Home » Posts tagged 'geopolitical monitor'

Tag Archives: geopolitical monitor

Source: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), public domain

SUMMARY

The latest report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is enough to curdle the blood of any fiscal conservative.

According to the report, US federal debt held by the public relative to GDP currently stands at 78 percent (debt issued in Treasury securities). If current trends hold, that number will reach 100 percent of GDP by the end of the decade, and 152 percent of GDP by 2048. Broadly speaking, the expansion is being fueled by outlays for Social Security and Medicare and increasingly burdensome interest payments on preexisting debt.

The country’s darkening fiscal outlook is sure to resonate in future elections in the United States, but there’s a crucial international dimension here as well.

BACKGROUND

Spending growth will contribute to widening deficits over the next 30 years.

Source: CBO; public domain

The CBO predicts that Social Security spending will grow from 4.9 percent of GDP in 2018 to 6.3 percent in 2048; health care programs (including Medicare and Medicaid among others) will rise from 5.2 percent to 8.7 percent, mostly on the back of an aging population and high healthcare costs per person; and interest payments will balloon from 1.6 percent to 5.3 percent.

Annual deficits are projected to rise from 3.9 percent in 2018 to 8.4 percent in 2048.

Discretionary spending relative to GDP over the same period is expected to fall, if nothing because the budgetary math increasingly won’t allow for it. Discretionary spending was 6.3 percent of GDP in 2018; the CBO expects that number to fall to 5.5 percent by 2048.

Revenues are expected to remain flat for the next few years and then jump in 2026, when income tax cuts from this year’s tax act are set to expire. Revenues would then grow in-step with the economy, but they would still fail to keep pace with spending growth.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Russia-Ukraine Row: NATO’s Eastward Trajectory Is the Real Problem

December 7, 2018

Russia-Ukraine Row: NATO’s Eastward Trajectory Is the Real Problem

UkraineSoldiers, cc Flickr 7th Army Training Command, modified, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

On November 25, two small Ukrainian artillery ships and a tugboat were prevented by Russian vessels from crossing the narrow Kerch Strait and reaching the Ukrainian port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov, which both countries share. Ukraine accuses Russia of open aggression and released what it calls intercepted communications from the Russian ships’ captains and military aircraft in the area that appear to support its case. In his most fiery rhetoric of the crisis, the Ukrainian president Poroshenko accused Putin of wanting to annex Ukraine, telling the German newspaper Bild on last Thursday: “Don’t believe Putin’s lies. Putin wants the old Russian empire back.”

Moscow says the Ukrainian ships ignored the normal procedure for crossing the Kerch Strait and so were treated as hostile craft. The Kremlin claims Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko planned the “provocation” to boost his ratings before elections next March, but it has not adequately explained why Russian forces needed to chase, disable, and impound the ships as they sailed away from the Kerch Strait.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, following a meeting of the NATO-Ukraine Commission on November 26, said: “What we saw yesterday was very serious, because we saw actually that Russia used military force against Ukraine, in an open and direct way. We saw that they fired at Ukrainian ships; that they actually seized and captured ships and personnel, and we have seen reports that several of the personnel that were seized or captured, are wounded. So, this is escalating the situation in the region and it confirms a pattern of behavior that we have seen over several years, where Russia illegally annexed Crimea, continued to destabilize Eastern Ukraine, and now also uses a military force in a very direct way, in the Sea of Azov or the Kerch Strait. So of course, this is serious.”

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Explains Turkey-US Relations

November 12, 2016

How the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ Explains Turkey-US Relations

Turkey’s geopolitics is increasingly at the center of attention after the failed coup of July 2016. The era of Kamalism, with the army as “guardian of secularism” has ended. The AKP and its revered chief Erdogan are free as never before to go ahead in their ideological project of pushing Turkey’s society toward its Islamic roots. In this short article we will try to explain in a comprehensive and organic way the geopolitical turmoil in Turkey using the analysis of the “clash of civilizations” from Samuel Huntington.

