The 1979 oil shock wasn't
a market event — it was engineered by the same imperial establishment
now trying to pin an economic crisis on Trump. Barbara Boyd exposes the
playbook and explains why unconditional surrender is the cure, not the
cause.
Barbara
Boyd argues that warnings of a 1979-style oil shock after President
Trump’s call for Iran’s unconditional surrender are a manufactured panic
pushed by the City of London’s financial press and anti-Trump figures
to trigger an economic crisis and swing the Midterms. Citing Karoline
Leavitt’s definition of surrender as eliminating Iran’s threat, Boyd
revisits the 1979 Iranian Revolution, describing the Shah’s industrial
and nuclear modernization, opposition from Anglo-American financial
interests, and a strategy of “Controlled Disintegration” associated with
the Council on Foreign Relations’ Project 1980s. She claims the Shah
was overthrown via a human-rights campaign and the Muslim Brotherhood,
leading Khomeini to cancel modernization and enabling an oil shock that
benefited London banks. Boyd says the same playbook is now aimed at
Trump’s pro-worker economic program, but that U.S. energy strength and
security measures reduce oil-shock risk; she concludes that ending the
Khamenei regime would remove a long-standing economic weapon and
ultimately stabilize energy markets.
00:00 The Saturday Wrap-Up - UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER: Wall Street's 1979 Playbook Against Trump - March 7, 2026
02:39 The Shah's Vision and His Fatal Flaw
05:51 The Same Playbook Today - Stopping Trump's Economics
09:34 Unconditional Surrender Is Not the Cause of Economic Chaos, It's the Cure