Tag Archives: Iran

Sleepwalking into WWI, and WWIII

Leave a reply

A remarkable book by Christopher Clark on WWI posits that WWI was an accident, entered into, by sleepwalk. That is, it was not brought on by the elaborate plan of an evil aggressor, Germany or Britain, acting for dominance or economic gain, but rather that many individuals precipitated the deadly conflict through a series of ever-more dangerous, unplanned steps. The great diplomats went on vacation following the June 28, 1914 assassination, and each minor actor felt a need to push for a previous status quo, emboldened by the certainty that nothing bad would happen, since none of the last acts had caused any serious harm, at least not to them. There was, in Clark’s view, a general numbness caused by earlier wars: in China and Russia, in Serbia and Albania, and by Italy’s invasion of Africa, and the fact that there had not been a major, deadly conflict since the Crimean war. In this environment, one nation shoving another was seen as normal conflict until a war broke out that killed millions and toppled four empires: the Russian, Austrian, German, and Ottoman.

Princip shoots Count Ferdinand, June 28, 914. Getty Immage.

Clark points out, too that the Serbs, the folks who started the war, benefited from it. They escaped from imperial control by Austria and from The Ottoman Empire. Self determination was the motivation for the assassination, and it worked too, for the Czechs, Croats, Poles, and communists. In just a few years, the former group got their own countries, and the communists took Russia, something that no one saw coming in June, 1914.

The key sleep-walk steps to war were as follows: In response to the assassination, and a decade of earlier insults, Austria-Hungary, demanded harsh cocessions from Serbia that Serbia found unacceptable. Austria Hungary, backed by Germany and Italy, declared war on Serbia. Russia then mobilized its troops for war with Germany, so Germany declared war on Russia. France, an ally of Russia, then mobilized for war with Germany, so on August 2 – 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Luxembourg and Belgium. Why Luxembourg and Belgium — because they would not allow free transport of German troupes to attack France. This forced Great Britain to declare war on Germany, which, finally, on August 6, brought Austria-Hungary to declared war on Russia, and effectively on the rest of the Allies. Over the next few years, we (the US) were dragged in along with Japan, on our side.

What a mess, but I fear we may be sleepwalking to the same, grim altercation via our wars in Ukraine and Syria. As at the beginning of WWI, there are two big power alliances: NATO including The US and most of Europe, versus a BRICS alliance of Brazil, Russia, India, Iran, China, and South Africa, along with a few minor others. The alliances are now three years into a proxy war in Ukraine, and another one in Syria. So far the declared combatants are Russia vs Ukraine, and Turkey vs Syria, but both sides keeps harassing the other at a higher and higher pace. So far, the sleep-walk steps were that Russia invaded Crimea, in response to some insult, and then attempted to take Kiev. The NATO alliance responded provided limited weapons to Ukraine. But, as these proved insufficient, we (NATO) provided greater and more deadly weapons, plus some volunteer troops. Meanwhile Russia’s BRICS allies are selling drones and missiles into the conflict in return for Russian gold, wheat, and raw materials. One of us, perhaps Ukraine, then cut the RussianGerman gas pipeline, while China seems to have cut important communications cables in the Baltic Sea.

North Korea began sending troops, 12,000 apparently, to fight on the Russian side, while Biden has sent long-range missiles to be used for strikes deep into Russian territory, on logistic centers, train depots, food stores, airports, etc. Putin has threatened a nuclear response, but has done nothing so far beyond sending a few long range, hypersonic missiles against civilian targets and against Ukraine’s power grid. He’s lost some 600,000 Russians, and has lost control of Syria and Armenia, so he has reason to be upset. Ukraine has lost some 400,000, and is still losing territory, but is still demanding total victory, the removal of all Russian forces, including those in Crimea.