It appears that the framework suggested by Huntington can explain what is happening in Turkey nowadays, from the ascension of AK party, to the spread of anti-western sentiments among Turkish people, as well as the ambiguous role of Turkey in the Syrian civil war. Furthermore, exploring the remaking of the world order predicted by the eminent Harvard professor can enable us to make plausible scenarios for the future.

The main message coming from the clash of civilizations is that, in the post-Cold War era, the world will shift from bipolar (US vs USSR) to multipolar international relationships and nations will organize their relations according to their cultural ties. In this setting, the fall of the Soviet Empire announces the end of the “ideological wars “and a shift to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflicts. Huntington describes eight major civilizations and he forecasts inter civilizational conflicts along their civilizational lines, while other kind of struggles can emerge inside a civilization itself in order to gain the supremacy over it.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Japan Stands Firm on Senkaku Islands in East China Sea

September 17, 2016

Japan Stands Firm on Senkaku Islands in East China Sea

150211-N-ZZ999-190, cc Flickr Naval Surface Warriors, modified, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

In recent years, relations between China and Japan have come under increasing strain amidst the escalation of a decades-old territorial dispute over eight uninhabited islands in the East China Sea. The islands of this contentious archipelago are known as the Senkaku Islands in Japan, and the Diaoyu Islands in China. The islands are of high strategic importance due to their proximity to vital shipping lanes, rich fishing grounds, and extensive oil and gas resources. Talks between the two sides have failed to make any meaningful progress, and the risk of an unintended escalation remains high given China’s continued assertiveness, which has led to Japan adopting an increasingly firm position of its own.

The origins of the dispute can be traced back to 1895, when Japan first claimed sovereignty over the islands and incorporated them into Japanese territory. At the end of the Second World War, a defeated Japan renounced claims to a number of territories including the Senkaku Islands, which then came under US control before being handed back to Japan in 1971. Japan argues that its sovereignty dates back to 19th century maritime surveys which mapped the Islands and asserted Japanese ownership. Tokyo contends that China did not dispute this interpretation until the 1970s, when vast oil reserves were discovered in the area.

China however argues that the islands have been part of its territory since ancient times, when the surrounding waters were used as fishing grounds by Chinese vessels, administered by the then-Chinese province of Taiwan. Based on similar historical arguments, modern-day Taiwan also lays claim to the disputed land features.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Future of Geopolitics and Energy Markets

May 16, 2016

The Future of Geopolitics and Energy Markets

Energy prices and geopolitics have been interconnected since the beginning of the twentieth century, but expanded globalization, increased industrialization, and booming fossil fuel supplies have made this relationship increasingly brittle.

The political actions of energy-producing states such as Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iran, and the United States impact energy prices. Conversely, energy prices affect the geopolitical actions of energy-producing states, as well as global consumers like China and India. The dramatic fluctuations in the energy sector are rewriting the relationship between geopolitics and investments. A pragmatic understanding of these two separate components is essential to navigating national security and understanding financial markets related to fossil fuels. More than ever before, an understanding of geopolitics is critical to making profitable oil and gas investments.

For example, as a result of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – the Iranian nuclear agreement spearheaded by the United States – Saudi Arabia has declared war on US oil and gas production. The shale revolution now directly affects how Saudi Arabia reacts to US policies regarding Iran, as the Saudi oil minister has repeatedly spoken about being at war with U.S. shale. The Saudi decision to liquefy oil prices was a conscious effort, as Saudi national and economic security was threatened by improved Iranian relations with the West, and the resulting influx of Iranian oil in the marketplace.

The remissive and reluctant attitude of European states towards Russian aggression in Ukraine, such as the 2014 invasion of Crimea, is a direct result of European – namely German – dependence on Russian oil and natural gas. As the decades-old ban on US natural gas exports has been lifted, Europe is more likely to be freed from Russian attempts to use oil and natural gas as a geopolitical weapon.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The Reality of Fighting Nuclear Terror

April 14, 2016

The Reality of Fighting Nuclear Terror

In the two-day summit in Washington (March 31 – April 1), representatives of 49 countries interacted on the danger of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons as “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security.”

