‘Five Conditions’: Iran Rejects US Proposal, Sets Terms to End the War

March 25, 2026 News

Iran rejects a US proposal to end the war, saying any ceasefire will come only on its own terms. (Photo: via Al Mayadeen)

 Share

 Tweet

 Pin

 Email

 Share

By Palestine Chronicle Staff  

Iran rejects the US ceasefire proposal, insisting war will end only on its terms, including guarantees, reparations, and sovereignty.

US Proposal Rejected

Iran has formally rejected a US proposal to end the war, making clear that any ceasefire will take place only on Tehran’s terms.

According to Press TV, citing a senior Iranian political-security official, Tehran “will end the war when it decides to do so,” rejecting any attempt by US President Donald Trump to dictate the timing or framework of a settlement.

The proposal, delivered through regional mediators, was dismissed as detached from battlefield realities and reflective of what Iranian officials described as US overreach despite mounting pressures on Washington and its allies.

‘Escalation Trick’

Iranian officials framed the US proposal not as a diplomatic opening, but as a strategic maneuver.

According to the same Press TV report, Tehran assessed the proposal as a “trick to escalate tensions,” noting that previous US overtures had been followed by military escalation rather than genuine negotiations.

This assessment reflects a broader Iranian position that Washington has repeatedly used diplomacy as cover while advancing military pressure.

Reuters reported that Iranian officials dismissed US proposals as unrealistic, with one senior figure describing Washington as effectively “negotiating with itself.”

Five Conditions

At the center of Tehran’s position is a structured set of conditions that must be met before any ceasefire is considered.

Press TV outlined five key demands that define Iran’s framework for ending the war.

• The first condition is a complete halt to all military aggression, including airstrikes, targeted assassinations, and covert operations.
• Second, Iran demands firm and verifiable guarantees that such attacks will not be repeated.
• Third, Tehran is insisting on reparations, including compensation for damages caused by the war and clarity on how those payments would be enforced.
• Fourth, Iran requires that any ceasefire apply across all fronts of the conflict, including allied resistance groups operating throughout the region.
• Fifth, Iran demands recognition of its sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz as a “natural and legal right.”

Iran has made clear that military operations will continue until these conditions are met.

According to Press TV, the senior official emphasized that Tehran remains prepared to “continue defending itself and delivering heavy blows to the enemy.”

Iran has also informed mediators that no negotiations will take place before these conditions are accepted, stating that talks cannot proceed under ongoing attacks.

US Conditions

Alongside its rejection, Iranian and international reporting indicate that Washington had advanced a broader framework of demands, widely described as reaching up to 15 points.

While no single verified list has been publicly confirmed in full, several core elements have been consistently reported across sources such as Reuters and The Guardian.

These include:

• Halt to Iran’s missile and drone attacks.
• Restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile program.
• Limits on nuclear enrichment activities.
• Reduction of Iran’s regional military role.
• Security guarantees for Israel.
• Monitoring and verification mechanisms.
• Commitments to future negotiations under US terms.

Iranian officials have rejected these proposals, describing them as incompatible with Iran’s sovereignty and reflective of US strategic priorities rather than a negotiated settlement.

Opinion: The War On Iran Has Four Possible Outcomes

The author is a Human Rights Lawyer. He made these comments on Facebook. He is clearly a Democrat and refers to “corporate” Democrats rather than the party as whole which is the main problem and difference I would have with him. apart from being a socialist and recognising that this crises, like all the others, is a product of the capitalist system and cannot be resolved unless the capitalist system is destroyed. And, as I have said before, in the piece below the role or possible role of the working class, organized or otherwise, is absent. He is appealing to the “progressive” wing of this warmongering capitalist party. Nevertheless, it’s a thoughtful piece and I agree with much of his assessment of the situation. Richard Mellor 

 

The War On Iran Has Four Possible Outcomes
Qasim Rashid

 

Only one of these four paths protects humanity—the other three are likely destroy it

This week Donald Trump threatened more war crimes on the people of Iran.

