Samuel Geddes

Western attempts to weaponize protests and sanctions against Iran have once again collapsed, exposing that the West does not have a viable alternative to the Islamic Republic, and the limits of US power.

Having bombed the country in 2025, “Israel” and the US seemed to think that provoking street violence would have more success at collapsing the Iranian state. Instead, it fizzled almost instantly.

We have been here at least half a dozen times in the past two decades. Street protests in Iran over an internal economic, social or political issue emerge, gather a degree of momentum in urban areas and the Western propaganda system declares that the protests have “shifted” from their initial focus, to calls for the repudiation of the Islamic Revolution and the end of the political system it created. European and American politicians issue their empty statements of solidarity with the Iranian people and unilaterally decide that the Islamic Republic has “lost its legitimacy,” that its fall is simply a matter of “when,” not “if.” We have seen this narrative played out often enough to recognize it never survives contact with the real world.

The source of the persistent delusion that the Islamic Republic is about to fall comes not only from the Euro-American elite class wishing it to be so, but also from its deferral to the “analysis” of segments of the diaspora whose own political objectives are detached from reality.

Whether it is protests over the government’s handling of the economy, energy blackouts, or the water crisis, most external observers are incapable of viewing each individual issue through any lens other than that of regime change.

Artemesia of Caria

Episode 20: Women in the Persian Empire

The Persian Empire

Dr John W I Lee (2012)

Film Review

Persian women had much more personal freedom than those of Athens, who were required to wear veils, controlled by husbands, fathers and brothers, and restricted from jobs, public life and Persian courts. Moreover Athenian writers were extremely critical of the freedoms enjoyed by Persian women, who they described as oversexed and manipulative. At the same time, they viewed Persian kings as effeminate and enslaved to their women. Aristotle blamed Sparta’s decline on the right granted Spartan women to own property.

Persian kings practiced polygamy and frequently married their nieces, cousins and sisters to keep wealth in the family. Persian also kept concubines, for diplomatic purposes. They were often foreign women of high rank (who, as non-Persians, were forbidden to marry the king.

In general Persian women tended to be very outspoken. Wives attended banquets, in contrast to Greece, where only concubines attended banquets (to entertain guests).  Persian women learned to ride horses, archery and to shoot javelins. Royal women held audiences just like the king (an Elamite tradition – see Eartly Middle East Empires that Preceded the Persian Empire). They sometime traveled with the king on military campaigns.

Persian women could own land and some ran kortaj work teams at the palace involved in weaving and food production.

As a minority population in the empire, Persians placed great value on having children, especially sons. New mothers received extra rations, which were doubled if they gave birth to sons. Men who produced the most sons got special payments from the king, who sometimes gave gold coins to mothers.

Skilled men and women received equal pay. Unskilled men received higher pay than unskilled women.

Eunuchs, who looked after the king’s wives and concubines, were a tradition the Persians inherited from the Assyrians. Although the word means “keeper of the bed” (in Greek), some became powerful soldiers and generals or rich merchants. Not all were castrated.

Egyptians, Greeks, Jews and Babylonians were all monogamous and Egyptian and Babylonian women could buy and sell property and enter into contracts. In Egypt and Babylonia, women could initiate divorce. In the Ionian Greek cities, as in Athens, women had very restricted rights.

Some Persian women led military campaigns:

• Artemesia – became queen of Halicamassus in 480 BC when her husband died. She provided (and led) a squadron of ships to support Xerxes when he was trying to regain control of Egypt.
• Mania – became satrap of Dardanus in 440 BC when her husband died. She commanded troops and captured new cities.

https://www.kanopy.com/en/pukeariki/watch/video/15372393/15372426

Jim Hoft

In yet another stunning display of Uniparty betrayal, the House of Representatives has voted to continue funneling taxpayer dollars to the shadowy National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – a globalist NGO notorious for meddling in foreign elections, fueling censorship worldwide, and even pushing domestic propaganda right here at home.

By a lopsided 127–291 vote, lawmakers rejected an amendment offered by Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) to prohibit $315 million in funding for the NED as part of the FY2026 spending package.

Following the vote, a disgusted Rep. Eli Crane took to X to vent his frustrations with the rot inside the halls of Congress.

“The swamp is real. But we did pass the Shower Act this week. I could use one after spending so much time in this awful place,” Crane wrote.