Have the four meetings of NSS since 2009 achieved the objective? It is a moot question. Radioactive materials in numerous countries are still vulnerable. International nuclear security architecture continues to be fragmented and predominantly based on nonbinding measures. And the NSS has not left behind a successor.

Russia’s refusal to participate in Washington Summit dealt a blow to the success of NSS because she has the largest stock of weapons-usable materials in the world.

Concerns about the security of nuclear holdings apply to various countries, ranging from Pakistan, where terrorist groups are highly active, to the United States, who’s Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee – home to large stocks of HEU – was infiltrated in 2012 by a group of activists. Keeping away North Korea and Iran from the NSS puts the very concept of the summit into controversy.

Without true multilateral initiatives, success in battling nuclear terror may remain elusive. Initiatives like the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and the G-8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations, European Union, and Interpol all have significant role to play.

Are the big nuclear powers really willing to make a breakthrough and secure the world against the threat of nuclear weapons falling in wrong hands? The summit did not propose concrete steps towards this objective.

Pakistan, the unstable nuclear power in South Asia, is vulnerable to nuclear pilferage. That notwithstanding, the U.S. has sold eight nuclear-capable F-16 Fighters to her on the plea of strengthening her thrust to quell terror and insurgency in her north.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

George Soros Targeting Putin through the Panama Papers?

April 7, 2016

George Soros Targeting Putin through the Panama Papers?

The Panama Papers represent the biggest document leak of the modern era, and George Soros apparently has a role.

The scandal that has erupted after the publication of the Mossack Fonseca law firm’s so-called “Panama Papers” was organized by the US Centers for investigations on corruption and organized crime using US government funds and donations from billionaire George Soros, according to “WikiLeaks” – which itself became famous for the dissemination of classified high-profile information.

Wikileaks tweeted: “#PanamaPapers Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID & Soros.”

Therefore, the Panama Papers investigations obtained financial support from the Democracy Fund of the United Nations, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and Soros’ Open Society Foundation. USAID is the US administration’s central body for managing aid to government and foreign non-governmental institutions.

The Panama Papers, so named because they reveal the dealings of one Panamanian law firm, Mossack Fonseca that has allegedly managed billions of dollars’ worth of filtered assets on behalf of the world’s richest and most powerful. Given the whims of defamation law, we stress that people, fabulously wealthy though they may be, have legitimate reasons for using entities such as Mossack Fonseca.

Therefore, we do not assume that any Mossack Fonseca customer was necessarily breaking any laws. Indeed, forming shell companies does not necessarily prove that anybody has committed a crime. Yet, one of the most obvious aspects of the Papers is that the disclosures largely concern those in disfavor with either Soros or the United States. Not surprisingly Vladimir Putin, whose strategy in Syria has enabled Assad’s forces to erode Islamic State’s stranglehold of Syria, is the most prominent figure.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Echoes of British Colonial India in Plans to Partition Syria

March 23, 2016

Echoes of British Colonial India in Plans to Partition Syria

Russia’s decision to greatly reduce its military presence in Syria, coming as it did with little warning, has left the world struggling for explanations. Russia is to maintain a military presence at its naval base in Tartus and at the Khmeymim airbase. In fact Russia is “withdrawing without withdrawing.”

The partial withdrawal is seen by many as a message to the Assad government not to take Russia’s military aid for granted, and to be more flexible in the upcoming peace negotiations.

As Robert F. Kennedy Jr., attorney and nephew of US President John Fitzgerald Kennedy explains, the major reason for the West’s attempt to overthrow the Assad government was to build a natural gas pipeline from Qatar that traversed Syria, capturing its newly discovered offshore reserves, and continuing on through Turkey to the EU, as a major competitor to Russia’s Gazprom.

