A European Perspective On Central Bank Digital Currency

Authored by Steven Guinness,

Throughout 2019 I posted numerous articles on the subject of central bank digital currency (CBDC’s) and how simultaneous reforms of payment systems throughout the world are being undertaken in preparation for the full digitisation of money.

I have demonstrated through the words of central bankers themselves how the goal of introducing digital currency is an integral part of their plans over the next decade. It is on record that global planners want to ‘reset‘ the current financial system and replace it with a new set up underpinned by intangible assets. Global elites refer to this as either the rise of the Fourth Industrial Revolution or a ‘new world order‘ of finance. What is a carefully preordained agenda has been fashioned to appear as nothing more than the innocent evolution of technology. It is a deception that can be challenged using the communications issued by central banks.

Rather than rely on supposition, let’s allow those within the central banking community to speak for themselves.

In November 2019 Johannes Beermann, a member of the German Bundesbank responsible for cash management, gave a speech in China called ‘Cash and digital currencies from a central bank’s perspective.’ Beermann confirmed that cash circulation in Germany is on the rise, with the Bundesbank having issued over half the total value of euro banknotes now in circulation. ‘There may be less cash around‘, said Beermann, ‘but we are far from being cashless.’

Beermann went on to say that new methods of payments ‘tend to evolve in stages‘, and that ‘the transition towards a society with less cash has to be driven by the user and not the supplier.’ But even though a large proportion of German citizens are still demanding banknotes, it has not prevented the Bundesbank from openly discussing the possibility of a central bank digital currency superseding cash in the future.

Publicly, the Bundesbank remain at the stage of viewing blockchain and distributed ledger technology as ‘promising‘, with ‘central banks open to them in principle.’ The ‘transformation‘ of the payment landscape, therefore, remains in flux and ‘anything but complete.’

As mentioned by Beermann, what has propelled the issue of central bank digital currency to the forefront of debate is the prospect of Libra, a new global payment system proposed by Facebook which would be built upon blockchain technology. It has prompted discussions on the need for a ‘pan-European digital payment solution‘. Prior to the announcement of Libra and subsequent criticism by central bank officials, digital currency was largely a niche concept within the mainstream. Only now has it begun to take a more prominent role, and given central banks the platform to shape the narrative on the future of money.

Near term, however, public issuance of central bank digital currency is not on the horizon. ‘We should go one step at a time‘, cautioned Beermann, who believes that cash will ‘continue to enjoy great popularity in the euro area.’

Following on from Beermann was Benoit Coeure, who later this month will step down as a member of the executive board of the European Central Bank to head up the Bank for International Settlement’s Innovation BIS 2025 initiative. In discussing ‘a European strategy‘ for ‘the retail payments of tomorrow‘, Coeure brought up the subject of CBDC’s and payment systems. As with Beermann, he stressed the need for a ‘pan-European market-led solution‘, one that transcends national boundaries and becomes the accepted standard throughout the entire European continent. But as we have come to expect from global planners, ambitions on this scale are advanced gradually. Which is probably why Coeure remarked that ‘global acceptance should be a long-term goal.’

The ECB, according to Coeure, will ‘continue to monitor how new technologies change payment behaviour in the euro area‘. This is predominately in response to a decline in the demand for physical money. The key takeaway from Coeure’s speech was in declaring that the implementation of central bank digital currency would ensure that ‘citizens remain able to use central bank money even if cash is eventually no longer used.’

This is why the notion of central banks being opposed to digital currency and seeing it as a threat to their supremacy is nonsense. With cash comes anonymity, and with that an inability to track and trace the economic behaviour of individuals. It was Mark Carney who back in 2018 declared data to be ‘the new oil‘. What central banks want is for every citizen to become entirely dependent on an all digitised system that the banking elites control. For instance, the growth of contactless payment technology is just one element which has greatly assisted them in this endeavour.

Another voice that is prominent on the subject of digital currency is Francois Villeroy de Galhau, governor of the Bank of France. Speaking in December last year (Central bank digital currency and innovative payments), de Galhau talked about the emergence of ‘new players‘ in the field of payments and how they have taken the initiative to transform the payment industry. De Galhau sees this as a challenge for banks, and potentially even a ‘threat to European sovereignty‘ if these players are based outside of Europe (most notably China).