He followed up with a stinging rebuke of the 81 Republicans who turned their backs on the base:

“Tonight, the Uniparty rejected my amendment to defund NED. 81 ‘Republicans’ voted with Democrats to fund this rogue organization that fuels global censorship and domestic propaganda. We will keep fighting.”

Here are the 81 Republicans who voted to KEEP funding the National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

• Robert Aderholt (R-AL)

• Mark Alford (R-MO)

• Don Bacon (R-NE)

• Jim Baird (R-IN)

• Michael Baumgartner (R-WA)

• Cliff Bentz (R-OR)

• Stephanie Bice (R-OK)

• Gus Bilirakis (R-FL)

• Rob Bresnahan Jr. (R-PA)

• Vern Buchanan (R-FL)

• Ken Calvert (R-CA)

• Mike Carey (R-OH)

• John Carter (R-TX)

• Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ)

• Tom Cole (R-OK)

• Rick Crawford (R-AR)

• Mario Díaz-Balart (R-FL)

• Chuck Edwards (R-NC)

• Jake Ellzey (R-TX)

• Ron Estes (R-KS)

• Gabe Evans (R-CO)

• Randy Feenstra (R-IA)

• Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

• Mike Flood (R-NE)

• Scott Franklin (R-FL)

• Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)

• Carlos A. Giménez (R-FL)

• Craig Goldman (R-TX)

• Brett Guthrie (R-KY)

• Mike Haridopolos (R-FL)

• French Hill (R-AR)

• Ashley Hinson (R-IA)

• Bill Huizenga (R-MI)

• Jeff Hurd (R-CO)

• Darrell Issa (R-CA)

• Dusty Johnson (R-SD)

• David Joyce (R-OH)

• Thomas Kean Jr. (R-NJ)

• Mike Kelly (R-PA)

• Jen Kiggans (R-VA)

• Kevin Kiley (R-CA)

• Young Kim (R-CA)

• Kimberley King-Hinds (R-MP)

• Darin LaHood (R-IL)

• Nick LaLota (R-NY)

• Bob Latta (R-OH)

• Mike Lawler (R-NY)

• Frank Lucas (R-OK)

• Ryan Mackenzie (R-PA)

• Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY)

• Celeste Maloy (R-UT)

• Brian Mast (R-FL)

• Michael McCaul (R-TX)

• Dan Meuser (R-PA)

• John Moolenaar (R-MI)

• Blake Moore (R-UT)

• Nathaniel Moran (R-TX)

• Dan Newhouse (R-WA)

• Zach Nunn (R-IA)

• Jay Obernolte (R-CA)

• August Pfluger (R-TX)

• Hal Rogers (R-KY)

• Mike Rogers (R-AL)

• John Rutherford (R-FL)

• Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL)

• Mike Simpson (R-ID)

• Adrian Smith (R-NE)

• Lloyd Smucker (R-PA)

• Elise Stefanik (R-NY)

• Dale Strong (R-AL)

• David Taylor (R-OH)

• Claudia Tenney (R-NY)

• Mike Turner (R-OH)

• David Valadao (R-CA)

• Ann Wagner (R-MO)

• Tim Walberg (R-MI)

• Daniel Webster (R-FL)

• Bruce Westerman (R-AR)

• Joe Wilson (R-SC)

• Rob Wittman (R-VA)

• Steve Womack (R-AR)

The Gateway Pundit reported back in February 2025 that President Trump significantly cut funding to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), essentially “starving” the organization.

The National Endowment for Democracy is a “CIA cutout” according to former State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary and founder of Foundation for Freedom Online Mike Benz.  It was started in November 1983 and is funded directly by Congress.  Under the guise of “promoting democracy,” what once was considered covert actions have now become overt.  According to a 1991 opinion piece in the Washington Post:

The sugar daddy of overt operations has been the National Endowment for Democracy, a quasi-private group headed by Carl Gershman that is funded by the U.S. Congress. Through the late 1980s, it did openly what had once been unspeakably covert — dispensing money to anti-communist forces behind the Iron Curtain.

As with many government-funded non-profits and cutouts, what started as a possibly ‘good intentioned’ has turned into an imperialistic disaster.  NED’s publication, the Journal for Democracy called for the arrest of Poland’s PiS party to “ensure that populism does not return,” comparing it to the “crimes of communism.”

