Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

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.

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.

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.

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 decide everything, not the people who vote. 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 James 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. That takes place in the USA all the times and nobody investigates such events seriously – i.e. Epstein. 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.

I was warning that numerous sources were all talking about rigging the 2020 election because after 2016, the elite world leaders were horrified that the people could vote them out of office on the rising wave of “populism.”

The EU Commission Staged Coup Against Berlusconi in Italy because he wanted to take Italy out of the EU. The people sent in to count the votes in the Scottish Referendum also about exiting the EU, were from the EU. The fraud in that election was well-documented. They interfered in the Romanian election since NATO’s largest based was being established in Romania to launch attacks of Russia.

The AFD is the most popular party in Germany. Merz’s popularity is the lowest of any German Chancellor. Yet the EU even admitted that they could interfere and nullify a German election if the AFD won. Where Germany stands today suggests that they too did not receive a fair election.

Ursula did everything to overthrow Orban because of his ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin and his lack of support for Ukraine. Ironically, the EU accused Orban of being authoritarian and corrupt, which seemed to be projecting their agenda on Orban.

Now we will see the unintended consequences of this election. Ursula interfered in the Hungarian election to elect the pro-EU Peter Magyar. He would surrender Hungary’s national dignity and render it subservient to Ursula’s dictatorial commands to achieve the EU’s ultimate exercise of authoritarian power. The EU was refusing to provide billions in funding to Hungary because Orban objected to the war in Ukraine.

Ursula has already given Magyar a list of 27 demands he must meet before she will hand over those billions. She publicly said that the EU needed to “use the momentum now” to consolidate its authoritarian power. She fails to comprehend that this authoritarianism is what will ultimately break the EU into pieces. Margaret Thatcher was by far, the smarest head of state I ever met. She saw the real agenda of the EU. Former head of France with Merkel admitted the real purpose of the EU was to create a federalized government to eliminate war. The one-world government theory in action.

If anyone thinks the 2020 election was fair, I suppose you also believe that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor with no advanced knowledge and they had no idea in advance of 911 either despite the 1st group of terrorists drew the twin towns on the wall of their cell with planes flying into them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PRIVATE BLOG – Gold an August Low?

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/