The Interlocking Of Strategic Paradigms Authored by Alastair Crooke via the Ron Paul Institute, Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and missile ‘demonstration’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, rather than an ‘assault’. The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial. Professor Postol writes: “This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary”. “The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles”, [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000”. Furthermore: “The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems”. A Tel Aviv demonstrator holds an Israeli flag during a Ukraine-related protest, AFP via Getty Images Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones”. “The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability”. Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defense to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost. This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defense ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs. But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defense assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily. ‘Yes, Ukraine’ … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies. Positioning scarce air defense ‘to save Israel’ therefore, exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the recent passage of the funding Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a priority for sending to Kiev – where the West looks increasingly trapped and rummaging for a way out that does not lead to humiliation. But before leaving the Middle East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already evident: He must therefore focus back to the ‘near enemy’ – the Palestinian sphere or to Lebanon – to provide Israel with the ‘Great Victory’ that his government craves. In short, the ‘cost’ for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrative and not destructive nor lethal is that the White House must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electoral erosion through exacerbating domestic tensions arising from the on-going blatant slaughter of Palestinians. It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni Arab States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalissation) with Israel. In the event of wider conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot protect them – as Professor Postol so clearly shows. And can they count on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its scarce Air Defenses and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White House priority ladder. In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missiles, which Postol notes, “had an effective accuracy of perhaps a few feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and computational guidance system, giving a very precise homing capability)”. So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence depletion paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the Third Paradigm) is similarly interlinked with Ukraine. For the western proxy war with Russia centered on Ukraine has made one thing abundantly clear: this is that the West’s off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defense manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: ‘saving Israel’; ‘saving Ukraine’ and preparing for war with China. The western maximalization of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logistical needs of the present ‘limited’ Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China. Put plainly, this ‘late stage’ global imperialism has been living a ‘false dawn’: With the economy shifting from manufacturing ‘things’, to the more lucrative sphere of imagining new financial products (such as derivatives) that make a lot of money quickly, but which destabilize society (through increasing disparities of wealth); and which ultimately, de-stabilise the global system itself (as the World Majority states recoil from the loss of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism entails). More broadly, the global system is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times warns, “the U.S. and EU cannot embrace national-security “infant industry” arguments, seize key value chains to narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary ‘rules’, while also using the IMF and World Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can’t expect others not to copy what it does”. As the FT concludes, “the shift to a new economic paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs.” ‘Up for grabs’: Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain enough – “We’re going back to basics”: A simpler, largely national economy, protected from foreign competition by customs barriers. Call it ‘old- fashioned’ (the concepts have been written about for the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notions simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith’s doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans. ‘European leaders’, however, see the economic paradigm solution differently: “The ECB’s Panetta gave a speech echoing Mario Draghi’s call for “radical change”: He stated for the EU to thrive it needs a de facto national-security focused POLITICAL economy centered around: reducing dependence on foreign demand; enhancing energy security (green protectionism); advancing production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); governing migration flows (so higher labour costs); enhancing external security (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds … to be bought by ECB QE)”. The ‘false dawn’ boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotting away, and as new wars began to be promoted. It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen’s call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies. But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a ‘defense and national security-led political economy’, as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from near ground zero? Is it realistic to think that the American Security State will