In September 2023, NED welcomed Victoria Nuland to its Board of Directors, a former State Department official and the maestro behind the 2014 colour revolution in Ukraine known as the Maidan Revolution.  Nuland had previously worked under the Bush and Obama administrations, sitting out Trump’s first term, and then rejoining during the Biden ‘administration.’

During the Maidan, NED funded over 60 projects in Ukraine to ‘promote democracy,’ mostly civil society groups that were involved in the protests that eventually unconstitutionally overthrew Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.

NED is also alleged to have supported an unsuccessful coup against Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez in 2002 and funded opposition groups in 2019 to undermine the Venezuelan government.  The Center for Economic and Policy Research wrote in 2004.

The list of countries that NED has been accused of meddling in regime change is vast.  It includes Ukraine and Venezuela, as mentioned, but also Nicaragua with the election of Violeta Chamorro in 1990 and again in 2018.  They meddled in Belarus in 2020 by backing opposition leader Svetlana Tikhanovskaya.  NED funded organizations such as Universal Rights Supporting Families of Political Prisoners and other civil society groups and ‘independent media.’  They were involved in the 2001 coup in Haiti against President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.  They also meddled in Bolivia, Cuba, Libya, Georgia, Serbia, Mongolia, and Kyrgyzstan.

NED brags on its website that it has, and likely still has, 330 projects in 11 countries with $38.5 million in funds in Central and Eastern Europe for FY2023.  From their website:

While many post-communist countries in Eastern Europe have undergone democratic transformations and have become European Union (EU) and NATO members, the dream of a unified, peaceful, and democratic Europe remains unfulfilled. This aspiration is being challenged by the rise of autocratic models of governance, populism and nationalism, erosion of information integrity and sharp political polarization, as well as unresolved issues from the past.

[…]

Via https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/more-betrayal-house-votes-keep-funding-globalist-ngo/

The location of the Kvanefjeld project in southern Greenland. Authorities fear that should the project go-ahead it would cause environmental damages to the nearby town of Narsaq. (Photo: Greenland Minerals)

Martn Breum

The US, China and the EU are all likely to watch closely as a battle over one of the world’s largest deposits of rare earths is taken to court. Australian-owned Greenland Minerals A/S wants a mining license, or compensation of up to $11.5 billion for lost revenue.

One of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth minerals is located in the Kuannersiut mountain in southern Greenland. The deposit has long been coveted by the US, China and the EU, but instead of being mined and brought to world markets, the valuable minerals are now subject to a bitter court case between the China-linked Australian mining company and the Greenlandic government.

In 2021, the government in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, passed legislation to ban uranium mining in Greenland, and this summer Greenland Minerals was refused a mining license for its Kvanefjeld project at Kuannersuit mountain. The rare earths in the area are commingled with uranium, and mining would inevitably bring the latter to the surface, a result the Greenland’s government is determined to prevent.

Legal offensive

Greenland Minerals, a subsidiary of Perth-based Energy Transition Minerals, has now mounted a counter-offensive.

The company has been engaged in exploration at the Kuannersuit mountain since 2007. In July it filed a 517-page Statement of Claims with the Arbitral Tribunal in Copenhagen. The statement includes a claim for a license to mine or, should that fail, a claim for compensation as well as an estimate of the company’s loss of investments and future earnings that could total $11.5 billion, a potentially crippling sum for Greenland.

Observers in many countries are likely to follow the proceedings. Greenland is still part of the Kingdom of Denmark and the US, through its embassy in Denmark, has been keenly interested in Greenland’s rare earths for decades.

Carla Sands, a former US ambassador to Denmark, held talks with Greenland Minerals in southern Greenland not long before then-US president Donald Trump in 2019 suggested buying the country from Denmark.

The EU has also long expressed interest. However, China may be in pole position for access. Chinese mining corporation Shenge Resources owns 9% of Greenland Minerals and is represented on its board. Greenland Minerals has long been banking on financial and technical support from Shenge for the establishment of the proposed Kuannersuit mine.

On a visit to Copenhagen in late September, Greenland Minerals commercial manager Garry Frere told Arctic Today that Shenge “will support the project without a shadow of a doubt”.

The Chinese connection makes the Kuannersuit project controversial. China controls some 90% of the world’s supply of rare-earth minerals — essential for a host of green technologies such as batteries for electrical cars and wind turbines, as well as for the defence industry, which uses them in missiles, fighter jets and other equipment.

