QUESTION: I found your analysis in Iran v USA very interesting. Sometimes I do have to read between the lines. For example, you wrote: “We should pay attention to November 4, 2022. That will be the 43rd anniversary of the seizing of the American embassy by Iran.”  That implies you did not see anything prior to that warranting war. You added: “The Iranian leadership will not be deterred. This is a matter of pride. It does not matter what Trump warns. They will take action regardless of the costs.”

You also wrote that the war cycle involving Iran comes into play starting 2021.29. To me, you were saying not now.

Iran fired missiles and they now say their retaliation was proportionate. They did not kill any Americans but could claim they targeted American bases.

I met a former staff member of yours who said you had very long-standing ties into the Middle East going back decades. Is the fact that you did not specifically state there was an imminent threat of war implicit in your comment there was no concern until November 4, 2022?

PVB

ANSWER: If there was an imminent threat I would state so. Neither my sources nor Socrates reflected such an event. Iran realizes that the USA could literally blow them out of the water. There was a lot of back-channeling going on cautioning Iran not to get reckless from both Russia and China despite publicly disagreeing with the USA. There are often a lot of things taking place behind the curtain and there are some who want to know if Socrates is picking anything up in the capital flows that would indicate an imminent war.

This could change within the next two weeks on a small scale. The attack by Iran was to save face. They had to be seen as doing something. Trump was told this is simply how leaders must save face before their own people. This does not mean it is over. This will not be the last we have heard from Iran. They will act only when they have the support of Russia and China.

Iran is not simply a military threat, it has been at the top of the list of cyber-terrorism. Iran has cyber troops that have long been waging a cyberwar and they are most definitely among the world’s most capable and aggressive cyber operatives. There was even talk behind the curtain that the real cyber-attacker during the US 2016 election was Iran redirecting their hacks through Ukraine – not Russia.  They are very capable of disrupting banking, hacking oil companies, they even covertly attempted to take control of a dam to create the appearance of a natural disaster. So far, Iran has stopped short of launching any major cyberattacks preferring to hold back for the USA would know where those attacks were originating.

The attack on Soleimani was a dramatic shift for an administration. Soleimani was frequently traveling with impunity to Iraq and Syria where he would coordinate strategic attacks on Americans in the past. An Iranian supported rocket attack killed an America contractor and this was followed by the US drone attack which claimed the lives of 27 militia members. It was Iran’s support which led to the attack on the American Embassy in Baghdad which is believed to have been ordered by Soleimani who has been traveling freely and coordinating attacks on Americans outside of Iran.

Trump warned on Twitter: “Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD.” Mr. Trump added: “The USA wants no more threats!” We should pay attention to November 4, 2022. That will be the 43rd anniversary of the seizing of the American embassy by Iran.

The Iranian leadership will not be deterred. This is a matter of pride. It does not matter what Trump warns. They will take action regardless of the costs. They will pick their time. Otherwise, the leadership will appear to be weak and risk revolution by the youth who are suppressed.

QUESTION: Would you say that the majority of French are becoming anti-Islam?

GSD

ANSWER: No, of course not. The blackout of such protests does make it hard to gauge to what extend the French are rising up in protest. Then again, the standard rule of thumb is for every protester there are 10 who stayed at home.

The point is not to imply that the majority feel in that manner. The point is obviously that this is a rising trend or the government would not try to block media attention. So if it were just a fringe group, news of that would not be blocked for that does not reflect any meaningful segment of society.

No matter what country you look at, there are always people on both sides of the issue. Here is a note issued by Georgia that was backed by assets confiscated from people who had supported the king during the American Revolution. There is NEVER any such protest or revolution where 100% of the people are on one particular side. There will always be dissent and support of governments. You have the right to pick your side, although you may not have the right to publicly express your opinion.

There is a rising discontent in France, which has the largest Muslim population in Europe. Many French see their language and culture as being suppressed by the politically correct government of Macron. The entire refugee invasion begun unilaterally by Merkel of Germany has changed the shape of Europe drastically. The French government prohibited the reporting of protests in France, calling them racist, despite the fact that Muslim is not a race any more than Christianity. Oh, how people love to throw that label around. They called Trump racist because of his wall with Mexico, despite the fact that Mexican is not a race any more than being American or French. This is simply a tactic to dehumanize the opponent and instantly label these people as evil.