The fight has spread to Syria, where the US, Israel, and Turkey have bombed in recent days, something I would call an act of offensive war against a sovereign unstable government. It’s not totally unprevoked, of course. Syria and Iran had been attacking Israel for years from Lebanon, by way of Hezbollah jihadists. Recently Israel took out a major fraction of Hezbollah, and the jihadists (Sunni) seems to have gone back to Syria, and have removed Assad, Syria’s Shia president for life, with help from Turkey, another Sunni Moslem country. This too is an act of war. Assad retains a sliver on the coast where the Russian bases are, the red areas in the map below, but he isn’t popular with anyone at the moment. The rebel leader, Abu Mohammed al Jolani, was a member of Al Quada till 2006, and then member of ISIS (ISIL) under Abu Baghdadi till 2016 at least. He’s still on our terrorist list, though he now claims to be a progressive Moslem. Not everyone is convinced, or happy with him. Syria is divided into seven (or more) control zones, shown on the map below. He could bring peace to Syria, but his path to peace is clearly further war.

On the legal and PR front, we’ve called Russian president Putin a madman and war criminal, we support Turkey’s efforts to overthrow Assad, but complain about his attacks on the Kurds, the yellow areas, and dark green at right, and we both applaud and condemn Israeli President Netanyahu for attacking Syria in the south, and in the red sliver, destroying Syria’s navy. Meanwhile, we (the US) have taken it upon ourselves to attack ISIS (ISIL) camps in central Syria, the grey areas, as well as attacking troops (Iranian Shia) entering from Iraq. By normal definition, this would put us at war with Syria, and perhaps with Turkey since we support the Kurds in their war against Turks.

Recently we’ve decided that the rebel leader, al Jolani, might be taken off the terrorist list subject to a few conditions (I wonder which). We (Biden, Shumer) along with the International Criminal Court have called for the arrest and imprisonment of Israel’s PM Netanyahu. The Turks too have join in on this, while somewhat cheering Israel’s destruction of Assad’s navy. The Druze, allies of Israel (and us?) seem to be at war with al Jolani, and likely the Turks and Iran. They’re in south-east Syria, near Deraa, not shown by a color on the map. Meanwhile, Russia is trying to make peace with al Jolani, to secure their military bases, while Iran (Shia) has reached out to al Jolani (Sunni) in an effort to join with him in a war against Israel. It’s not quite tipped into world war, but it seems awfully close.

One possible peace maker might be the incoming US president, Trump, but the outgoing president, Biden, has done his best to tie his hands, branding him as a felon and seditionist, as well as claiming he’s a Russian asset. European leaders don’t like him either. France’s Macron might a peacemaker, but Macron’s government has fallen. The Germans or Turks might be peacemakers, but the government of Germany has nearly fallen, the economy of Germany is hurting, and Turkey is a combatant, at war with the Kurds and Druze. Iran, and Russia, though not combatants, are directly involved in the fighting, and both countries are under sanction by the US and EU, and the UN is discredited from it’s years helping Hezbolla. I thus see no clear path to peace and no peacemaker who will dial back the drama before we sleep-march into WWIII.

Robert Buxbaum, December 11, 2024

Prosperity guardian; whose prosperity are we guarding?

Leave a reply

The Houtis, a Shia Islamic group, have been attacking ships in the Red Sea, hitting European ships, mostly carrying goods going between China and Europe. They use ballistic missiles plus cheap drones with great effect, targeted by an Iranian spotter ship in the Red Sea narrows, the Bab el Mandab. The US response is “Prosperity Guardian.” We’ve sent four missile destroyers. and the British one. These are arrayed along the entire coastline, too much coast for 5 ships to protect, and we try to shoot down drones and missiles. We manage to shoot down most of the missiles and and drones, but some always get through, and they mostly hit US and British targets. Recently the Maersk Detroit, a US flagged ship and 3 days ago, the British tanker, Marlin Luanda, shown below. It was carrying Russian naphtha headed for China. Some months ago, The Houtis kidnapped a British ship (Jewish owned) and took it to Yemen, as described previously.

British oil tanker, Marlin Luanda, on fire in the Gulf of Aden after being hit by an Iranian missile fired by Yemen’s Houthis. The tanker is hauling Russian naphtha, headed for China.