allow Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economic vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on cheap energy and selling high-end engineering products to China? This Draghi-ECB plan represents a huge structural change; one that would take a decade or two to implement and would cost trillions. It would occur too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that ordinary Europeans support such radical structural change? Why then is Europe pursuing a path that embraces huge risks – one that potentially could drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia? For one main reason: The EU leadership held hubristic ambitions to turn the EU into a ‘geo-political’ empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White House Team for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armories and sanctioning the cheap energy on which the economy depended. It was this decision that has been de-industrializing Europe; that has made what remains of a real economy uncompetitive and triggered the inflation that is undermining living standards. Falling into line with Washington’s failing Ukraine project has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU. Were this policy line to change, Europe could revert to what it was: a trading association formed of diverse sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military actor. Tyler Durden Sat, 05/04/2024 – 23:20

CIA Engaged In “Infinite Race” With China For AI, Other Tech The CIA is engaged in an “infinite race” with China when it comes to AI and other top technologies, according to the agency’s Chief Technology Officer, Nand Mulchandani, who outlined a strategy that prioritizes technological prowess as crucial to national security. Speaking at the Hill & Valley Forum’s gathering of top technology and government officials in Washington this week, Mulchandani’s made it clear that the agency is aggressively pursuing advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) to bolster both offensive and defensive capabilities, the Washington Times reports. “We’re looking at transforming every single part of what the agency does,” he stated, underscoring the depth of the CIA’s commitment to integrating AI into its core operations. The agency’s push includes the development of large language models, sophisticated algorithms that are the backbone of generative AI tools, aiming to enhance everything from field operations to analytical and support functions. This strategic pivot comes as geopolitical rivalry with China is intensifying. The CCP has repeatedly expressed its ambition to dominate the AI sphere, which would present profound challenges and implications for global power dynamics. Mulchandani emphasized the need to rethink the concept of this competition as a “race,” suggesting that viewing it as having a definitive end is a misstep. “This is an infinite race. This is not going to stop. It’s going to keep on going,” he explained, framing the scenario as a continuous struggle for technological superiority. The implications of this shift are profound. If the deployment of these new tools escalates to warfare, it will test America’s position in the technology stakes, a scenario Mulchandani hopes will never materialize. He predicts the next major conflict will be “primarily a software war,” driven by AI, changing the nature of warfare from hardware-dependent to software-driven. The concerns are not just theoretical. At Stanford’s Hoover Institution, Herbert Lin of the Stanford Emerging Technology Review highlighted the shift in global tech leadership, with the U.S. losing its primacy in certain key areas like AI. Lin pointed out the critical need for a robust talent pipeline and a strategic vision, especially in fields like biotechnology, to maintain competitiveness. Moreover, the CIA is particularly wary of AI-driven Ubiquitous Technical Surveillance (UTS), which threatens the secrecy of U.S. intelligence operations. In response, the agency is engaged in foundational infrastructure work, which Mulchandani described as the “sewer and plumbing work” necessary to navigate the AI revolution. This involves constant adaptation to rapid technological changes, ensuring that the CIA remains agile in its tech tactics. “We talk about UTS, which is basically something that’s really, really killing us out in the field in terms of competitively, you know, biometrics, video cameras,” he said. “Well, how do we turn it around [and continue] those operations in the face of this much AI being thrown at us is another big area that they’re looking at. So directorate by directorate, we’re rethinking, reshaping every part of what CIA needs to do in the face of using it and deploying it.” The urgency of these initiatives is echoed in the broader governmental plea for collaboration from Silicon Valley. House Speaker Mike Johnson’s call to technologists and venture capitalists at the forum to guide and assist the government underscores the critical role of public-private partnerships in navigating the technological labyrinth. As the U.S. and China continue their relentless pursuit of technological dominance, the narrative is clear: this is not a sprint with a finish line but a marathon without end, defining the future of global power, security, and technological innovation. Big Mike Begs No, not that Big Mike… House Speaker Mike Johnson (R?-LA), who implored the technologists and venture capitalists at the forum to help the government wherever they can. Via @jacobhelberg “There are not many industries, not many leaders and experts, who we just openly plead for your counsel, but I am doing that here today,” said Johnson. “Because a lot of the people who are of goodwill here, who want to do the right thing, could use some of your guidance along the way to make sure that we don’t step on any land mines that we don’t see. You have a much better vision, I think, on a lot of that than we do.” Tyler Durden Sat, 05/04/2024 – 22:45