 

We are now in the most dangerous phase of this crisis, and pretending otherwise is reckless. As a human rights lawyer, I do not view war as an abstraction, a chessboard, or a television spectacle. I view it in terms of law, civilian life, state accountability, and foreseeable human devastation. If we are honest about the present moment, there are only four plausible scenarios from here. Three are catastrophic. The fourth is the only one consistent with constitutional government, international law, and basic human survival. It is also the one Donald Trump appears least willing to accept—but one our Congress must rally to ensure happens. 

 

As of Monday this week the United States’ and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has killed 1,200 Iranians, mostly civilians. Up to one third of them are children—including the near 175 children killed by a U.S. military Tomahawk missile. Iran’s response has targeted military bases, resulting in reportedly 6 U.S. soldiers killed and 13 Israelis. Now, Trump is promising “Death, Fire, and Fury” and “twenty times” the damage if Iran does not unconditionally surrender.

In other words, we are running out of time to end this illegal war and prevent global and irreparable catastrophe. Right now we have four possible paths ahead of us. It is critical we rally and demand Congress act to enact Option Number Four.

 

Option One

The first scenario is that Trump eventually admits defeat and withdraws from Iran. In purely human terms, that would be preferable to escalation, but it would still come after an illegal war already launched without constitutional authority and under a pretext that has not been substantiated. The geopolitical consequences would be significant.

 

A failed American war would further erode U.S. credibility and likely accelerate a broader shift in influence toward China and Russia. Iran, having survived direct U.S.-Israeli assault, would emerge emboldened. Oil may no longer be pegged to the U.S. dollar as the global currency, devastating the US economy. None of this is favorable, though this is the bed Trump has made so far. But also, compared with what comes next, it is survivable.

 

Option Two

The second scenario is a ground invasion. Trump has not ruled that out. He has not ruled out a draft either. The Pentagon is already reportedly preparing to seek roughly $50 billion in supplemental funding for Middle East operations, a strong indication that the administration is contemplating a longer and more expensive war footing. A quick reminder that politicians lie when they say we cannot afford to fund universal healthcare, free public college, free school lunches, or affordable housing.

 

Anyone speaking casually about invading Iran is either ignorant of the facts or indifferent to the lives that would be destroyed. Invading Afghanistan and Iraq was already catastrophic. As I’ve cited before, a Brown University study documents an estimated 4.6 million civilians killed by western wars since 2001.

 

And Iran is not Iraq. Iran is about 1.63 million square kilometers—which is triple the size of Iraq. I has a population that recent estimates place in the low 90 million range—which is double that of Iraq. It’s largest city, Tehran, has a population of 9.6 million—larger than New York City. It is geographically vast, heavily populated, politically complex, and militarily formidable.

 

A U.S. ground invasion would not be a quick operation. It would be a regional inferno. Potentially millions could die. The global economy would likely be pushed into a prolonged recession. And because major powers would not passively watch such a war unfold, the risk of a broader world war would rise dramatically. Thus, option three.

 

Option Three

The third scenario is the use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the United States. That is the scenario many people still resist discussing openly because it sounds too horrible to contemplate. But refusing to contemplate it does not make it less real. This is not hyperbole. Research published in Nature Food and highlighted by Rutgers found that a large-scale nuclear war could kill more than 5 billion people through famine and system-wide collapse, even apart from the immediate blast deaths. In ordinary language, that means the deaths of four to six billion human beings within a relatively short period are well within the range of expert projections in a full nuclear exchange. It would be worse than any Hollywood film can imagine because movies still assume that civilization survives in recognizable form. Nuclear war does not promise survival. It promises planetary ruin. Thus, we must push for Option Four.

 

Option Four

That leaves the fourth scenario, which is the only morally serious option: Trump resigns or is impeached, the war is halted, and actual peace negotiations begin. With Trump removed from power, there is at least a possibility of returning to diplomacy, de-escalation, and meaningful non-proliferation efforts. History gives us a model. In the mid-1980s, the United States and Soviet Union moved from existential nuclear hostility toward negotiations that helped reduce the risk of annihilation. That kind of diplomacy is still possible, but only if the men driving this escalation are stopped. The obstacle, of course, is political cowardice. This would require the Republican Party to develop a spine and fulfill its constitutional duty. It would require Corporate Democrats to grow a spine and demand an end to this war. Instead, Hakeem Jeffries refuses to rule out funding this illegal attack on Iran with another $50B.