“Not a threat”

The high loss estimates by Greenland Minerals could easily exhaust Greenland’s economy, should compensation be awarded to Greenland Minerals. Even so, the company denies any wish to intimidate the Arctic country of 57,000.

“It is not a threat,” said Frere, even if he understands that others may interpret the suit that way.

“I don’t think the government or its advisors expected what they saw in our statement of claim that we lodged in July. I think that document might have come with quite a bit of surprise,” Frere said.

“It might be that when the detail of the argument we are making is properly understood by Kammeradvokaten (the government’s legal council, ed.) and the government, they will form a view that Greenland Minerals has quite a substantial argument. We might not win, but there is certainly no guarantee,” he said.

He speculated that the government in Nuuk will soon begin to weigh the potential cost of paying damages to Greenland Mineral against the possible gains from a mine at Kuannersuit. Greenland Minerals argues that Greenland would likely earn more than $20 billion in taxes and royalties on minerals over the expected 37-year life of the mine if Greenland Minerals was allowed to proceed at Kuannersuit.

Financing the case

The trial will likely be very expensive for both parties, but Frere claims that Greenland Minerals has resources to carry on for as long as it takes. According to him, Burford Capital, US-based specialists in funding legal cases, has made capital available that could make the case less painful for Greenland Minerals.

“We call it non-recourse. If we lose the arbitration, they get none of their money back. If we are successful they get a fee based on how much they have spent and they get a share of the reward. This is not unusual for small businesses like ours,” Frere said. He declined to state how large a share of the potential wins Burford Capital is entitled to.

Greenland Minerals has engaged Clifford Chance, one of the UK’s largest law firms with offices across the globe, and a reputed Danish law firm to do the legal work and handle court appearances.

Breach of contract

After a stopover in Copenhagen, Frere was set to travel to Nuuk, and he seemed unusually knowledgable about Greenland’s domestic politics.

Strong forces within Siumut, one of the two parties in Greenland’s governing coalition, want to unravel the ban on uranium mining. Frere believes that there might be a new chance for the Kuannersuit mine after a planned general election in Greenland in April of 2025.

In a 2011 add-on to Greenland Minerals’ license to explore for minerals at Kuannersuit, the Greenlandic authorities stipulated that any potential requests by the company to exploit the Kuannersuit vein could be rejected by Nuuk for purely political reasons.

The project at Kuannersuit has from the beginning been highly controversial in Greenland. The fear that mining could contaminate the nearby town of Narsaq and its surroundings runs deep, and the 2011 political clause to Greenland Minerals’ exploration license mirrored a deep split in the Greenland populace regarding the project.

Even so, Frere and Greenland Minerals maintain that the government in Nuuk is in breach of contract. The company argues that the 2011 clause has been rendered invalid since numerous other positive signals and acts by the authorities in Nuuk have made Greenland Minerals predict that in the end — despite the 2011-clause — it would receive a license to mine.

In the company’s July Statement of Claims several messages to Greenland Minerals from the authorities in Nuuk and excerpts from Greenland’s political discourse were presented. From 2014, when a previous partial ban on uranium was lifted, Greenland prepared for uranium exports and Nuuk signed on to several international uranium conventions. Greenland Minerals interpreted the combined words and deeds as binding. Frere argues that matters have not been dealt with properly by Greenlandic authorities in this process.

“We have spent 13-14 years following a certain set of rules with an expectation that if we did the right thing, produced the right pieces of paper and did the right work we would then be issued a license,” said Frere.

Greenland has less than 60,000 inhabitants and a limited economy, but Frere has no qualms raising claims that might badly hurt its economy,

“While Greenland is a small country, it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and it chooses to encourage people to come and potentially exploit its mineral resources. By doing that you take away your right to say ‘oh, no, we are a poor country, you are a big international “ruly” boy and you have come to impose.’ We were invited, we followed the rules, we met all the requirements that were put in front of us, but at the last minute the goalposts were moved,” he said.

The minister

In Greenland funding for the court case has been allocated by parliament and on the phone from Nuuk, Greenland’s naalakkersuisoq (minister) for raw materials, Naaja Nathanielsen, expresses no desire for compromise.

“The company says that because they feel that they have received a signal this must overrule the terms that are spelled out in their license. We argue that all sorts of things might have been said politically, but that this means nothing if the terms are not changed. There can be no tampering with any given government’s right to determine terms and legislation about how the resources of its country are to be utilized. This is an important principle for us and we will follow it through to the end,” Nathanielsen said.