As you might expect, de Galhau proposed a two fold response to this ‘threat‘. First, central banks should increase the speed on new payment solutions, and second they should consider the viability of introducing central bank digital currency.

In de Galhau’s own words:

We first have to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the digital revolution to develop a genuine pan European payment solution.

We as central banks must and want to take up this call for innovation at a time when private initiatives – especially payments between financial players – and technologies are accelerating, and public and political demand is increasing.

This stance is exactly in line with those of Johannes Beermann and Benoit Coeure, and reinforces the coordinated nature of central bank communications. The innovations of private developers are not so much a threat as more an opportunity to position central banks as the lynch pin of a future all digital system. It is why the likes of the Fed and the Bank of England are engaged in reforming their payment systems. The plan seems to be that the private sector spearheads the technological side, whilst the central banks act as the gatekeepers on aspects such as coverage and regulation. It is they who will ultimately determine who gains access to the next generation of payment systems and who does not, through a swathe of new regulatory requirements.

2020 is the year when the encroachment towards CBDC’s will kick up a notch. In France, de Galhau wants to begin experimenting with the technology over the next few months. It will amount to a test bed for the Euro system as a whole, and for de Galhau will ‘make looking into the possibility of an ‘e-euro’ one of its next focuses.’ The Bank of France will also take part in the BIS Innovation Hub, which will be led by Benoit Coeure. As shown in previous articles, the BIS are at the forefront of the central bank digital currency agenda.

But where will banks start with their experimentation? CBDC’s can be classified on two levels – wholesale and retail. Wholesale refers to payments made exclusively between financial sector firms, whereas the retail variant would be for general consumption at the public level. De Galhau believes that there would be ‘some advantage in moving rapidly to issue at least a wholesale CBDC.’ This would benefit central banks given that a limited release would enable them to iron out deficiencies before moving towards a full scale release that in the end would be at the expense of banknotes.

Finishing out 2019 was a speech by Mark Carney at a farewell dinner in honour of Benoit Coeure. Here, Carney explained the necessity behind central banks and private innovators working together to build a new financial system. The goal is to ‘provide the
best-in-class payment infrastructure that can enable private innovators to deliver the payment products and services our citizens need.’ Infrastructure that is of course controlled by the central banking system. From the Bank of England’s perspective, they plan to ‘allow new entrants access to the same resources as incumbents, while holding similar risks to similar standards.’

Central banks are making every attempt to convince those interested that innovations in the field of payments will result in broader competition and the growth of a decentralised network of operators. If the extent to which global industry is scrupulously monopolised by a handful of corporations is anything to go by, I highly doubt a CBDC future will be decentralised. An indication of this is in how developers and central bank officials have spoken of endorsing ‘permissioned‘ blockchain systems over ‘unpermissioned‘. The developers behind Libra want to use a permissioned network, meaning access is restricted to participants. On the opposite side today you have Bitcoin which uses unpermissioned blockchain. This is one of the reasons why central banks have cited Bitcoin as both an unstable asset and a risk to financial stability. But whilst they may speak out against Bitcoin, what they have not done is ostracise the technology behind it.

So far in 2020 we have heard from Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann and ECB governor Christine Lagarde on the prospect of digital currency. In light of Facebook’s Libra, Weidmann was asked in an interview whether the ECB should counter it with it’s own digital currency. ‘I don’t believe in always calling for the state right away,’ said Weidmann.

Whilst central banks continue to quietly advance their digital currency objectives, a narrative playing out within the financial media is that private innovations such as Libra represent a threat to the financial system due to a lack of regulatory oversight. This has created a sense of distrust with private led innovations. Important to recognise is how CBDC’s are a medium to long term goal. When banks are ready to launch digital currency, they will want it to be in an environment where people are increasingly looking to global institutions to provide stability in an increasingly unstable financial system.