 

At present, it seems unlikely that Republicans and Corporate Democrats will grow a spine or a conscience. But unlikelihood is not an excuse for silence when the alternative is mass death.

Conclusion

 

Here’s the bottom line. This is not red versus blue. This is not left versus right. This is working people versus billionaires, civilians versus war planners, constitutional government versus authoritarian impulse. This is why the culture wars must stop. Because as bad as things are, they can get much worse. Trump has not ruled out the worst options. He has not ruled out sending American troops into a catastrophic ground war. He has not ruled out escalating further. He has already shown that he will ignore constitutional limits, and too many members of Congress still behave as though strongly worded statements are an adequate response to an unlawful war.

 

There is also a deeper pattern here that should disturb every serious observer. In 2013, Trump claimed Obama would bomb Iran to distract from his failures. In 2023, J.D. Vance warned against repeating in Iran the same mistake made in Iraq. Now they are doing exactly what they accused others of doing. That is not irony. It is the operating logic of fascist politics: accuse the other side of the crime you are preparing to commit yourself.

 

The legal and moral stakes are immense. Congress must act now to stop this war, cut off funding for unauthorized escalation, and reassert that the Constitution is not optional. Military service members must also remember that “I was just following orders” did not excuse unlawful conduct at Nuremberg, and it will not excuse it now. To those cheering this war from a distance, understand what you are cheering for: possible nuclear confrontation, higher prices for families already struggling, and the deaths of ordinary soldiers while the sons of powerful men remain far from the battlefield.

 

We need option four, and we need it immediately. Trump must be removed from the machinery of war before his recklessness becomes irreversible. If we fail to stop this now, history will not say we were uninformed. It will say we were warned and did too little.

________________________________

Read full article here:

https://www.qasimrashid.com/.../the-war-on-iran-has-four...

Join our movement for justice. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to Let’s Address This: 

https://www.qasimrashid.com/subscribe

 

Michael Roberts: Venezuela and oil

   Venezuela and oil

by Michael Roberts

Within hours of the US military strikes on Venezuela and the capture of its president, Nicolas Maduro, President Trump proclaimed that “very large United States oil companies would go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”  Trump did not hide that a major reason for the attack and kidnapping of Maduro was aimed at putting the US in control of Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, described as “our oil” by Trump.  

Venezuela holds the world’s largest oil reserves – about 303 billion barrels, or 17% of global reserves – surpassing OPEC+ leader Saudi Arabia, according to the London-based Energy Institute. But despite its vast reserves, Venezuela’s crude output remains far below capacity. Production, which once peaked at 3.5 million barrels per day in the 1970s (over 7% of global output), fell below 2 million bpd during the 2010s and averaged just 1.1 million bpd last year.

The U.S. is now the world’s biggest producer thanks to the so-called shale revolution in the 2000s. But that has meant the world is increasingly awash in oil, as supply outstrips global demand growth, which is slowing due to crawling economic expansion in most major economies, and to the gradual switch to renewables for energy production. Indeed, at the time of the attack on Venezuela, the price of benchmark Brent Crude was close to five-year lows at about $60 a barrel. 

Trump may be telling the global oil majors that he is running Venezuela now and they can pitch to invest and make ‘piles of money’, but the oil companies may be less sure of that. An ex- Chevron executive Ali Moshiri, is making a pitch to raise $2bn to take over multiple Venezuelan assets.  But this is a punt and the likes of Chevron itself, which already has a licence from the US to drill and produce Venezuelan oil, may not be so gung-ho.

The cost of restoring Venezuela’s oil production will not be cheap as the industry has a dilapidated drilling infrastructure and the oil extracted is ‘heavy’. Extracting this extra-heavy oil requires drilling lots of relatively shortlived wells — a process quite similar to US shale oil production — then mixing the sludge with lighter oil or naphtha so it can flow through pipelines before being exported and refined. Producing ‘heavy’ oil requires advanced techniques, such as steam injection and blending with lighter crudes to make it marketable. Also, the country’s reserves are mostly concentrated in the Orinoco Belt, a vast remote region in the eastern part of the country stretching across roughly 55,000 square kilometres (21,235sq miles).