By re-establishing the Assad government in Syria, and permanently placing its forces at Syrian bases, the Russians have placed an impenetrable obstacle to the development of the Qatar gas pipeline. Russia has also placed itself at the nexus point of other new offshore gas discoveries in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Israel, Cyprus, and Greece.

It’s not hard to imagine a new Russian pipeline to Europe serving these new partners. Could easing of sanctions also lead to the implementation of the long-stalled plans of Gazprom for a second pipeline under the Baltic Sea to Germany for Russia and its partners, Royal Dutch Shell, Germany’s E.ON, and Austria’s OMV?

Although the powers involved in Syria are trying to project the partition of Syria as a last resort and a stable political solution that would bring equilibrium, it is not a conclusion reached after all other options were exhausted, which has brought many experts to question whether the partition of Syria was the objective all along.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Geopolitics, the State, and Cybersecurity in a Globalized World

March 14, 2016

Geopolitics, the State, and Cybersecurity in a Globalized World

Cybersecurity, cc Flickr thierry ehrmann, modified, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

On February 9th of this year, the Obama administration announced that after a seven year observation of the cybersecurity environment, it was going to establish the Cybersecurity National Action Plan (CNAP). The new cybersecurity plan was formulated to counter the ever-morphing threats and hackings in cyberspace that could potentially have grave consequences for both public and private institutions, as well as the security of individual Internet users.

The White House announcement notes that modern society has benefitted tremendously from interconnectedness due to the proliferation of the Internet, emphasizing that “from buying products to running businesses to finding directions to communicating with the people we love, an online world has fundamentally reshaped our daily lives.” However at the same time, the White House brief notes that the shadows casted by the illumination of interconnectedness – often rising out of shadowy “dark nets”- such as terrorism, criminal acts, are real problems as well: “Just as the continually evolving digital age presents boundless opportunities for our economy, our businesses, and our people, it also presents a new generation of threats that we must adapt to meet.”

The White House announcement outlines both short-term actions and long-term goals to combat threats posed by these actors. The effort includes items such as establishing a collaborative Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, updating and reforming government IT, beefing up critical infrastructural security, and introducing other initiatives to strengthen password security for online accounts via tools such as biometrics.

Although the effort to strengthen cybersecurity is a welcome development to counter the ever-tumultuous nature of cyberspace, it is not without its critics, who note that the initiative still suffers from bureaucratic culture and shortsightedness. This, in turn, may limit its effectiveness in combating the dangers arising from cyberspace.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Missiles Just the Latest Chapter in the South China Sea Saga

February 22, 2016

Missiles Just the Latest Chapter in the South China Sea Saga

With the recent placement of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) on Woody Island, a subset of the Paracel Islands, China has taken a major step toward militarization of the South China Sea. The action was taken during the recent US-ASEAN “Sunnylands” Summit, where economics, security, and international law were all discussed. In the context of recent and historical events however, the action, though not entirely justified, could not have come as a surprise to any of the parties involved and forms only the latest chapter in the ongoing book of the South China Sea.

FONOPS and the First Island Chain

Recently, the U.S. initiated “freedom of navigation” (FONOPS) maneuvers in the South China Sea, designed to ensure the free flow of maritime commerce between the various claimants in the South China Sea disputes. More importantly, the FONOPS actions are designed to ensure military freedom of maneuver for the U.S. Navy. Strategically, the U.S. cannot allow the rise of a peer competitor and definitely not in Asia, the swiftly emerging locus of world economic activity and geopolitical consequence, hence its “rebalance” strategy. Tactically, the U.S. also cannot allow any doubt to emerge regarding its willingness to defend its regional allies in a conflict scenario. To negate this doubt, it must show its resolve to sail anywhere necessary in regional waters to affect this end, citing international law.

From the Chinese viewpoint, the FONOPS are highly hypocritical. This is because while the U.S. purports to support freedom of navigation for itself and its allies within the First Island Chain, it simultaneously seeks to deny that freedom to China outside the chain. This chain stretches from southern Japan to Taiwan to the Philippines and on to the South China Sea.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

For US and Russia, All Roads Lead to China

January 25, 2016

For US and Russia, All Roads Lead to China

Recently I attended an event where the speaker referred to the interplay between economics and security in Asia as being that of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Dr. Jekyll represents the positive economic growth and interaction within the region, while Mr. Hyde represents the increasing security competition between the great powers of the area, namely Japan and China.