Russia Stepping Up ‘Decapitation Strikes’ – Belatedly Adds Zelensky to Criminal ‘Wanted’ List Days ago, for the first time Russian forces mounted a major air attack on the Ukrainian command’s southern headquarters in the port city of Odessa. This suggests Moscow is increasingly targeting Ukraine’s top command and control centers. There’s been another key development late in the week suggesting Russia is escalating in response to more and more weapons and billions pouring into Kiev from the West: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has just been added to a Russian government most-wanted list of criminals. Getty Images It was revealed Saturday that Zelensky’s name is now on the Russian Interior Ministry’s “wanted” list, which is an important online database.  The database lists Zelensky as wanted “under an article of the criminal code” but provides no other specifics or details. This designation comes after well over two years of war, so the question is: why now? It seems the Kremlin is signaling a new escalation which could focus on ‘decapitation strikes’ targeting Ukraine’s top leadership. Or else, is Russia establishing a legal ground for arresting him in some future scenario? While command and intelligence HQ’s have been hit by Russian airpower in the past, strikes have yet to directly target top-ranking civilian and military leadership. But it seems this is about to change. President Putin has for years demonstrated that he is very law-oriented and ‘by the book’ – that is, he must have a legal basis or rationale for acting. So Zelensky now personally being designated as ‘wanted’ perhaps provides the ‘rationale’ in a sense, from the Kremlin’s perspective. The anti-Kremlin independent news outlet Moscow Times suggests this sets the stage for new plots to try and assassinate Zelensky:  The Ukrainian President said last year he was aware that at least “five or six” assassination attempts against him had been foiled. The day after sending troops into Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave an address to the nation in which he called on the Ukrainian army to overthrow Zelensky. Russia has placed several foreign politicians and public figures on its wanted list, which has tens of thousands of entries. As for Russia’s unrelenting and recently stepped-up aerial campaign, it has continued to pummel and degrade Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. This appears a tit-for-tat retaliation for Ukraine’s own devastating cross-border attacks on Russian oil depots and refineries.  A fresh Russian Defense Ministry (MoD) statement has outlined that “In the past 7 days, the Russian Armed Forces carried out 25 group strikes via precision weapons and drones, hitting Ukrainian energy and transportation infrastructure facilities and Ukrainian military-industrial complex enterprises.” Zelensky is now officially WANTED by Russia! At least that’s what the database for Russia’s MVD (Ministry of Internal Affairs–basically, police) states: Zelensky is wanted under an undisclosed article of the Russian criminal code. An interesting development to say the least.… pic.twitter.com/FS8tdWAJxt — Nina 🐙 Byzantina (@NinaByzantina) May 4, 2024 “Between April 28 and May 4, in response to the Kiev regime’s attempts to inflict damage to Russian energy and industrial facilities, the Russian Armed Forces carried out 25 group strikes via precision weapons and drones, hitting Ukrainian energy and transportation infrastructure facilities, military-industrial complex enterprises, missile and ammunition storage areas, as well as unmanned speedboats and drone manufacturing workshops,” the ministry said. The MoD has also warned that any “mercenary” positions and also foreign military equipment will be specifically targeted. There are reports that Ukraine has had to pull back it US-supplied M1 Abrams tanks precisely because they make for such an attractive target. Tyler Durden Sat, 05/04/2024 – 21:35

Almost Half Of Health Care Workers Hesitant To Take COVID-19 Boosters: Study Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours), Approximately half of the health care workers in a Polish study were found to be averse to taking COVID-19 booster shots, with one of the reasons for this hesitancy being their negative experiences with previous vaccinations. A man received a dose of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine at the Amazon Meeting Center in downtown Seattle, on Jan. 24, 2021. (Grant Hindsley/AFP via Getty Images) The peer-reviewed study, published in the Vaccines journal on April 29, examined factors underlying “hesitancy to receive COVID-19 booster vaccine doses” among health care workers (HCW) in Poland. Almost 50 percent of the participants were identified as being wary of the boosters. “Our study found that 42 percent of the HCWs were hesitant about the second booster dose, while 7 percent reported no intent to get vaccinated with any additional doses.” “As reasons for not vaccinating, participants most frequently highlighted lack of time, negative experiences with previous vaccinations, and immunity conferred by past infections.” The study involved 69 healthcare workers composed of nurses, midwives, physicians, other health associate professionals, and administrative staff. At the time of enrollment, 47 had a history of lab-confirmed COVID-19 infection and 31 had at least one comorbidity, a situation where a person suffers from more than one disease or medical condition at the same time. Over 92 percent of study participants received at least one vaccine booster, with 50.73 percent getting two doses. Five out of the 69 HCWs did not take any boosters. “Booster hesitancy among health professionals (physicians, nurses, and midwives) was lower than among administrative staff and others. Almost 79 percent of the physicians had received two COVID-19 vaccine booster doses. However, apart from physicians, about half of the HCWs from each occupation group were hesitant about the second booster dose.” “The highest number of HCWs without any vaccine boosters was observed among administration personnel.” HCWs in the age groups of 31-40 and 41-50 were found to be the most skeptical about taking the second booster shot. Thirty-four out of the 69 HCWs provided reasons for their COVID-19 booster vaccine hesitancy. Two