Greenland Minerals also argue that the ban on uranium cannot be applied to the Kuannersuit project as this would deny the company rights to which it is entitled to by Greenland’s own laws. Nathianielsen also rejects this claim.

“The company does not read the uranium law correctly. The law applies to future licenses. If Greenland Minerals had been issued with a license to extract minerals before the law on uranium came into effect, they might perhaps have been right, but they had not,” she said.

Will the offensive work?

The question remains whether fear of an expensive court case and potentially debilitating payment of damages will stir public opinion in Greenland and influence the Greenlandic government.

Mariane Paviasen, chair of Greenland’s parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Security, says she doesn’t fear that scenario.

“They do not scare me. This only shows once again that the company does not care at all about our society,” she said.

Paviasen is a former central figure of Urani Naamik (No to Uranium), a non-governmental organization which has spearheaded opposition to the mining project at Kuanersuit. She and other opponents maintain that Greenland Minerals conducted its business in the country in less than savory ways. Its lobbying has included hiring leading Greenlandic politicians and former high ranking public officials to further its case.

Nathanielsen said that she is convinced that Greenland has the better legal case. She recognizes though that Greenland Minerals campaign is having an effect.

“I regard it as a maneuver to create uncertainty and to target politicians, and it has worked extremely well as clickbait. A lot of journalists have reacted. I just think it is more interesting what the company is basing its case on,” she said.

Greenland’s government has until early January 2024 to react to Greenland Minerals’ Statement of Claim.

The government argues that the Arbitral Tribunal in Denmark does not have powers to handle complaints against political decisions made by the government of Greenland. Instead, the government argues, Greenland Minerals may bring their case before the courts in Greenland.

Should Greenland Minerals be awarded compensation for the losses it claims, the sums involved might exceed Greenland’s ability to pay. Greenland Minerals argues, however, that the Danish government could also be made responsible. Until 2009, the two countries shared the responsibility for Greenland’s mineral deposits.

[…]

Via https://www.arctictoday.com/chinese-linked-australian-mining-company-sues-greenland-for-billions-of-usd-over-lost-revenue/

by Kyle Anzalone | January 11, 2026 at 2:11 pm ET

Military commanders in the Middle East want more time to prepare for Iranian counterattacks

Senior Department of War officials have told President Donald Trump they need more time to consolidate American troops deployed to the Middle East before the US launches an attack on Iran.

According to The Telegraph, “Trump has been warned that the US military needs more time to prepare for strikes against Iran.” Military commanders in the Middle East stated they need to “consolidate US military positions and prepare defences” in anticipation of an Iranian retaliatory attack.

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said that if it attacks Iran, the Islamic Republic will strike Israel and US bases in the Middle East.

Trump has threatened Iran several times in recent weeks. “If Iran [shoots] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue. We are locked and loaded and ready to go,” Trump said earlier this month.

Demonstrations began in Iran two weeks ago, and some protests have escalated into riots. Some groups report that 200 people have been killed during the demonstrations, including over 40 members of Iranian security forces.

Iranian authorities have reportedly used live ammunition to break up protests, and Tehran has cut off internet service in an attempt to quell the movement.

Israel Hayom spoke with American officials who said the White House is preparing a range of actions against Iran, including using Starlink to provide protesters with internet access, a cyber attack, new sanctions, and kinetic military action.

The Telegraph reports that potential targets of US strikes include non-military targets in Tehran and Iranian security forces.

At the end of last year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to the US to lobby Trump to restart the war with Iran. In June, Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran that ignited a 12-day war.

During the conflict, Trump ordered American bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear sites. The Islamic Republic responded by striking a US military base in Qatar. The Iranian response was viewed as symbolic, and a ceasefire between the US, Israel, and Iran was reached shortly after.

[…]

Via https://news.antiwar.com/2026/01/11/report-military-tells-trump-it-needs-more-time-to-prepare-for-war-with-iran/

By Pepe Escobar

The petrodollar is one of the key features of this Hegemony: a recycling machine channeling non-stop buying of US Treasuries then spent on Forever Wars. Any player even thinking of diversifying from this infernal machine is met with asset freezes, sanctions – or worse.

At the same time, the Empire of Chaos cannot demonstrate raw power by bleeding itself dry in the black soil of Novorossiya. Dominance requires ever-expanding – plundered – resources, side by side with that non-stop printing of US dollars as a reserve currency to pay for astronomic bills. Additionally, borrowing from the world works as imperial financial containment of rivals.