Asia, however, does not exist within a vacuum and China in particular has been used as a hedge by Russia whenever its relations with the West have been threatened. Until fairly recently, the U.S. has historically used China as a spoiler to contain Soviet ambitions and nowadays would hope for improved U.S.-China ties contain a resurgent Russia. Both Russia and the U.S. have traditionally fixated on China as a wedge to contain the other’s ambitions, with this resultant Cold War mentality still presently accounting for the failure of their respective economies to fully take advantage of integration opportunities within Asia.

Attention Deficit Disorder

With Russia’s turn towards China in the wake of negative Western sentiment and sanctions from its Ukraine and Syria maneuvers, it’s easy to forget that this is a transparent tactic Russia has used before to try to gain political leverage with the West. Russian efforts to improve ties with China economically and politically go back at least thirty years to Gorbachev’s 1986 Vladivostok visit and 1989 Beijing visit respectively. Efforts to integrate the Russian Far East (RFE) into the Asian economic dynamic were subordinated to politics yet again with Russia’s brief partnership with the U.S. in the wake of 9/11. Only after it was apparent that Russia would not be treated as a genuine partner with its own security interests did it turn again towards the East in order to gain leverage.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

GPM Global Forecast (01-18-16)

January 19, 2016

GPM Global Forecast (01-18-16)

Middle East Header

Iran Enters a New Era as Nuclear Sanctions are Lifted

Background

The United States and EU have lifted economic sanctions on Iran following confirmation from the United Nations that the country is following through on its obligations set out in last year’s nuclear accord.

Outlook

Implementation Day arrived earlier than many expected, probably because the Iranian government wanted to rush sanction relief ahead of February elections, which won’t just determine the next parliament but also the Assembly of Experts – the clerical body that might be called on to pick Iran’s Supreme Leader should Ayatollah Khamenei die or step down in the next eight years.

One immediate impact of sanction relief is an increase in global oil supply. Iran used to be OPEC’s second-largest producer, and although its energy infrastructure is aging and investment-starved after years of sanctions, the country expects to sell an additional 500,000 barrels a day right out of the gates. The lifting of sanctions caused an immediate plunge in the stock markets of oil-producing Gulf states, with Saudi Arabia seeing a drop of 5.4% and Qatar 7% in Sunday trading.

While EU companies will now be free to trade and invest in Iran, many US sanctions will remain in place beyond the full implementation of the deal. These pertain to Iran’s status as a state sponsor of terrorism and its human rights record. New sanctions are also a possibility following Iran’s recent ballistic missile tests. As a result, in the global rush to get a foothold in Iran’s untapped market of some 80 million people, US companies will be at a distinct legal disadvantage vis-à-vis their European and Asian competitors.

The nuclear deal and the future tone of US-Iran relations will feature prominently in the upcoming US presidential race, evident in Hilary Clinton’s declaration that she supports new sanctions against Iran mere hours after the deal was officially implemented.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Dictators, Democracy, and Almighty Oil in the MENA Region

January 18, 2016

Dictators, Democracy, and Almighty Oil in the MENA Region

95% of transport fuels in the world are derived from oil. This makes it hard to argue that renewable or other non-petroleum sources of fuel could cut into oil’s market share, at least in the near term. Transportation, and thus petroleum, is essential to growing economies like China and India and petroleum security will continue to be essential for the global economy.

So who controls oil? You guessed it; the Middle East and North Africa dominate the global oil sector and the future of energy security.

With the exception of Canada and the U.S., across the board, these countries are dictatorships or false democracies that are often subjected to artificial elections where the outcome is always in favor of the current “democratically” elected dictator.

Why are most Middle East governments dictatorships?