Moreover, the oil glut has already started to hit profits on further exploration and extraction. The US shale industry’s cumulative losses in the 2010s reached close to half a trillion dollars.  Everything depends on the “break even price,” which has been estimated at an average of about $60 per barrel for American shale. All this is occurring against a backdrop of global oil supply growing faster than demand, with the International Energy Agency projecting global supply increases of 3 million barrels a day in 2025 and a further 2.4 million in 2026, against demand increases of only 830,000 barrels in 2025 and 860,000 in 2026. Jorge León from Rystad Energy estimates that roughly doubling production to 2mn barrels by the early 2030s would cost $115bn — some three times ExxonMobil and Chevron’s combined capital expenditure last year. Could Exxon and Chevron make that profitable in the current world supply and demand balance for oil, especially as such ‘heavy’ oil would need to be sold below the benchmark price?

However, there are other factors behind Trump’s move against Venezuela.  The new National Security Strategy makes it clear: the Monrow doctrine of the 1820s is back on steroids.  Back then, President Monroe declared that European nations must not interfere or try to control Latin America, as this was now the ‘sphere of influence’ for the United States of America.  Now under Trump, globalisation has given way to ‘Making America Great Again’ by firmly establishing Latin America as the US imperialism’s backyard.  That means no country can be allowed to resist US policy and interests.  ‘Friendly regimes’ must be installed to enable both privileged American use of resources and the ability to deny those to competitors. That means growing Chinese influence and investment in the region must be blocked – while Venezuelan oil made up just 300,000 of the 11.3m barrels China imported each day in 2025, according to the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies, companies from the People’s Republic had gained a foothold in Venezuela’s oil-drilling industry.

Back in 2024 at the time of the disputed re-election of Maduro, I pointed out that Venezuelan capitalism was tied closely to the profitability of the energy sector, which was in a death spiral after the collapse of oil prices after 2010 and US sanctions.

The gains for the working class achieved under Chavez in the 2000s were only possible because oil prices reached their zenith.  But then, commodity prices, including oil, dropped. That more or less coincided with Chavez’s death.  The Maduro government lost the support of its working-class base as hyperinflation destroyed living standards. The Maduro government increasingly relied not on the support of the working-class but on the armed forces, which had special privileges.  The military could buy in exclusive markets (for example, on military bases), had privileged access to loans and purchases of cars and apartments and received substantial salary increases. They also exploited exchange controls and subsidies, for example, selling cheap gasoline purchased in neighbouring countries with huge profits.

The tragedy of Venezuela is that everything depended on the oil price; there was little or no development of the non-oil sectors, which anyway were in the hands of private companies. There was no independent national plan of investment controlled by the state. Given US sanctions on top of that and the continual subversion of the government, the Chavista revolution’s days were numbered.

It’s a lesson for all of Latin America.  The de-industrialisation of the sub-continent since the 1980s and increasing reliance on commodity exports subject all these economies to the volatile swings of commodity prices (agricultural, metals and oil). That makes it impossible for any independent economic policy, given the weakness of domestic capitalists and economies under the shadow of American imperialism.

Michael Roberts Book Reviews: Books of the year 2025

Books of the year 2025

by Michael Roberts

Every year at this time, I look back at the books that I have reviewed during the year on this blog. This time I shall include some that I did not review but now consider might interest readers.

Let’s start with some mainstream works that attracted much attention. In the US, Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, writers at liberal mainstream The New York Times and The Atlantic, respectively, was greeted with enthusiasm by many mainstream economists politically on the Democrat wing.  But the book’s arguments are less a critique of Trumpism and all his works, than an attack on what authors consider are leftist economics. The authors reckon that ‘the left’ had lost their ability in (Biden) government to carry out great projects that could deliver the things and services that working people (called the ‘middle class’ in America) need.  That’s why the Democrats lost to Trump in 2024.

The US needed to get back to making stuff to meet people’s needs: achieiving ‘abundance’, not redistributing existing wealth; the economy must grow, not stagnate. Too many well-off ‘liberals’ were only interested in things like regulations on pollution, or on stopping housing projects, or new roads etc. These liberal policies are standing in the way of just allowing capitalism (or to be more exact, capitalist combines) to get on with delivering. 

