Iran's Splendid Isolation Is Coming To An End

Wikipedia: 

Foster is known for coining the term “splendid isolation” in January 1896 when praising Britain’s foreign policy of isolation from European affairs.

The term was popularized by Lord Goschen, First Lord of the Admiralty, during a speech at Lewes on 26 February 1896: “We have stood here alone in what is called isolation – our splendid isolation, as one of our colonial friends was good enough to call it.” The phrase had appeared in a headline in The Times, on 22 January 1896, paraphrasing a comment by Foster to the Parliament of Canada on 16 January 1896: “In these somewhat troublesome days when the great Mother Empire stands splendidly isolated in Europe.”

The ultimate origin of “splendid isolation” is suggested in Robert Hamilton’s Canadian Quotations and Phrases, which places the Foster quotation beneath a passage from the following paragraph from Cooney’s Compendious History of Northern New Brunswick and Gaspé (reprinted in 1896) describing England’s situation in 1809–1810 during the Napoleonic Wars:

In the midst of this terrific commotion, England stood erect: wrapt up in her own impregnability, the storm could not affect her: and therefore, while others trembled in its blast, she smiled at its fury. Never did the ‘Empress Island’ appear so magnificently grand; – she stood by herself, and there was a peculiar splendour in the loneliness of her glory.

This, in turn, echoes the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius: “Be like the promontory against which the waves continually break, but it stands firm and tames the fury of the water around it.”

An excerpt from, “The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis And The Final Days of Imperial Iran” by Andrew Scott Cooper, Picador, 2018, Pg. 203-204:

“Iran’s domestic discontents were overshadowed by the earth-shaking events of late 1973 and early 1974 in the Middle East. Simmering tensions between Israel and Egypt erupted into open warfare in October 1973. Furious that the United States airlifted military supplies to Israel, Arab states in the Middle East imposed an oil embargo that triggered panic buying in the West and sent crude prices soaring. The Shah’s decision to remain neutral in the conflict earned him Nixon’s gratitude. But he also saw an opportunity to exploit the crisis to Iran’s benefit. On December 23, 1973, he hosted a meeting of Persian Gulf oil producers who followed his suggestion that they double the price of oil for the second time in a year. The Shah’s oil coup stunned his admirers back in Washington. The “oil shock” devastated the economies of Western oil consumers even as Iran’s income from oil doubled to $4.6 billion in 1973-1974, then rocketed to $17.8 billion a year later to a total of $98.2 billion for the next five years. In just a few months the Shah had seized control of the oil markets and established himself as the dominant figure within OPEC, the oil producers’ cartel that set prices and determined levels of oil production. Rather than invest Iran’s new billions offshore in bonds, treasury notes, and real estate, the Shah decided to pump it straight back into the domestic economy to give it the push he felt was needed to break the cycle of poverty and under- development. Finally, after decades of struggle and turmoil. the Shah felt himself to be untouchable and indispensable. He had broken free from the Russians, the British, and now the Americans. “Iran is not a volcano now,” he assured a visitor to Niavaran. “I want the standard of living in Iran in ten years’ time to be exactly on a level with that in Europe today. In twenty years’ time we shall be ahead of the United States.” 

The Shah stood at the apex of a new world economic order. “Once dismissed by Western diplomats as an insecure, ineffective playboy-King, this emperor of oil commands new respect these days, as much for his ambitions as for his wealth,” declared Time magazine. “In the 33rd year of an often uncertain reign, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi has brought Iran to a threshold of grandeur that is at least analogous to what Cyrus the Great achieved for ancient Persia.” Bankers joked that when the Shah sneezed, Wall Street caught cold. Iran’s astonishing 33 percent economic growth rate for 1973 was outpaced by 40 percent the following year, and gross national product was set to expand at the rate of 50 percent in twelve months. The economy took off like an Apollo rocket to the moon. “We have no real limit on money,” boasted the government’s senior economist. “None.” The Shah interpreted this remark in the most literal sense. He ordered billions in new military equipment and made all elementary school education free and compulsory. Iran was not a major dairy producer, but he decreed that every schoolchild was entitled to a free glass of milk each day. He purchased a 25 percent stake in the West German steel company Krupp and spent $16 billion in the fiscal year 1974 -1975 “on projects ranging from schools to hospitals.” Eager to buy international prestige and influence, the Shah contributed $700 million to the International Monetary Fund and another $1 million to the University of Southern California to endow a professorial chair in engineering. U.S. intelligence analysts were confounded by the Shah’s oil coup against his former patrons. “He was our baby, but now he has grown up,” complained a CIA official whose admission signaled that the United States had finally lost the ability to influence Iranian foreign and economic policy.

There is nothing wrong with waging war in self-defense. This is a natural right and even an obligation. But there are limits to exercising that right in the modern world. 

As we saw in the two World Wars in the last century, modern wars are limitless in geographical scope and economic consequences.

Europe was set ablaze after the Zionists and their Masonic allies in the Western world prepared the stage. No European nation won that war. It was a total bloodbath. It was human sacrifice disguised as a world war. A similar scenario has been prepared for West Asia by the very same devils.

But times have changed. Mass conscript armies are politically untenable and the volunteer professional armies aren’t willing to sacrifice endlessly for wars they see no good reason fighting in.

War has moved from the battlefield to the pocketbook. And the elites know this better than anyone else. Th economic warfare that’s been waged by the United States and Israel against numerous Middle Eastern states for decades has achieved what military invasions never could.

Now that Iran has sprung itself out of its artificial isolation from the world economy and exercised its ability to deliver economic pain to its enemies it must not fall into the trap of arrogance and overreach.

By closing the Strait of Hormuz and subsequently charging a toll to non-hostile ships with its re-opening the Iranian government interjected itself in the fate of the world economy, for better or worse. 

Just as OPEC and its ability to manipulate oil prices was a levy of power, closing and opening the Strait of Hormuz on a whim is a great weapon that, if overused and abused, will blunt its effectiveness and become counter-productive in advancing Iran’s national interests.

With great power comes greater responsibility.

Iran’s leaders bear a responsibility to the world to keep the world moving forward, economies afloat, and the lights on, so to speak.

To be engaged in a secret global conspiracy to initiate the so-called Great Reset wherein industrial nations in the West and developed economies are fully transitioned to post-apocalyptic hellscapes would be a black mark on the nation of Iran. 

Iran must not allow itself to be used as an instrument to collapse the world economy.

The genocidal cannibals in Washington, Tel Aviv, and London who want to depopulate the world through famine, population control, and war, must not be assisted, unknowingly or not.