of the health care workers who did not take booster shots said their decision was based on their personal experience with the vaccines. “They reported negative experiences with past COVID-19 vaccination and stated that the natural immunity developed after SARS-CoV-2 infection could protect them against COVID-19, which, overall, does not pose serious health risks,” the study said. “Responses from HCWs who received only one COVID-19 booster dose can be categorized into two themes: (i) influences arising from personal perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine and disease prevention and (ii) issues directly related to vaccination and its safety.” Six health care workers reported suffering negative adverse effects after previously taking COVID shots. Four had safety concerns about the vaccines. In an earlier study conducted by the researchers, COVID-19 antibody levels among HCWs after receiving the mandatory primary vaccine series were found to have decreased by around 90 to 95 percent within seven months of vaccination. However, “none of the HCWs contracted COVID-19,” it said. The current study was funded by the Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Polish Academy of Sciences. The authors of the study reported no conflicts of interest. Vaccine Concerns, Harms Other studies have also explored vaccine hesitancy among health care workers. A March 2023 study that looked at HCWs from Cameroon and Nigeria found that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was “high and broadly determined by the perceived risk of COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines on personal health, mistrust in COVID-19 vaccines, and uncertainty about colleagues’ vaccine acceptability.” An April 2022 study found that “a concern for vaccine side effects” and “the belief that the vaccines are inadequately studied” were some of the key reasons for vaccine hesitancy among health care workers. A May 2022 analysis at BMJ Global Health warned that indulging in policies like mandatory vaccination “may cause more harm than good.” “Current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good,” it said. “Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunizations.” The analysis recommended that vaccines should only be mandated “sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions.” During Sen. Ron Johnson’s (R-Wis.) roundtable discussion on COVID-19 vaccines on Feb. 26, researcher Raphael Lataster, associate lecturer at the University of Sydney, claimed that data from Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials exaggerated the efficacy of the shots. The data exaggeration could make an ineffective vaccine have a perceived effectiveness of up to 48 percent, he stated. Meanwhile, a Jan. 27 narrative review found that repeated COVID-19 vaccination may end up boosting the likelihood of experiencing COVID-19 infections and other pathologies. Taking multiple vaccine doses could trigger higher levels of IgG4 antibodies and impair activating white blood cells that protect a person from infections and cancers. “While booster doses have been recommended to enhance and extend immunity, especially in the face of emerging variants, this recommendation is not based on proven efficacy, and the side effects have been neglected,” the paper said. In an interview with EpochTV’s “American Thought Leaders” program last year, clinical pathologist Dr. Ryan Cole said that DNA contamination in some of the COVID-19 vaccines could be behind an increase in cancers. He pointed to “turbo cancers,” referring to the phenomenon of cancer symptoms arising faster. “Now I’m seeing the solid tissue cancers at rates I’ve never seen … Patients that were stable, or cancer-free for one, two, five, ten years and their cancer’s back, it’s back with a vengeance and it’s not responding to the traditional therapies,” he said. Tyler Durden Sat, 05/04/2024 – 21:00

Bitcoin Vs. Gold: Who Won The ZeroHedge Debate? Friday night’s ZeroHedge Debate explored which is the superior asset: Gold or Bitcoin. Arguing in favor of Gold were investor Peter Schiff and NYU economist Nouriel Roubini, who went toe-to-toe with crypto proponents Erik Voorhees, a cryptocurrency entrepreneur and wealth manager Anthony Scaramucci. Schiff made the case that Bitcoin cannot be a viable currency because “money needs to be a commodity” and that Bitcoin has no inherent value. “It’s not just a unit of account and a medium of exchange. It needs to be a store of value,” he added. “[Bitcoin] is no more ‘digital gold’ than if I create an image of a hamburger on a computer screen. That’s not digital food.” Does Bitcoin’s transferability give it value? Voorhees argued that Bitcoin’s ability to seamlessly cross borders is an example of inherent value. “I can send $1 million to Europe in five minutes from my phone.” As things heated up, Roubini echoed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), suggesting that crypto could be exchanged between a “criminal and a terrorist” and that Bitcoin’s transferability allows for the subversion of Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know-Your-Customer (KYC) laws. He blasted Voorhees for being too idealistic. “Live in your Libertarian cave! That’s not the world we live in.” Voorhees then gave his best impression of Socrates, attempting to dissect Roubini’s argument that Bitcoin is not “decentralized.” Roubini, meanwhile, made the case that Bitcoin mining is controlled by an oligopoly, and that “The Gini coefficient of Bitcoin is worse than North Korea,” – a point he’s made in the past, suggesting that Bitcoin contributes to income inequality, rather than reducing it. One topic the panelists agreed on: inflation is crushing the work class. According to Schiff, “there’s only one source of inflation and that’s government.” So, who do you think won? If you would like to protect yourself from rising inflation, consider checking out this debate’s sponsors: Preserve Gold and Bitlayer Labs. ZeroHedge would like to offer a special thank you to each of them for helping to facilitate free speech and open debate. Tyler Durden Sat, 05/04/2024 – 20:33