By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Iran’s “foolish violation” of a ceasefire agreement and drone attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. military launched strikes on Iranian missile and drone storage locations and coastal radar sites. President Trump stated the U.S. had “knocked down” three other drones aimed at vessels. U.S. Central Command condemned Iran’s actions as unwarranted aggression that undermined freedom of navigation, despite a recent memorandum of understanding signed by both nations aimed at a permanent peace deal. Vice President Vance reiterated that while disagreements could be discussed, Iran’s violence would be met with a violent response.
Read the original article here
It’s Friday night again, and just as the markets are closing, the news breaks: the U.S. has launched strikes against Iran, following accusations from President Trump that Tehran violated a ceasefire. This whole situation, playing out just before the weekend, has a distinct flavor of market manipulation to it, a pattern that seems to be repeating with alarming regularity. The timing, after market close, strongly suggests an attempt to influence financial markets on Monday.
The accusation from Trump is that Iran attacked a cargo ship, which he’s framing as a direct violation of a ceasefire agreement. This brings to mind the perpetual back-and-forth nature of diplomatic and military posturing, where pronouncements of peace can quickly be followed by acts of aggression. It’s as if ceasefires are expected to take a break over the weekend, only to be immediately disregarded.
The immediate consequence of such actions is a significant financial cost. The notion of a multi-billion dollar repair bill, constantly escalating with each military engagement, is a stark reality. Each JDAM dropped, each strike launched, adds to a growing tab, not just in monetary terms but also in the erosion of goodwill. The peace deal that might have been in place just last week seems to have evaporated into thin air, a fleeting promise that vanished as quickly as it appeared.
This cycle of accusation and retaliation raises fundamental questions about the ongoing conflict. If Iran indeed attacked commercial vessels, then the term “ceasefire violation” seems less like an accusation and more like a direct observation. The situation is characterized by a sense of urgency, as if Iran is actively seeking a deal, yet simultaneously engaging in actions that undermine any potential for rapprochement.
What’s particularly perplexing is the apparent disconnect between government directives and military actions, hinting at internal dynamics within Iran that are not fully understood. This raises broader questions about the stability and intent behind these escalations. The repeated assertions of ending conflicts, only to see them reignited, create a sense of déjà vu, a Groundhog Day scenario where progress is illusory.
The timing of these events, especially when preceded by discussions about low oil prices, suggests a deliberate orchestration for financial gain. The narrative is one of constant market manipulation, a cycle that benefits a select few while the rest of the world bears the brunt of rising costs, particularly at the gas pump. The prediction of $8 per gallon gas feels less like a prediction and more like an inevitability in this unfolding drama.
The language used, particularly the placement of the word “accused” after “strikes,” is telling. It flips the narrative, suggesting that the action was taken first, and the justification of a ceasefire violation followed. This contrasts sharply with the more logical sequence of Trump accusing Tehran of a violation, and then the U.S. striking in response.
The claims of Iran not respecting the ceasefire are met with skepticism by some, who point to a history of who truly upholds such agreements. The pronouncements and justifications often feel like a repetitive, wearying cycle, with the underlying motivations obscured by political rhetoric. It’s as if the objective is not to end the conflict, but to perpetuate it for other reasons.
The idea of a “Path to Persia playbook” suggests a premeditated strategy, where military actions are intertwined with geopolitical objectives and potentially financial exploitation. The ever-increasing cost associated with these interventions, now potentially reaching hundreds of billions, prompts a question about the role of legal and judicial bodies in addressing such actions. The human cost, the playing with people’s lives, is a heavy consequence of these maneuvers.
Concerns about global oil reserves and the impact on international economies are also paramount. The potential for rationing in Asian countries before the West faces shortages highlights the interconnectedness of global energy markets and the ripple effects of conflict in strategic regions like the Strait of Hormuz. The control of these vital waterways is clearly a point of contention, with some asserting that Iran does not “own” the strait.
The statement that “Iranians: we don’t negotiate with terrorists,” followed by what some perceive as American capitulation, encapsulates the complex and often contradictory nature of international diplomacy in conflict zones. The idea that each new ceasefire counts as a war ended, a way to inflate a perceived record of success, is a cynical interpretation of diplomatic efforts. The narrative of a “peace president” who has already solved these issues, or who is claiming credit for past achievements, adds to the confusion.
There are suggestions that the preceding drone attack and the subsequent Iranian response might not be entirely straightforward, possibly involving other actors like Israel. This adds another layer of complexity to an already intricate situation. The principle that if a key element of an agreement is broken by one party, the other is no longer bound by it, is a common legal and diplomatic standpoint. The U.S. allowing a ceasefire to be established without assurances of adherence is therefore seen as a misstep.
The warning from Iran to the ship before the attack, if true, shifts the perception of events. Coupled with the after-market close timing of the U.S. response, it reinforces the notion that market manipulation is a significant, perhaps even primary, driver of these actions. The pattern of striking after trading hours, only for things to “ease up” by Monday, points towards a deliberate strategy to influence financial markets.
The irony of the war being potentially non-existent and instead a market gaming exercise is a darkly humorous, albeit concerning, possibility. The dramatic red candle on the SPY index at the last minute, attributed to insider shorting, further fuels these suspicions of market manipulation, particularly on Fridays. The notion of a “ceasefire Sunday” on deck, dependent on citizen engagement in the democratic process, highlights the perceived vulnerability of the system to manipulation.
Ultimately, there’s a sentiment that the current approach is unsustainable and detrimental. The call for a complete change in leadership and policy, to allow for genuine negotiation with Iran, is a recurring theme. The current system, perceived as rigged for financial gain at the expense of global stability and human well-being, needs a fundamental overhaul to restore honesty, character, and liberty. The path forward, it seems, lies not in perpetual conflict and manipulation, but in a commitment to actual peace and responsible governance.