But now a choice becomes imperative – an inescapable structural constraint. Either keep astronomical spending on military dominance (enter Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion budget for the Department of War.) Or keep ruling the international financial system.

The Empire of Chaos cannot do both.

And that’s why, when the math was done, Ukraine became expendable. At least in theory.

Against the weaponization of the US Treasury bond system – de facto monetary imperialism – BRICS incarnate the strategic choice of the Global South, coordinating a drive towards alternative payment systems.

The straw that broke the steppe camel’s back was the freezing – actually stealing – of Russian assets after the expulsion of a nuclear/hypersonic power, Russia, from SWIFT. Now it’s clear that Central Banks everywhere are going for gold, bilateral deals and considering alternative payment systems.

As the first serious structural shock to the system since the end of WWII, BRICS is not overtly trying to overturn the system – but to build a viable alternative, complete with large-scale infrastructure financing bypassing the US dollar.

Venezuela now illustrates a critical case: Can a major oil producer survive outside of the US dollar system – without being destroyed?

The Empire of Chaos has ruled, “No”. The Global South must prove it wrong. Venezuela was not that critical on the geopolitical chessboard as it represented just 4% of China’s oil imports. Iran in fact is the crucial case, as 95% of its oil is sold to China and settled in yuan, not US dollars.

Iran though is not Venezuela. The latest coordinated intel op/terror attacks/regime change attempt on Iran – complete with a pathetic mini-Shah refugee in Maryland – miserably failed. The threat of war, though, remains.

BRICS Pay, The Unit, or CIPS?

The US dollar now represents less than 40% of global currency reserves – the lowest in at least 20 years. Gold now accounts for more global foreign exchange reserves than the euro, the yen and the pound combined. Central Banks are stockpiling gold like crazy, while BRICS accelerates the test of alternative payment systems in what I previously defined as “the BRICS lab”.

One of the scenarios being directly proposed to BRICS, and designed as an alternative to cumbersome SWIFT, which does at least $1 trillion in transactions a day, features the introduction of a non-sovereign, blockchain-based trade token.

That’s The Unit.

The Unit, correctly described as “apolitical money”, is not a currency, but a unit of account used for settlement in trade and finance between participating countries. The token could be pegged to a commodity basket or a neutral index to prevent domination by any single country. In this case it would work like the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), but within a BRICS framework.

Then there’s mBridge – not part of the “BRICS lab” – which features a multi-central bank digital currency (CBDC) shared among participating central banks and commercial banks. mBridge includes only five members, but that includes powerful players such as the Digital Currency Institute of the People’s Bank of China and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. Other 30 countries are interested to join.

mBridge tough was the inspiration behind BRICS Bridge, still being tested, which aims to speed up a range of international payment mechanisms: money transfers, payment processing, account management.

It’s a very simple mechanism: instead of converting currencies into US dollars for international trade, BRICS countries exchange their currencies directly.

The New Development Bank (NDB), or the BRICS bank, established in Shanghai in 2015, should be the key connectivity node of BRICS Bridge.

But that, for the moment, is on hold – because all the NDB’s statutes are linked to the US dollar, and that must be reassessed. With the NDB integrated into the broader financial infrastructure of BRICS member-nations, the bank should be able to handle currency conversion, clearing, and settlement under BRICS Bridge. But we’re still very far away from that.

BRICS Pay is a different animal: a strategic infrastructure for building a self-described “decentralized, sustainable, and inclusive” financial system across BRICS+ nations and partners.

BRICS Pay is on pilot mode all the way to 2027. By then the member-nations should start discussing a deal to set up a settlement unit for intra-BRICS trade no later than 2030.

Once again, that will not be a global reserve currency; but a mechanism offering a “parallel, compatible option” to SWIFT within the BRICS ecosystem.

BRICS Pay, for the moment, is also a very simple system: for instance, tourists and business travelers may use it without opening a local bank account or exchanging currency. They simply link their Visa or Mastercard to the BRICS Pay app and use it to pay via QR code.

And that’s exactly the crucial problem: how to circumvent Visa and Mastercard, under US financial system vigilance, and incorporate BRICS members cards such as Union Pay (China) and Mir (Russia).