As with fellow central bank officials, Weidmann pledged that central banks ‘will provide cash as long as citizens want it to.’ My concern is that as digital payment options become ever more convenient and cash usage falls, citizens will overlook the obvious dangers of entrusting their life assets to a digital only construct.

In a separate interview, Christine Lagarde was quizzed on whether creating a cryptocurrency was ‘a legitimate task for the ECB‘.

Innovation in the area of payments is racing ahead in response to the urgent demand for quicker and cheaper payments, especially cross-border ones. The Eurosystem in general and the ECB in particular want to play an active role in this field, rather than just acting as observers of a changing world.

I think we can safely take that as a yes.

When you combine all the comments raised there is one overarching message. Central banks are more than prepared for the digital revolution, primarily because they are the leading architects behind its inception.

Irans Ukrainian PS752 stupidity or False Flag to start World War 3

DisruptiveFare.com - 1/10/2020 -- A number of philosophies and the science of Quantum Physics, as well as Intelligence Analysis; have a common expression "There are no accidents" - a phrase abused by self-help gurus making a buck explaining to people that 2+2=4.  During the first 'wave' of Iran's response to the killing of their notorious warlord and leader, Iran lobbed 'tens' of missiles at US bases in Iraq and during the same moment, Ukrainian flight PS752 was shot down or bombed out of the sky.  All evidence points towards surface to air missiles, Russian made.  But no evidence suggests that it was the Iranians that launched it (why would they shoot down a plane with mostly their own people on it, during a day of retaliation for the slaying of their leader?).  

First, for those who are interested in the deep politicis of the situation, read this MUST READ spook analysis of who this guy really is and the history of the Iran-US conflict.  In a nutshell, Soleimani was responsible for many low brow tactics such as using women and children as human shields, teenage suicide bombers (telling them you will go to paradise if you die in the name of Jihad), and baiting Israeli attacks on schools and nurseries by using them as military bases (a nasty propaganda tool, when reporters see mamed babies in blood everyone feel solidarity for Palestinians).  Without getting into a local debate about Israeli politics, those with no skin in the game like most average non-Judaic Americans must understand there are two types of Muslims.  The non-violent kind are like Buddhists who want to be left alone to pray and enjoy their life.  The violent kind are aggressive, and believe the most holy life is "Jihad" in which you are legally (according to their laws) allowed to kill any non-Muslim, which can include lying, trickery, torture, deception, or mass murder.  Soleimani had operated in Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other middle east theaters against the US. Here is just one passage from the above analysis, again - this is a MUST READ if you want to understand the significance of this hit:

War of Deception Qassam Soleimani was the embodiment of deception, a creative genius at the art of warfare, operating on the Shiite maxim that lying to a non-believer is not a sin but a virtue in defense of  umma, the community of faith. As a champion of asymmetric warfare, he was a master deceiver, but then again so is the Shiite Antichrist known as the Dajjal. At minimum, there's moral ambiguity in his career record, rather than the stark black-and-white portrait of duty and self-sacrifice being promoted to his fanboys in the Revolutionary Guard. The official biography presents this hardened murderer as a brilliant young officer in the 1980s Iraq-Iran War, specifically along the western front when Iraqi jets were spraying Iranian defenders with nerve gas secretly provided by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. That indeed might have seemed proof enough that the USA was a Satanic power, even though Rummie's secret authorization was in blatant violation of American law and congressional oversight. Despite a deficit in air power, Soleimani designed a counterattack based on maneuvers through the Kurdish highlands, outflanking the Iraqi ground force on the plains. The official biography omits the fact that Iran's brightest and best officer achieved his regular army troops' deep penetration maneuver by pinning down the Iraqi armored offensive with suicide bombings by Iranian teenagers. The mullahs promises these naive lads a reward of 24 virgins in the afterlife for blowing up the prized target. With that pleasant dream implanted in their tiny skulls, the Iranian boys crawled at night toward the Iraqi Republican Guard battle tanks and would jump aboard before pulling the cord to the detonator, that is, if they got past the automatic weapons fire. For a grown man to coerce a naive youth from some rural village with a cynical lie about a harem in the afterlife is an unforgivable sin, heaping shame on the war criminals who claim to be theologians. If this is "God's will", then what's left for the Devil?Of course, that cynical deceiver of children Soleiman never intended those youths to stop the Iraqi charm offensive. Their suicidal efforts, most of them being cut down by machine-gun fire, was a mere distraction, shifting away astounded enemy attention while the Iranian Army was infiltrating across the Kurdistan mountains deep into Iraq. The life-wasting ploy was awarded with career advancement. The deposed Shah, for all his crimes against political prisoners, never did anything comparable to that depraved level.

