensured the war would continue to add to the national debt for decades, as the government is still paying off the principal and the interest that has accumulated. It was the reckless spending of the Neocons for Vietnam that brought down the gold standard and Bretton Woods. This Neocon War will undermine the American economy going into 2028 and their recklessness will ensure that the title of the Financial Capital of the World will shift to China after 2032. This is the computer forecast, not my personal opinion.
Posted originally on Jul 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
COMMENT: Mr. Armstrong, you are the only one who reports the truth about Ukraine. We have major protests going on against our fake leader. Here is a video that the Western press will never report. We took to the streets in the tens of thousands in Kyiv and other cities on July 16 and again on the 17 for a second straight day to protest President Zelensky’s decision to dismiss Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov while retaining Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi. The corruption is in the open.
We came out a second day after Zelensky said on the first day that he “understands, hears, and responds” to public concerns. However, those are words only for the media, since he ignored calls to reverse the dismissal. Please, tell the world we have no right to vote and Zelensky ignores the people. We live in a dictatorship.
VS
REPLY: I fully understand. The West does not care about the Ukrainian people. If they did, they would demand Zelensky stand for an election and seek peace by just honoring the Minsk Agreement that Ukraine signed. This has always been about using the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder to weaken Russia so NATO can invade and deliver the final death blow to Russia.
Posted originally on Jul 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Mel K’s Infiltration Instead of Invasion dives into the unelected power structures that are reshaping the United States and the rest of the world. These unelected people infiltrate governments and push their own personal agendas. They will never run for office because they would never gain the votes to do what they want to carry out. Mel draws on declassified records, financial archives, and diplomatic correspondence, to expose what is going on behind the curtain that the press will never expose. Infiltration Instead of Invasion examines the true origins of global institutions such as the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, and the Bank for International Settlements. She explains how immunity, secrecy, and technocracy have replaced sovereignty and transparency. What emerged was not a conspiracy, but a system: a postwar shadow government designed to endure beyond administrations, ideology, or public will.
Posted originally on Jul 19, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION: Marty, if anyone has the truth about Iran, it is you. What do you make of this leaked document that they press claims reflects regime change in the wind? I believe your computer was forecasting that the Iranian government would change, but I think that was in 2027. Do you have an update on that as well?
Neil
ANSWER: Despite widespread calls for wartime unity across Iran, the weeklong grand funeral for Ali Khamenei, killed by the targeted assassination of Netanyahu in an ignominious act late February in Israeli airstrikes coordinated with the United States, became a powerful showcase for the Islamic Republic’s most hardline supporters. This foolish idea of Netanyahu of assassinating the leader and expecting the end of the war only demonstrates the stupidity of Netanyahu for he always takes this tactic and it has failed every time. During the funeral period for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Trump stated that “neither side should carry out military actions” and that talks with Iran would resume after the ceremonies concluded. This was a general call for restraint during the mourning period, and sources confirm it was directed at Netanyahu.
This has painted the Trump Administration as the great satan with Israel for such a dishonorable act. This has led to dividing the politics within Iran. The hardliners calling for the assassination of Trump should be seen as an eye for and eye established by the legal code of Hammurabi.
They used the occasion to amplify demands to avenge their leader through renewed war with Washington and to declare their rejection of any agreement with Trump. The leaked document was part of a silent soft coup within the Iranian government. As I have always said, no government has 100% of supporters. There are always two sides to every coin.
This is NOT about the government study of the people. This was leaked by the anti-hardliners. As Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian walked by the coffin of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran, some of the hardliners began chanting at him, saying “death to the compromiser.” Abbas Araghchi, Iran’s top diplomat who negotiated a ceasefire with the Trump administration lifting some sanctions on the Islamic Republic, fled the funeral when a mob began throwing stones at him and screaming death chants accusing him of being a “traitorous sellout.”
This leak was not about showing that the Iranian people would stage some coup, it was leaked by the moderates in government who want a deal and have been attacked by the hardliners who believe in avenging Khamenei’s assassination, and the Iranian officials who have surrendered by signing an agreement that they interpret as defying the orders of Ali Khamenei and his successor Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, the late leader’s son. But Mojtaba Khamenei has remained hidden from public view, neither addressing the nation directly nor visibly asserting his authority.
Hardliners have accused Iran’s visible leadership of treason and plotting to consolidate power by suspending parliament, defying the Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei orders in negotiations while breaking up rallies of opposition. The hardliners portray this as a coup against the principles of the Islamic State.
Without access to the new supreme leader, hardliners are spinning the idea that he is captive of those seeking a settlement with the USA. They are pitching that Ghalibaf and allies are effectively in charge of the country – not Mojtaba Khamenei. This is the real political crisis inside Iran and this leak is less about the people than it is about the internal battle between the moderates and the ultra-hardliners who are accusing Ghalibaf and Pezeshkian of plotting a ‘coup’ against Mojtaba.
Mahmoud Nabavian, a Shia cleric, who was part of Iran’s negotiating delegation before turning against the talks and attempted to derail the agreement by leaking the text to the media before it was signed last month. He claimed that Iran’s negotiating team were defying the supreme leader’s orders.
Since the beginning of the ceasefire, they have consistently opposed the very concept of negotiation. Before the memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States was signed, Hossein Sotoudeh, a prominent voice, sang in one of his tracks: “We all seek vengeance, we are on this path; men and women, we are in the army of Assadullah (the Lion of God). This is our slogan until the end of the world: we want no negotiation with the illegitimate ones.” The song emphasized that “we will not back down,” urged the “Commander” to “not let them talk nonsense, strike again and strike well,” and dismissed the ceasefire as “meaningless.”
In the weeks before hostilities broke out, hardliners turned their fury on the leaders who signed the deal with the US. Mohammad Ali Bakhshi, a security-linked “Maddah” – or religious singer who is loyal to the Iranian regime – warned Pezeshkian during a ceremony: “Mr President, if the leader’s conditions are not fulfilled, then it will be us, the blade and your throat …We will bring hell upon you.”
The open threat to kill the president was widely criticized, but Bakhshi is not known to have faced any legal repercussions.
Other officials under hardline scrutiny include Iran’s chief negotiator with the US, Ghalibaf, a former Revolutionary Guard commander with deep political experience whose credentials enabled him to step up and take charge during the war, emerging as the regime’s de-facto lead operator with broad acceptability.
“They are trying to elevate the role of the Supreme Council for National Security while diminishing the role of the supreme leader and parliament,” Kamran Ghazanfari, a hardline parliamentarian, said in a video statement early July, referring to the council now deciding the country’s most sensitive wartime affairs. “This is the political coup they have designed and are carrying out step by step.”
I was actually asked, how did I know Iran would block the straight? My reply: How did you not know? There were war simulations conducted years ago and every one had Iran taking the strait. Trump received the WORST possible advice and Netanyahu was escorted into the Situation Room where no head of state ever entered before to sell a war to the USA. This implies to me that this is another Neocon endless war for world domination. It was sold that killing the Ayatolah would end the war in a day, the people would rise up, thank Trump and give Netanyahu a tickertape parade. They sang the same tune regarding Iraq.
So let’s get real. The Neocons are spinning this that the people need to be saved. That is the same BS that used in Iraq, and Obama tried to justify invading Syria. This is NOT about the people, this is a coup within the government and it was leaked by the moderates as a ploy against the hardliners.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 