Simply put, dictatorships are easier and more efficient to deal with, especially with something as precious as petroleum security. For businesses involved in the oil industry, Dick Cheney said it best: “The good Lord didn’t see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically-elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.”

Essentially, dictators provide Western companies with immense wealth and the opportunity of vast and cheap reserves. At the same time, these Western companies are headquartered in countries with democratically elected representatives in government. These democratic governments, although against their core values, will need to deal with hostile and mismanaged governments in the Middle East and North Africa. They do this to secure petroleum and keep Western oil companies active, efficient, and profitable in the Middle East & North Africa, and of course to feed the insatiable appetite for oil in the West.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

NATO Expansion: Lessons Not Learned

December 17, 2015

NATO Expansion: Lessons Not Learned

Failure to Communicate

Recently, NATO extended an offer of membership to Montenegro. The announcement was couched in the usual tagline of offering “assurance” to Western Balkan states concerned with possible security issues (Russian assertiveness) and “reassurance” to current NATO members in the neighborhood. With the utmost respect to Montenegrins and other newer NATO entrants, it seems that they are not expected to reciprocate and offer assurance or reassurance to NATO in turn, which really means the United States. Yet, reciprocity is one of the hallmarks of any successful alliance. The idea that the U.S. considers Montenegro an ally worth risking further deterioration of US-Russian relations in the wake of Ukraine, Syria, the Sinai air disaster, the Paris bombings, and recent Turkish actions is quite idiotic.

Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014 should have taught NATO the possible dangers of over-extension. The latter episode in particular should have been quite instructive (to NATO as well as the EU) as to the need for dialogue between major powers before actions to be taken which might be perceived as infringing upon the security interests of other involved parties. Relentless expansion of one’s own sphere of influence while denying a corresponding sphere of influence and concomitant security interests to one’s counterpart reeks of hubris, stupidity, and miscalculation, the usual tragic precursors to war in the past.

Security Architecture and Infrastructure Crumbling

Two hundred years ago at the Congress of Vienna, the major powers of the day agreed to form an equilibrium of sorts which was intended to reduce the chance of a major European war re-occurring. In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain, and France came to an understanding which in essence stated that if any one of the powers took actions which infringed upon the security interests of another state, it would potentially face consequences from the remaining powers as well.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

COP 21: There Is a Way to Beat Climate Change

December 13, 2015

COP 21: There Is a Way to Beat Climate Change

PowerPlant, cc Mario Goebbels, Flickr, modified, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

The Paris Climate Change Conference might be the turning point in addressing climate change at the international level. The 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) is the annual meeting of the 195 nations that make up the United Nations Framework on Climate Change. The goal is to reach an agreement and set a target cap for carbon emissions at 450 ppm, limiting global warming within 2 degrees Celsius, which scientists designate as a critical threshold.

It is easy to be cynical about achieving such an international agreement. The Copenhagen 2009 conference will probably haunt the COP21 meeting, due to the failure of delivering a climate deal. Domestic politics and the unwillingness of states to be bound by a top-down decision, hammered in at the last minute between the United States, Brazil, China, South Africa and India, derailed the conference. That is why at this year’s conference the states adopted a bottom-up approach, with every country declaring their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). The problem is that, according to a UN synthesis report on the aggregate effect of INDCs, the commitments made so far by 147 countries will not reach the goal of limiting global warming to 2℃ above pre-industrial levels. These INDCs cover only about 85% of the existing emission levels and will not be sufficient to reverse the upward trend. The projections point to a 2.7℃ rise in temperatures. There is also no guarantee that countries will adhere to their commitments. International agreements often set aspirational goals and many countries derogate from their obligations when faced with adverse domestic conditions. The U.S. signed, but never ratified the Kyoto Protocol; Canada dropped out of it in 2011; while Russia and Japan decided not to assume further emissions limitations for the second phase of the protocol.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Tag Archives: geopolitical monitor

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Iran Enters a New Era as Nuclear Sanctions are Lifted

Post navigation

Latest Posts