As others have pointed out, the US has a history of using fake or wrong evidence such as video footage released immediately after an incident.  Since the fake 911 show, there is reason to be suspicious of facts that fit the story almost too easily; for example in the case of 911 - although zero evidence from airplane passengers was found in the 911 rubble, passports of the highjackers were found lying on the ground by FBI in perfect condition.  Ok so if it wasn't the Iranians, who was it?  Possible suspects:

• CIA or Pro-CIA forces inside Iran
• Israel, or Pro-Israel forces inside Iran
• Russia, via electronic means, or via spies inside Iran (missile likely from Russia)
• Rogue agent inside Iranian forces - not everyone is for global war with USA, and not every Iranian supports the government (including in the military)

There is absolutely no motive that it was the Iranians.  However if it was one of the above named suspects, Iran would have a big motive to blame 'technical failures' or just stupidity, without admitting that it was one of their own by purpose.  The last thing Iran would want to admit is they have weak security, or that there are anti-Iranian forces operating inside their country.  Information coming from Iran is suspect, but we do know that there have been anti-government protests for several years.  We're not suggesting here who was behind the plane attack, we are simply eliminating the most logical suspect: Stupidity.  Because it is the easiest conclusion to draw, and because of the timing, it does seem to indicate that there is more to this story than meets the eye.  If you look back in history, false flags like Pearl Harbor, 911, Gulf of Tonkin and others - all have a seemingly fitting story that's a 'case closed' as of the first reports of the event.  (This is a personal account, hours after the 911 attacks I remember receiving a phone call from an Italian Illuminati banker who had clients like the Catholic Church and several billionaires, who says "It was Bin Laden, we're going to war in Afghanistan."  which didn't strike me until years later, how did he know this at that time?  It was weeks before anything public surfaced as far as 'evidence' of attacks)

Perhaps the US attack on Soleimani was a threat to the growing axis between Russia - China - Iran (North Korea).  These countries are controlled by despots.  Now enter the world of Hypersonics, which both China and Russia have (or are developing).  For an idea of what this means, watch this CIA sponsored RAND promo video:

This is a game changer to asymetric warfare.  Another point on this topic, there is no way to protect yourself from Hypersonics, other than to 'fire back' and obliterate the enemy.  Of course, if there are any false positives, an exchange could start by accident.  There is only 6 minutes to decide.  ICBMS are 20 minutes - 40 minutes.  Not only that, but Hypersonics are so fast that they don't even need to be armed - just the impact from such a high speed would create a crater in the target city.  Now the big question is:  Will Putin share this technology and/or Nuclear technology with Iran?  We hope not.  But the US isn't being very helpful.  

In fact, Russia has been on the fence.  Instead of making Russia a partner, domestic policicians mostly Democratic and mostly Deep-State but also "NeoCons" Republicans and others, have isolated and abused Russia.  We have accused Russia of many bad things, we've done nothing to show Russia our intention of being an ally.  In fact, we have used Russia as a fake enemy so much that we have pushed them to be a real enemy - not in a hard way but in a way that they support the "Axis of Evil" Which is Iran-China-NorthKorea.  Russia is a neighbor and was forced there by sanctions and a cold US attitude.  America should have instead offered business partnership with Russia, exploring the Artic together for example, or building a land bridge highway between Novosibirsk and Alaska. 

Russians are Christians and have a shared culture and history with early Americans, being involved in both European and Asian politics, and have even helped the US at key times like during the Revolutionary War.