Iran supplies the missiles, and helps choose targets. According to Kissinger the aim of their attacks, and of the attacks on Israel, is to delegitimize Sunni Moslem countries like Egypt and Turkey that have made peace with Israel and the west. Whatever the motivation, Chinese and Russian ships are not targeted, but our ships are. We don’t attack the Iranian spotter for fear of starting a war. Instead we bomb Yemen, and protect ships carrying Chinese good and Russian oil. Currently 80% of the oil tanker transits of the Suez carry Russian oil (see below).

Most of the oil trade in the Suez is Russian — yellow line. Everyone else is shown in blue-black. It’s down to 0.5 ships per day, on average.

I don’t mind helping European countries get cheap Chinese goods, but I think the the main folks to pay should be the Europeans. We’re firing expensive anti-missiles and we’re showing the strengths and vulnerabilities to the Iranians, Chinese and Russians. Currently it’s our sailors who are at risk. The US trades with China too, but our China trade is not benefitted by ‘Prosperity guardian. Mostly our China trade avoids the Suez Canal, and comes around Africa to Savana or NY, or it comes across the Pacific, directly to Los Angeles. Our India trade most goes the same way. Some used to go through the Suez before the Houtis started attacking.

France and Japan have not joined prosperity guardian. Instead they have chosen to convoy their own flagged ships, even allowing the occasional stringer to tag along. Doing this, they use fewer ships, and it seems to work better than our approach. The picture at left shows a French courvair-escort escorting two French container ships. Note how much bigger the container ships are than the French warship. Should the Houtis’s missiles get too close to a French ship, I suspect that the French would retaliate hard. I think we should switch to following the French model and convoy-protect our shipping, plus whoever wants to tag along.

Map of Yemen and the Red Sea narrows.

Shipping, insurance rates have risen to about 1% of the cargo value. It’s now so expensive that no US cargo carrier will transit the area except when needed to supply our troops. At this point it’s worth asking, “Whose property are we guarding?” Also, is this really worth the lives of US sailors? If it is, why not hit the source of the problem — The Iranian spotter. The behavior of the French and Japanese makes sense to me. Biden’s behavior here does not.

Robert Buxbaum, February 6, 2024. Iran also funds and arms Hezbollah, a group that killed 3 US soldiers two months ago, and who killed several Kurdish allied troops in Syria just yesterday, and have shelled Israel intensely for months. IMHO, you want a few, well defended bases, not in harms way in Syria, but close enough to come back fast, in force.

Disney was a narcissist, like Trump, Putin, Musk, and Martin Luther King. It’s not a disease.

Leave a reply

Among TV psychiatrists, the universal opinion of Trump, Putin, and Musk, that these individuals are narcissists, a psychological disease related to “toxic masculinity.” Musk, for his part claims the excuse of Asperger’s disease, high-functioning Autism. I half agree with the Narcissist diagnosis, and I’m confused by the Asperger’s claim because I don’t believe these folks are diseased. My sense is they have a leadership personality trait, common in all visionary leaders including Disney, Martin Luther King, and Genghis Khan. I’ve argued that it is important for a president to be a narcissist, and have explained Trump’s vision, “Make America great again” as independence.

Psychological narcissism, short for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, is a disease when it hurts the narcissists life. It is defined as a pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, along with an excessive need for admiration. If it just annoys people it/s a disease, but it’s found among leaders, suggesting it’s not all bad. To get you to follow them, leaders present themselves as mini-messiahs, and try to get you to see them that way. They have a plan, a vision. If it’s successful, they’re visionaries. They fight to bring the vision into reality, which is very annoying to anyone who doesn’t see it or want it. But that’s leadership. Without it nothing big gets done.

Disney’s vision. Not everyone was pleased; quite a few considered him a tyrant.

For the narcissist to succeed, he or she must sell the vision, and his ability to get it done. The plan to get there is often vague and unattractive. These details are shared with only a few. You must see the leader there and yourself too, if you’re to fight for it. Disney was particularly visual, see photo. He got folks to buy into a building a magical kingdom with a private police force, where everyone is happy and cartoon characters glide among the paying visitors.