There is much truth in the authors’ argument that America is no longer delivering on basic needs; and it is falling behind in implementing important technologies. But is it true that why America is failing to deliver a decent, reasonably priced health service is because of too much regulation and nimbyism ‘(not in my backyard’)?  Is it true that America has failed to deliver a high quality education service for young people without huge student debt because of too much regulation and cultural elitism?  Is it true that America’s roads and bridges are falling apart because of planning regulations and legal actions? 

The authors make much of the housing crisis in America – a crisis that they blame on regulations, local opposition to planning etc.  But whatever truth there is in that, it pales into insignificance with the real cause of the housing crisis. There are just not enough homes being built, even though US population growth and household formation is slowing.  Yes, we need more stuff and an ‘abundance’ of what working people need. But this book directs its sights towards planning regulations as the obstacle to abundance not to the real blockages imposed by the vested interests of the fossil fuel giants, the private equity moguls, the building and construction companies, and private sector control of America’s health and education.

Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future by Dan Wang has been praised to the skies for its analysis of the differences between the US and China and why China is gaining ground. Wang, a research fellow at the right-wing Hoover History Lab at Stanford, argues that the contrast between the two superpowers is not because of different economic systems, but due to an American elite that is made up of “mostly lawyers, excelling at obstruction, versus a Chinese technocratic class, made up of mostly engineers, that excels at construction”.  To me, this seems a stretch, to say the least. Surely China’s rise to threaten US economic hegemony is more due to high rates of productive investment, and an industrial strategy directed by the state and led by state enterprises, compared to a US economy that mostly engages in investing in speculative financial assets and ‘business services’.

China In Global Capitalism by Eli Friedman, Kevin Lin, Rosa Liu, and Ashley Smith starts from the premiss that China is a capitalist economy, fundamentally in the same mode as the US. Indeed, China is imperialist in the same way as the US – both are in rivalry to dominate the world. This is a majority view among the left in the West, although not among mainstream economists. They are divided between those who consider China as ‘communist’ because it has no liberal democracy and those who reckon China’s economic success is due to its adoption of capitalism after Deng in the late 1970s.  The authors take basically the same position as the latter mainstream economists. China is not socialist because it has no workers democracy, billioniares and a large capitalist sector.  So it must be capitalist and even imperialist. Readers of this blog know that I take a minority view: namely that China is not capitalist because capitalist markets and companies do not dominate investment; and capitalists do not control the government.

Having sold a million copies in China in 2024, How China Works by Xiaohuan Lan provides an alternative view, namely that China’s economic success is based not on a revival of capitalist progress, but instead on state investment driven by the five-year planning cycles. The “commanding heights” of the economy: banking, electricity production, railways, heavy industry, shipbuilding, shipping and universities are in state hands and the state prioritizes the support of the broader economy and the national interest above profits. But Lan goes to the other pole, arguing that China is in the ‘primary stage’ of socialism and on the road to full socialism. I leave the reader to decide who has a better grasp of the nature of the Chinese economy: Friedman, Lin and Smith or Xiaohuan Lan.

Let us move onto some other Marxist works. Canadian Marxist sociologists Murray EG Smith and Tim Hayslip have written a profound and wide-ranging book that aims to elaborate and popularize the principles of ‘dialectical reasoning’. The book’s full title is Thinking Systematics: Critical-Dialectical Reasoning for a Perilous Age and a Case for Socialism.

Karl Marx declared “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” Smith and Hayslip add to this observation: “Philosophers have only interpreted human thinking in various ways.The need, however, is to improve it – greatly.” The authors argue that dialectical reasoning is essential if humans are to improve their understanding of the natural world, human society and the relationship between the two. Their particular paradigm of critical-dialectical reasoning, the authors call Thinking Systematics (TSS). TSS refers to methods and ways of thinking that encourage a more systematic (scientific) view of the world, one that substantially improves our ability to discover “objective truths about the current human condition and to revolutionise our individual and collective understandings of a larger world that most of us engage with far too passively.”

The authors recognise that formal logic (e.g. A = A, but not B) is foundational and useful in many circumstances. But it is inadequate when dealing with change, both in nature and in society. How can these insights be applied to current problems and controversies? One example, in my view, is that dialectical reasoning can help us to understand the nature of the Chinese economy and state. As above, many say that it is capitalist; others say it is socialist. In my view, it is neither. How can that be? In formal logic A = A, but not B. So China must be either capitalist or socialist. But when thinking dialectically (or ‘systematically’), China can be seen as an economy in transition: it is ‘in between’.  “Socialist China” is no more a correct description than “capitalist China.” If we rely on a strict formal logic, this is confusing. But dialectical reasoning cuts through the confusion by allowing us to see China through the lens of uneven and combined development using the concept of transitional forms.