Anyway it's too late for Détente with Russia they have been pushed east too far and now we risk World War 3 at the mere press of a button - but in this case it wouldn't be Russia vs. USA directly it would be Russia supplying Iran with weapons and technology.  Could Putin really do this, knowing that he'd be risking losing Moscow and other major Russian cities?  Perhaps, but there are other scenarios.  Just like the US has war hawks, there are crazy war hawks in Russia, who could do it without even Putin's knowledge.  For example in Andreyeva Bay any terrorist group could have penetrated this lightly guarded perimeter and taken nuclear waste literally just sitting on the ground for decades in large quantities.  No, this wouldn't allow them to make a proper bomb, only a 'dirty nuke' but put this spent fuel on top of a bomb and it could make a major city uninhabitable.  Or in another scenario, the guards could have just sold it on the black market for $100 Million and go to Switzerland.  And as Trump has pointed out, Obama did give Iran billions of dollars (it wasn't a wire payment, it was released frozen money.  And it wasn't exactly $150 Billion, but the whole sum in question was far higher, according to Illuminati journalist David Rothkopf).

The politics here are important because it would have allowed Iran to buy such loose Nuclear fuel from cash starved Russian cadets who are not only paid coins to work they are also abused.  For those who aren't following what's really going on in Russia, recently a new recruit brutually murdered 8 of his abusers, who engaged in ritual hazing, physical and sexual abuse, sleep deprivation tortue, and other forms of psychological abuse.  The Russian army is hell and it's mandatory, not only they are poor they have an incentive to disobey their supervisors by doing something against protocols, like letting a shipment of Uranium pass by the inspector on it's way to Tehran.  In fact the discussion about Iranian development of their own Nuclear program is absurd.  In fact the Russians stole most of the key Nuclear knowledge through espionage and Communists in USA that were sympathetic.  

Instead of courting Russia on this topic, Democrats have pressed Trump into an end-game scenario whereby any positive relations with Russia will play into the Russia Hoax conspiracy theory that Trump is somehow Putin's puppet and/or that Russia has the capability to influence a foreign election.  If there are any sane officers in the deep state and intelligence apparatus, they should be speaking continually with Sergey Lavrov and his associates on this topic (known as 'backchannel').  This is a dangerous game they are playing here; Iran is not Iraq and cannot be 'toppled' so easily like Chile, Afghanistan, and other US client states.  In fact the history of the CIA's post World War 2 regime change playbook comes from Kermit Roosevelt's attempt at regime change in Iran, one of the few incidents which the CIA has publicly admitted the US was behind.

Oil politics have changed, making the stakes here even higher.  The US is not dependent on middle east oil anymore.  If oil spikes to $150 it will be good for oil producers everywhere, it's questionable what OPECs response would be in such a scenario.  The Iranians know they are no longer holding all the cards as far as oil is concerned.  In fact they are really grasping at straws.

One last point on Israel, American Jews should applaud Trump for this move instead of berating him, as the US has no skin in the game in the region.  Israel has a real existential threat being surrounded by 1 Billion + Muslims who mostly are not happy with their treatment of the Palestinians and their Muslim friends in the region.  But by partnering with Israel this is also now an existential threat for USA, with technology like hypersonics that could be delivered to Iran in a day by a single pissed off and abused Russian soldier.  Whether you suport Trump or are a TDS suffering liberal, this was a genius move slicing off the head of the snake with minimal effort.  Of course there can grow more snakes however Soleimani was experienced and trained in terror and significantly more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden (Trained by CIA), on top of which he had a budget and country behind him (Iran).

Perhaps by looking into who shot the plane down and why, we can begin to understand who wants this war and unwind their plans.  

Remember that World War 3 will be largely an asymmetric information war, so no assumptions should be made.  Considering the mainstream media in the US has been hijacked by special interests, we need to cultivate new sources of info which are unbiased, such as Zero Hedge (there are likely many, ZH has become a market leader).  

Support deep research, visit our sponsors: 

Learn the secrets of the financial system with Splitting Pennies the Book.hop for crap you don't need with money you don't have to impress people you don't know @ ubuy.me

Global Intel Hub - Leading intelligence on markets, politics, science, and more.