The majority of those who run into a narcissist reject both the vision and the narcissist. They fear any change, and fear that the success of the visionary will diminish them. For that reason, they run to no-bodies. But some see it, and follow, others throw stones. Disney got state officials to exempt him from state laws, and extend normal copyrights. Others smirked, and worked to stop him, but with less energy: it’s hard to be enthusiastic about no Disneyland. The conflict between doers and the smirkers is the subject of several Ayn Rand books, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. She calls the opposing smirkers, “parasites”, “looters”, “moochers,” and my favorite: “do gooders.” It’s for the common good that the narcissist should fail, they claim.

Often these opponents have good reasons to oppose. The Ayatollah Khomeini had a vision similar to Disney: an Islamic Republic in Iran where everyone is happy being a devout Muslim of his stripe. The opponents feared, correctly, that everyone who was not happy would be flogged, hanged, or beheaded. I think it’s legitimate to not want to be forced to be devout. Similarly, with Genghis Khan, or Vladimir Putin. Putin compares himself to Peter the Great who expanded Russia and conquered Crimea. The opponents have legitimate fears of WWII and claim that Ukrainian independence is semi legit. Regarding Musk’s plans to colonize Mars, I note that Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan have come out against it. There is no right or wrong here, but I have a soft spot for the visionaries, and a suspicion of the “smirkers” and “do gooders.”

Genghis Khan. He saw himself as a world changer. Some followed, some didn’t. Those who followed didn’t think he was crazy.

The smirkers and do-gooders include the most respectable people of today. They are thought leaders, who lose status if someone else exceeds them. They are surprised and offended by Martin Luther King’s dream, and Musk’s, Khomeini’s, Trump’s, and Lenin’s. Trump became president against formidable odds, and the smirkers said it was a fluke, he then lost, and they claimed it showed they were right. He may get a second term, though, and Musk may yet build a community on Mars. To the extent that the visionary succeeds, the smirkers claim it was easy; that they could have done the same, but faster and better. They then laud some fellow smirker, and point out aspects of the vision that failed. In any case, while the narcissist is definitely abnormal, it’s not a disease, IMHO. It’s what makes the world go round.

Robert Buxbaum, June 7, 2023

Bitcoin v cash to avoid Trump’s tariffs or ransom a sailor

Leave a reply

The number and cash value of bitcoin transactions has surged in the last two years, and it seems that a lot of the driving motivation is avoidance of Trump’s tariffs. If you want to avoid Trump’s tariffs, claim that the value of the shipment is less than it really is. Pay part via the normal banking system through the bill of lading (and pay tariffs on that) and pay the rest in bitcoin with no record and no taxes paid. The average bitcoin transaction amount has increased to $33,504, and that seems to be the amount of taxable value being dodged on each shipment. As pointed outAs noted in Cryptopolitan, “smugglers attempting to export Chinese goods to the USA illegally have been found to be among the largest purchasers of Bitcoin.” https://www.cryptopolitan.com/is-us-china-trade-war-fueling-bitcoin-price-rally-to-7500/

Average transaction amount for several crypto currencies. The amount has surged for Bitcoin, blue line.

Bitcoin isn’t the only beneficiary, of course, but it is the largest. The chart at right shows the average transaction value of the major cryptocurrencies. The average for most are in the dollar range that you’d expect for someone evading tariffs in containerized shipments. Someone who wants to import $100,000 worth of Chinese printers will arrange to have them shipped with a lower price bill of lading. The rest of the payment, 1/3 say, would be paid by a bitcoin transfer whose escrow is tied to the legally binding bill of lading.

Number of transactions per day for several cryptocurrencies, data available from Bitinfocharts.com

Bitcoin does not stand out from the other cryptocurrencies so much in the amount of its average transaction, but in the number of transactions per day. As shown at left there are 333,050 bitcoin transactions per day at an average value of $33,504 per transaction. Multiplying these numbers together, we see that Bitcoin is used for some $11.2 billion in transactions per day, or $4.1 trillion dollars worth per year. The legitimate part of the US economy is only $58 billion per day, or $21 trillion per year. The amount will certainly rise if further tariffs are put into effect. 