Overall, for bigger and more complex transactions, the problem of bypassing SWIFT persists. All these “BRICS lab” tests need to solve two key problems: messaging interoperability – via secure, standardized data formats; and processing the actual settlement, as in how funds move via Central Bank accounts bypassing the inevitable threat of sanctions.

Internalization of The Yuan, Or a New Reserve Currency?

The inestimable Prof. Michael Hudson is on the global forefront of studying solutions to minimize US dollar hegemony. He is adamant that “the line of least resistance is to follow the already-in-place Chinese system.” That means CIPS – the China International Payment System, or Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, yuan-based, and already extremely popular, used by participants in 124 nations across the Global Majority.

Prof. Hudson insists “it’s very hard to create an alternative. The Unit’s principle (his emphasis), reported to be 40% gold and the rest in member currencies is fine. But this is best done through a new Keynes-style central bank to denominate debts and claims for payment to settle imbalances among member countries – along the lines of the Bancor.”

The Bancor was proposed by Keynes in Bretton Woods in 1944 – to prevent serious discrepancies in external balances, protectionism, tariffs and the scam of nations built up as tax havens. It’s no wonder the hyper-Hegemonic US at the end of WWII vetoed it.

In a new paper on the Weaponization of Oil Trade as the Bedrock of the US World Order, first published at democracycollaborative.org, Prof. Hudson clarifies how “Russian and Venezuelan freedom to export oil has weakened the ability of US officials to use oil as a weapon to squeeze other economies by threatening them with the same withdrawal of energy that has wrecked German industry and price levels. This supply of oil not under US control thus was held to be an infringement of the US rules-based order.”

And that brings us to one of the key reasons for the BRICS drive towards alternative payment systems: “The US foreign policy of creating choke points to keep other countries dependent on oil under US control, not oil supplied by Russia, Iran or Venezuela, is one of America’s key means of making other countries insecure.”

Prof. Hudson succinctly lines up the five imperatives for the Empire of Chaos: “control of the world’s oil trade is to remain a US privilege”; “oil trade must be priced and paid for in US dollars”; the petrodollar must rule, as “international oil-export earnings are to be lent to, or invested in, the United States, preferably in the form of US Treasury securities, corporate bonds and bank deposits”; “green energy alternatives to oil are to be discouraged”; and “no laws apply to or limit US rules or policies.”

Paulo Nogueira Batista Jr, one of the co-founders of the NDB, and its vice-president during 2015-2017, advances in parallel with Prof. Hudson, designing a viable path towards a new international currency in a paper that he is currently finalizing.

Considering that the US dollar system is “inefficient, unreliable and even dangerous”, and has become “an instrument of blackmail and sanctions”, Batista Jr cuts to the chase along the same lines of Prof. Hudson, arguing that “the only scenario that may present some viability would be the large-scale internationalization of the Chinese currency (…) But there is a long way to go before it can replace the dollar in a significant way. And the Chinese are reluctant to try.”

Batista Jr then proposes a solution similar to Prof. Hudson’s: “A group of countries in the Global South, something like 15 to 20 countries, which would include most of the BRICS and other emerging middle-income nations”, could be at the forefront of creating a new currency.

Yet “a new international financial institution would therefore have to be created – an issuing bank, whose sole and exclusive function would be to issue and put into circulation the new currency.”

That sounds very much like Bancor: “This issuing bank would not replace the national central banks and its currency would circulate in parallel with the other national and regional currencies existing in the world. It would be restricted to international transactions, with no domestic role.”

Batista Jr clarifies that “the currency would be based on a weighted basket of the currencies of the participating countries and would therefore fluctuate on the basis of changes in these currencies. Since all currencies in the basket would be floating or flexible, the new currency would also be a floating currency. The weights in the basket would be given by the share of each country’s PPP GDP in the total GDP.”

Inevitably, “the high weight of the Chinese currency, issued by a country with a solid economy, would favor confidence in the backing and in the new reserve currency.”

Batista Jr is fully aware of “the risk that the initiative will provoke negative reactions from the West, which would resort to threats and sanctions against the countries involved.”

Yet the time for action is pressing: “Will we gather economic, political and intellectual efforts to get out of this trap?

The costs of maintaining Hegemony are becoming prohibitive. BRICS, gathering forces for the annual summit later this year in India, must capitalize on the fact that we are fast approaching the structural change moment when the Empire of Chaos loses the ability to unilaterally enforce its will – except via all-out war.

[…]

Via https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-brics-may-deliver-structural-shock-us-dollar-system