RESEARCH ARTICLES

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/kerfuffle-war-trumps-iran-de-escalation-succeeds 

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/israel-unveils-breakthrough-aerial-laser-sword-missile-intercept-system

https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/we-want-iran-behave-normal-nation-us-imposes-sanctions-virtually-entire-iran-economy

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/video-captures-alleged-moment-missile-strikes-boeing-737-over-tehran

 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/putin-oversees-hypersonic-missile-test-day-after-trump-boasts-secret-us-program

“I'd Like To See Them Call Me": How Trump Used An Encrypted Swiss Fax Machine To Defuse The Iran Crisis

From Zero Hedge: 

Even as Trump was rage-tweeting on Jan 4, two days after the killing of Iran's top military leader Qassem Soleimani, that he would hit 52 targets including Iranian heritage sites for potential retaliation if America suffered losses following an Iranian attack, warning that "those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD", the US president was busy, secretly using an encrypted back-channel to bring the world back from the brink of war.

As the WSJ reports, just hours after the U.S. strike which killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the Trump administration sent an urgent back channel message to Tehran: "Don’t escalate." The encrypted fax message was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Iran, one of the few means of direct, confidential communication between the two sides, U.S. officials told the WSJ. Then, in frantic attempts to de-escalate even as top US and Iranian leaders were stirring patriotic sentiment and nationalistic fervor, the White House and Iranian leaders exchanged further messages in the days that followed, which officials in both countries described as far more measured than the fiery rhetoric traded publicly by politicians.

The Swiss ambassador to Iran, Markus Leitner, here with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani in 2017, helped shuttle messages between the U.S. and Iran. Photo: Swiss embassy.

It worked: a week later, and after a retaliatory, if highly theatrical, Iranian missile attack on two military bases hosting American troops that purposefully inflicted no casualties, Washington and Tehran have stepped back from the brink of open hostilities (for now).

"We don’t communicate with the Iranians that much, but when we do the Swiss have played a critical role to convey messages and avoid miscalculation," a senior U.S. official said.

While a spokesman at Iran’s mission to the United Nations declined to comment on the exchanges, he said "we appreciate [the Swiss] for any efforts they make to provide an efficient channel to exchange letters when and if necessary." Another Iranian official said the back channel provided a welcome bridge, when all others had been burned: "In the desert, even a drop of water matters."

In retrospect, it should hardly be a surprise that the perpetually neutral Swiss were the last recourse to prevent potential war.

As the WSJ notes, from the Swiss Embassy, a Shah-era mansion overlooking Tehran, the country’s role as a diplomatic intermediary has stretched through four turbulent decades and seven presidencies, from the hostage crisis under Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama’s nuclear deal. But it was seldom tested like this.

Here's how it happened.

The first American fax was sent immediately after Washington confirmed the death of Soleimani, the most important figure in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the U.S. officials said. It arrived on a special encrypted fax machine in a sealed room of the Swiss mission - the most enduring, and secret, method since the 1979 Islamic Revolution - for the White House to exchange messages with Iran’s top leadership, especially when the two nations are concurrently parading in public media in their bellicose propaganda to earn political brownie points.

The equipment operates on a secure Swiss government network linking its Tehran embassy to the Foreign Ministry in Bern and its embassy in Washington, say Swiss diplomats. Only the most senior officials have the key cards needed to use the equipment.

Early on Friday morning, just hours after Soleimani's death, Swiss Ambassador Markus Leitner, a 53-year-old career diplomat, delivered the American message by hand to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. Predictably, Zarif responded to the U.S. missive with anger, according to a WSJ source: "[U.S. Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo is a bully,” he said, according to one U.S. official briefed on Zarif’s response. “The U.S. is the cause of all the problems."

The US may indeed be the cause of all the problems, but it also has all the weapons, and despite the pompous rhetoric, Iran knew full well it could not hope to escalte in tit-for-tat fashion without risking virtually everything. Which is why, Iran was quick to take advantage of Leitner's mediation.