Most other cryptocurrencies have fewer transactions per day, and the few that have similar (or higher) numbers deal in lower amounts. Etherium is used in 2.5 time more transactions, but the average Etherium transaction is only $679. This suggests that the total Etherium business is only $586 million per day. The dollar amounts of Etherium suggests that it is mostly used for drug trafficking, 

Cash-money is the old fashioned way to avoid tariffs, buy drugs, and do other illegal money transfers. This method isn’t going away any time soon. A suitcase of $100 bills gets handed over and the deal is done. Though it gets annoying as the amounts get large, there is a certain convenience at the other end, when you try to spend your ill-gotten gains. Thus, when Obama wanted to ransom the ten sailors that Iran had captured in 2016, he sent paper bills. According to the LA Times, this was three airplane shipments s of all non-US currency: Euros and Swiss Francs mostly. The first payment was $400 million, delivered as soon as Iran agreed to the release. The rest, $1.3 billion, was sent after the prisoners were released. Assuming that the bundles shown below contained only 100 Euro notes, each bundle would have held about $170 million dollars. We’d have had to send ten bundles of this size to redeem ten US sailors. The US ships, the laptops of sensitive information, and the weapons were granted as gifts to the Iranians. Obama claimed that all this was smart as it was cheaper than a war, and it likely is. The British had 15 sailors captured by Iran in 2009 and paid as well. In the late 1700s, John Adams (an awful president) paid 1/4 of the US budget as ransom to North African pirates. He paid in gold.

These are supposedly the pallets of cash used to ransom our sailors. Obama has justified the need to transfer the cash this way, and indeed a ransom is a lot cheaper than a war.

Obama could have ransomed the sailors with Bitcoin as there was hardly enough Bitcoin in existence, and the Iranians would have had a hard time spending it. In general, it is hard to spend Bitcoin on anything legal. Legitimate sellers want proof that they’ve paid. As a result, a buyer generally has to exchange bitcoin for bank checks — and the financial watchdogs are always sniffing at this step. Things are simpler with paper money, but not totally simple when there is no apparent source.

Iranian released this picture of the US sailors captured. Obama ransomed them for $1.7 billion in Euros.

To get a sense of the amount of paper money used this way, consider that there are $1.1 trillion in hundred dollar bills in circulation. This is four times more money’s worth than the value of all Bitcoin in circulation. Based on the wear on our $100 bills, it seems each bill is used on average 30 times per year. This suggest there are $33 trillion dollars in trade that goes on with $100 bills. Not all of this trade is illegal, but I suspect a good fraction is, and this is eight times the trade in Bitcoin. The cost of transferring cash can be high, but it’s easy to make change for a bundle of $100 bills. There is fee charged to convert Bitcoin to cash; it’s often in excess of 1%, and that adds up when you do billion-dollar kidnappings and billion dollar arms buys. In case you are wondering how German uranium enrichment centrifuges got to Iran when there is an export embargo, I’m guessing it was done through an intermediary country via cash or Bitcoin transactions.

It’s worth speculating on whether Bitcoin prices will rise as its use continues to rise. I think it will but don’t expect a fast rise. Over a year ago, I’d predicted that the price of Bitcoin would be about $10,500 each. I’d based that on Fisher’s monetary equation, that relates the value of a currency to the amount spent and the speed of money. As it happens I got the right dollar value because I’d underestimated the amount of Bitcoin purchases and the speed of the money by the same factor of four. For the price of a Bitcoin to rise, it is not enough for it to be used more. There also has to be no parallel rise in the velocity of transactions (turnovers per year). My sense is that both numbers will rise together and thus that the bitcoin price will level out, long term, with lots of volatility following daily changes in use and velocity.

As a political thought, I expect is that Bitcoin traders will mostly support Trump. My expectation here is for the classic alliance of bootleggers and prohibition police during prohibition. The police salaries and bonuses depended on liquor being illegal, and bootleggers knew that their high prices and profits depended on the same thing. I thus expect Bitcoin dealers will support Trump as a way of protecting Bitcoin profits and value. Amazon’s owner, Jeff Bezos is strongly anti-Trump, I suspect, because Amazon profits from no-tariff imports.