Güney Işıkara and Patrick Mokre have published an insightful book that explains how Marx’s theory of value operates to explain the trends and fluctuations in modern capitalist economies. Called Marx’s Theory of Value at the Frontiers – Classical Political Economics, Imperialism  and Ecological Breakdown, the title tells the reader that the book is about taking Marx’s law of value towards what they call its ‘frontiers’, namely markets and trade; imperialism and the global environmental crisis.

In their book, Isikara and Mokre show how Marx’s value theory is essential to understanding the key issues facing the world in the 21st century. The authors offer new and revealing empirical data measuring the level of value transfer through trade and corporate value chains from the Global South to the imperialist North. They argue powerfully that deviations between market prices, production prices, and labour values are central to understanding international value transfers due to differential capital compositions and rates of exploitation, as well as explaining the central role of rent and accumulation in the capitalist-induced ecological crisis.  As such, the book is “a handbook for Marxist practitioners”.

Robert Dees has written an opus of over 1700pp in two huge volumes, called The Power of Peasants – the economics and politics of farming in medieval Germany.

Dees argues that, contrary to mainstream economic history, peasants or farmers in overwhelmingly agricultural ancient and medieval economies played an essential role in advancing civilisation in Europe. Civilisation in this context means raising the productivity of labour through improvements in farming technique and technical innovations—the farmers’ “creative genius”—and thus the living standards and the health of the multitude. The peasants were not some amorphous dull mass that were just victims of class rule by Roman slaveholders or feudal lords. They had agency; they fought on many occasions (not often successfully) to break the grip of the ruling class. When they succeeded and gained a degree of independence in production and control of the surplus produced, they took society forward. Dees provides a new explanation for the causes of the Peasant War of 1525 in Germany and the long-term effects of its defeat—both contrary to existing scholarship. This will be of particular interest in this 500th anniversary year of that event.

The most powerful book of the year is William I Robinson’s Epochal Crisis. Robinson is a professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a prolific award-winning author.

In Epochal Crisis, Robinson has delivered a searing analysis of the demise of global capitalism in the 21st century. He defines that crisis as composed of three factors: the end of globalization in trade and finance; increased financialisation of the major economies; and “an unprecedented and multidimensional crisis that points to the impending exhaustion of global capitalism’s capacity for renewal”.  In effect, Robinson argues that the various contradictions in 21st century have merged into what many call a polycrisis: “the current crisis is like no other. An epochal crisis signals the irreversible decline in capitalism’s capacity to reproduce itself.”

There is much in these arguments, but I have some caveats.  Robinson rejects Marx’s theory of crises based on the law of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, preferring the melange provided by Ernest Mandel who tried to ‘merge’ Marx’s law of profitability with an underconsumption theory of slumps.  Mandel opposed what he called a ‘monocausal’ explanation.  Robinson also rejects Henryk Grossman’s theory of crises, which I think follows Marx, to move more in favour of Rosa Luxemburg’s underconsumption theory.  I have dealt with these confusions on several occasions, here and here. Also, Robinson follows the majority of Marxists who argue, as above, that China is capitalist and imperialist.

Most interestingly, having told the reader that capitalism is in an existentialist, epochal crisis that cannot be reversed, Robinson says this will still take decades to work out.  In the meantime, “the most likely scenario is a new round of capitalist expansion through digitalization that momentarily restores growth and profit rates yet aggravates the underlying contradictions that drive the crisis. Radical redistributive and regulatory reform advocated by sectors of the transnational elite may attenuate social polarization, expand markets, and mediate intra-capitalist competition and interstate conflict, but only for a time being.”  I agree that this is very likely, but it does shove back the culmination of epochal crisis well into this century.

Addendum: earlier this year I reviewed some other books. You can find the review here. https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2025/08/18/dollar-decline-the-failures-of-mainstream-economics-and-epochal-crisis-reviews/