The Swiss ambassador - who regularly visits Washington for closed-door sessions with Pentagon, State Department and intelligence officials eager to tap his knowledge about Iran’s opaque and fluid politics - spent the next several days after Soleimani’s killing shuttling back and forth in a low-key but high-wire diplomatic mission designed to let each side speak candidly. It was a vivid contrast to the jabs of President Trump and Mr. Zarif on Twitter.

Shortly after Trump tweeted on Jan 4 that the US had picked 52 Iranian targets for eventual escalation, Zarif responded just as belligerently on the next day: "A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage," he wrote. "Through MILLENNIA of history, barbarians have come and ravaged our cities, razed our monuments and burnt our libraries. Where are they now? We’re still here, & standing tall."

However, at the same time as Zarif was seeking to emulate Trump's twitter bluster, the Iranian foreign minister called the Swiss ambassador to take a message to the U.S. It was more restrained, and subsequent statements from both sides helped prevent miscalculations, the officials said.

“When tensions with Iran were high, the Swiss played a useful and reliable role that both sides appreciated,” said a senior Trump administration official. "Their system is like a light that never turns off." Unlike Twitter, that is, which has emerged a medium for spreading premeditated, fake, outrage to mass consumption and whose sole purpose is to distract from what is truly happening behind the scenes.

It's not the first time the Swiss have helped pull back the middle east from the brink of mushroom clouds: they have served as messengers between Washington and Tehran since 1980, in the wake of the seizure of the American Embassy—and 52 hostages —in Tehran by Iranian revolutionaries. Swiss diplomats call the role the “brieftrager” or “the postman.”

In the years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Swiss shepherded messages to help avoid direct clashes. When President Obama assumed office, Switzerland hosted the talks that led to a nuclear deal. When Washington lifted sanctions, Swiss businesses had an early jump on rivals.  When Trump reimposed sanctions, he gave the Swiss a phone number to pass the Iranians, saying: “I’d like to see them call me.”

So far, Tehran has continued to speak through the Swiss.

* * *

Why has this archaic method of communication proven so effective at pulling the world back from the edge of crisis?

Former Swiss ambassadors say the diplomatic channel is effective because the U.S. and Iran can trust a message will remain confidential, be delivered quickly, and will reach only its intended recipients. Statements passed on the back channel are always precisely phrased, diplomatic, and free of emotion, something which is clearly impossible on Trump's favorite social media platform, twitter, which he uses for precisely the opposite purpose: to spark outrage and to appeal to base emotions of his core supporter group.

Switzerland, a landlocked country of nine million with no standing army where everyone owns a gun, parlays its role as the world's neutral "postman" (and until recently, secret banker) to lever access to the great powers.

And speaking of Swiss bank, the WSJ notes that currently Swiss diplomats are working to get Washington’s green light for Swiss banks to finance exports to Iran that aren’t subject to sanctions—like food and medicine. "We do things for the world community, and it’s good," said a former ambassador. “But it is also good for our interests." Of course it is: for the privilege of funding the most basic human needs, those same Swiss banks can charge exorbitant rates of interest in a country that for years has had a negative official interest rate.

Iran isn’t the only geopolitical hot spot where the Swiss Embassy represents U.S. or other countries’ interests after the breakdown of diplomatic relations: the Swiss now holds six mandates including representing Iran in Saudi Arabia, Georgia in Russia and Turkey in Libya and the U.S. in Cuba according to the WSJ. In April 2019, the Trump administration asked Bern to represent it in Venezuela but President Nicolás Maduro’s government has yet to approve.

And so, if the world has any hope of avoiding an all out war between US and Iran, it will have to go through Bern, at least figuratively. As tensions between Washington and Tehran have escalated, the Swiss backchannel has remained active. In December the two countries released prisoners at the same time at a special hangar in the Zurich airport - U.S. special envoy on Iran Brian Hook and Iran’s Zarif sat in separate rooms as the Swiss directed the carefully choreographed exchange.

"The Swiss channel has become enormously important because of what they can do in the short term to lessen tensions,” said former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who worked with the Swiss on the prisoner exchange. “It’s the only viable channel right now."