Robert Buxbaum,  July 10, 2019. Here are my thoughts about tariffs and free trade, and here is Satochi’s original article proposing Bitcoin and explaining how it would work. As for Iran, they’ve announced a fee for any ship in the Gulf of Hormuz. If you don’t pay, you might get attacked as a Japanese tanker recently was. My guess is payments are made in cash or Bitcoin to avoid embarrassing the payer.

Wilsonian Obama vs the Trump Doctrine

2 Replies

As best I see it, Obama’s approach to world peace was a version of Woodrow Wilson’s: he consistently supported left-leaning, popular groups and governments, even when they were anti-American over pro-American kings, generals, and dictators. Obama heaped money and praise on elected leaders of Iran and the Palestinian Authority, while condemning Israel, and encouraging Democrats to walk out of a speech its PM. He then sent a statement to be read on the floor of congress that the Israeli PM  had nothing to say. Similarly, Obama refused to negotiate with Kim Jung Un of North Korea, a dictator in his eyes, but he had no problem with Raul Castro. Leftists, in his view, were for the masses, and thus democratic. Such democrats were on the side of the angels in his view, though Castro’s Cuba was not exactly free.

The co-head of the Democratic Party wears a shirt that reads "I don't believe in borders." It's a Moslem Brotherhood slogan. They do not believe in borders between Gaza and Israel, but do believe in them between Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

The co-head of the Democratic Party wears a shirt that reads “I don’t believe in borders.” It’s a globalist slogan, a Moslem Brotherhood slogan. The Trump doctrine requires boundaries between ‘turf.”

One of the most popular, if violent groups on the world stage was (is) the Moslem Brotherhood. A few months after becoming president, he gave his first foreign speech at Cairo University,  making the Wilsonian request to include the Brotherhood here and in all further negotiations. The Moslem Brotherhood was anti-American and left leaning, and they favored elections. On the other hand, they had assassinated Egyptian president Anwar el-Sadat and Egyptian prime minister Mohammad Pasha just a few years previous. They had also tried to overthrow the government of Egypt and Jordan by force, and had tried to assassinate Egyptian president Nasser and Jordan’s kings Abdullah and Hussein, unsuccessfully. Including the Brotherhood was symptomatic of a general problem of Wilsonian diplomacy; it provides no good way to tell the good guys from the bad without putting them in power. Some hints: the Brotherhood afforded no rights to women or gays; they had no clear distinctions from Hezbollah, Hamas, or Al Qaeda; and they were anti-American and anti Israel to the extent that they shouted death to both.

Even though the Moslem Brotherhood was Sunni-Moslem, a fair number in the mid-east cane to claim that Obama had included them because he was a Shiite Moslem, and just using them to overthrow more-stable Sunni governments of Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Here’s a bit from an Iraqi MP, and from Saudi TV making this claim. Here too is a joke about Sunni and Shia to help you keep the two groups straight. Whatever his motivation, the outcome was the so-called Arab Spring (2011) uprisings that overthrew pro-American regimes in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia and Turkey. It also brought the end of a free press in Turkey, and trouble for pro-American regimes in Bahrain, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. After the Brotherhood murdered the American ambassador in Libya and his (few) US guards, Obama blamed the death on some Jewish film-makers. My sense is that Obama was unwilling to believe that a fellow leftist of the Brotherhood would lie to him and murder our ambassador just to get at billions of dollars of Libya’s oil.

Trump, his daughter, el Sisi, and the King of Saudi Arabia. No Emir of Qatar.

Trump, Melania, the King of Saudi Arabia, and  el-Sisi of Egypt at a meeting in Riyadh with other friendly leaders; no Emir of Qatar, no Muslim Brotherhood.

Wilson lived to see the Mid-east parts of his 14 points lead to disaster in country after country (those were points V, XI, and XII for the Woody Woo fans). Obama similarly backed Kurdish and Hezbollah “moderates” only to see them turn sides and fight one another, or fight against our ally Turkey, or join together and form ISIS. He backed Palestinians in Gaza too, and saw them murder gays and suspected traitors on TV. He supported “moderate” Turkey, and found his Turkish allies killing his Kurds. Obama fueled a murderous tribal war, like Wilson had done, based on the best of intentions, and an American naiveté about how the world works.

Closer to home, at the very end of Obama’s presidency, he ended the registry of the National Security Entry-Exit System (NSEERS) intended to track terrorists. He closed this border program because it was racist in his view. Most of the illegals caught were Moslems or brown-skinned. Republicans seem to agree that a border-security program like this is problematic, especially where children are involved, but they claim it is better than letting in terrorists, or criminals, or the occasional human trafficker. Lacking anyone with a better answer, they elected Donald Trump, a man who claimed he’d bring peace by building a wall.

Trump made his first mideast speech in Saudi Arabia, but unlike Obama, he invited only pro-American, authoritarian leaders. He left out the Muslim Brotherhood and the rulers of any “republican” government that chanted “Death to America.” Trump announced that the US will not dictate how leaders should run their countries, or how people in these countries should live. Instead, we would be a friend to our friends, and that we would mediate disputes where necessary and helpful. There was also a threat against “bad guys” understood to be the enemies of America.

This “Trump doctrine” seems (to me) to have been borrowed from Charles (Lucky) Luciano, a New York mob boss who kept peace between the various mob families of New York and New Jersey by keeping the territories separate and clear (similar to Trump’s wall). Luciano allowed the various family heads to do what they wanted on their own turf, and offered to mediate disputes (see the similarity?). He also treated to hit those who hit him, and he took no guff. So far, Trump’s version of this seems to be working. The mideast is far calmer than when Obama was president, perhaps because its leaders understand Trump better, and Trump may have negotiated an end to the Korean war. Wilsonian Democrats (Obama) claimed that you can’t negotiate with a murderous thug like Kim Jung Un, but Trump has no problem — they both like walls. Besides, Trump points out that the alternative is nuclear war.

I suspect that Trump is hated by the Europeans is the comparison with Obama. Obama spent our money liberally, on them and on their issues, while Trump does not. A thought: if the Europeans think a president is spending enough, he's spending too much.

Obama spent our money liberally on the Europeans while Trump does not. A thought: if the Europeans think you spend enough, you’re spending too much.

How does Trump hit back? For one, he refuses to serve as free protector for those who can defend themselves. Trump has threatened Germany saying they must pay for their own defense, and has cut funding to the UN Human Rights commission and the Paris climate council, groups he considers pointless or worse. More recently, he ended Obama’s constraints on natural gas exploration and exports. In 2017 US gas exports rose by $4B, a factor of four from 2016, dramatically lowering the price of natural gas on the open market. Several oil nations were hit by this including Qatar the main gas exporter in 2014 (Russia is now) and a main funder of Al Jazeera, and of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Robert Buxbaum, June 26, 2018. I’ve never understood why people expect Marxist leaders to be peaceful. Marx himself claims that the mode of production determines a country’s social, political and intellectual life. A leader hoping to control the latter must control the former with a war-like ferocity if he’s to be a Marxist, and even the most milk-toast Marxists have done so.

Why I don’t like the Iran deal

2 Replies

Treaties, I suspect, do not exist to create love between nations, but rather to preserve, in mummified form, the love that once existed between leaders. They are useful for display, and as a guide to the future, their main purpose is to allow a politician to help his friends while casting blame on someone else when problems show up. In the case of the US Iran-deal that seems certain to pass in a day or two with only Democratic-party support, and little popular support, I see no love between the nations. On a depressingly regular basis, Iranian leaders promise Death to America, and Death to America’s sometime-ally Israel. Iran has acted on these statements too, funding Hezbollah missiles and suicide bombers, and hanging its dissidents: practices that lead it to become something of a pariah among its neighbors. They also display the sort of nuclear factories and ICBMs (long-range rockets) that could make them much bigger threats if they choose to become bigger threats. The deal just signed by US Secretary of State and his counterpart in Iran (read in full here) seems to preserve this state. It releases to Iran $100,000,000,000 to $150,000,000,000 that it claims it will use against Israel, and Iran claims to have no interest in developing multi-point compression atom bombs. This is a tiny concession given that our atom bomb at Hiroshima was single-point compression, first generation, and killed 90,000 people.

Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile, several stories high, brought out during negotiations. Should easily deliver nuclear weapons far beyond Israel, and even to the USA.

Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile, new for 2015. Should easily deliver warheads far beyond Israel -even to the US.

The deal itself is about 170 pages long and semi-legalistic, but I found it easy to read. The print is large, Iran has few obligations, and the last 100 pages or so are a list companies that will no longer be sanctioned. The treaty asserts that we will defend Iran against attacks including military and cyber attacks, and sabotage –presumably from Israel, but gives no specifics. Also we are to help them with oil, naval, and fusion technology, while leaving them with 1500 kg of 20% enriched U235. That’s enough for quick conversion to 8 to 10 Hiroshima-size A-bombs (atom bombs) containing 25-30 kg each of 90% U235. The argument in favor of the bill seems to be that, by giving Iran the money and technology, and agreeing with their plans, Iran will come to like us. My sense is that this is wishful-thinking, and unlikely (as Jimmy Carter discovered). The unwritten contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

As currently written, Iran does not recognize Israel’s right to exist. To the contrary, John Kerry has stated that a likely consequence is further attacks on Israel. Given Hezbollah’s current military budget is only about $150,000,000 and Hamas’s only about $15,000,000 (virtually all from Iran), we can expect a very significant increase in attacks once the money is released — unless Iran’s leaders prove to be cheapskates or traitors to their own revolution (unlikely). Given our president’s and Ms Clinton’s comments against Zionist racism, I assume that they hope to cow Israel into being less militant and less racist, i.e. less Jewish. I doubt it, but you never know. I also expect an arms race in the middle east to result. As for Iran’s statements that they seek to kill every Jew and wipe out the great satan, the USA: our leaders may come to regret hat they ignore such statements. I guess they hope that none of their friends or relatives will be among those killed.

Kerry on why we give Iran the ability to self-inspect.

Kerry on why we give Iran the ability to self-inspect.

I’d now like to turn to fusion technology, an area I know better than most. Nowhere does the treaty say what Iran will do with nuclear fusion technology, but it specifies we are to provide it, and there seem to be only two possibilities of what they might do with it: (1) Build a controlled fusion reactor like the TFTR at Princeton — a very complex, expensive option, or (2) develop a hydrogen fusion bomb of the sort that vaporized the island of Bimini: an H-bomb. I suspect Iran means to do the latter, while I imagine that, John Kerry is thinking the former. Controlled fusion is very difficult; uncontrolled fusion is a lot easier. With a little thought, you’ll see how to build a decent H-bomb.

My speculation of why Iran would want to make an H-bomb is this: they may not trust their A-bombs to win a war with Israel. As things stand, their A-bomb scientists are unlikely to coax more than 25 to 100 kilotons of explosive power out of each bomb, perhaps double that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But our WWII bombs “only” killed 70,000 to 90,000 people each, even with the radiation deaths. Used against Israel, such bombs could level the core of Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. But most Israelis would survive, and they would strike back, hard.

To beat the Israelis, you’d need a Megaton-size, hydrogen bomb. Just one Megaton bomb would vaporize Jerusalem and it’s suburbs, kill a million inhabitants at a shot, level the hills, vaporize the artifacts in the jewish museum, and destroy anything we now associate with Israel. If Iran did that, while retaining a second bomb for Tel-Aviv, it is quite possible Israel would surrender. As for our aim, perhaps we hope Iran will attack Israel and leave us alone. Very bright people pushed for WWI on hopes like this.

Robert E. Buxbaum. September 9, 2015. Here’s a thought about why peace in the middle east is so hard to achieve,