A Deal Worth Doing…

A Deal Worth Doing…

“We (the U.S.) can’t project power from bankruptcy court.”

-       Senator Rand Paul

By J.M. Hamilton (8-13-15)

Humans, to varying degrees, are all too often narcissistic, xenophobic, and racist.  Some of this might be genetic, and undoubtedly, much of this is learned behavior; some of this is fear driven.  Our brains, and subconscious, are wired for patterned thinking, and are prone to generalizations.  In many instances, we don’t do nuance well.  Once beliefs are hard wired, it can be taxing to learn something new, and many don’t try; but rather, often eschew any and all facts and information contrary to already established beliefs.  It seems that many go out of their way to avoid learning something new.

We can see some of this thinking, or the lack thereof, at play in the current debate over the Iranian nuclear treaty, presently before the United State Senate.

An example of some of the current generalized thinking might be:

U.S. Democracy:  Good

Iranian Theocracy:  Bad

But let’s look at it another way or add a shade of nuance:

U.S. Democracy, owned and operated by a Plutocratic Elite, which owns monopolies and cartels throughout the U.S.:  

Uh, Good… maybe.  Probably not?

Iranian Theocratic Republic, owned and operated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is worth billions generated by monopolies established throughout Iran:

Yes, bad.

Often conveniently omitted from politicians’ and the punditry’s dialogue about Iran is how the CIA, and British government, overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in1953, because they had the audacity to ask for royalty statements from a subsidiary of BP (aka the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company).  When BP failed to deliver the royalty information and was subsequently nationalized, the Iranian democratic government, conveniently, suffered a CIA/British backed coup.  Thus giving birth to one of the nastiest dictatorships ever installed by the Anglo-American governments, under the Shah of Iran’s auspices.  Post –Coup, the Seven Sisters oil companies moved into Iran, and the Shah’s reign of terror ran until 1979, when an Islamic revolution took hold.

Many decades later, one could say the ’53 Iranian coup defines “blowback.”   So with this added shade of nuance:

U.S. Democracy, engaged in CIA sponsored dirty tricks, and supporting a cruel dictatorship in support of an Anglo-American oil cartel:   

Abysmal at best.

Iranian Democracy, nationalizing an abusive British oil monopoly, while Iranian citizens lived in poverty:   

From the point of view of the BP oil monopoly, Bad!

The point I’m leading up to is that arms control and nuclear proliferation agreements are not negotiated in a vacuum.  Nation states pursue their own interests, and the counterparties certainly do not always act as the U.S. government and her citizens would want them to, or like to dictate.  Intertwined and superimposed within arms control negotiations are a deep, and sometimes mutual, understanding of the economics, history, and politics each country brings to the table. 

If we review then these dynamics (economics, history and politics), President Obama’s Iranian deal not only makes perfect sense, but may be a brilliant strategic coup, especially when we consider America’s troubled state of affairs.

Economics & The Military Industrial Complex

J.M.H. has written a couple of pieces recently about America’s debt predicament.   Our private and public debt to GDP ratio, particularly with unfunded and underfunded liabilities added in, is well in excess of 200%.  Our debt burden has grown so onerous that the Federal Reserve has printing trillions to keep the bond vigilantes at bay, help service the debt load, and bailout the Wall Street cartel.

How the U.S. got here was by no accident.  Two major wars were launched during the Bush (W) administration, and metastasized into nation building exercises without end.  To this day, we still have roughly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, and a renewed advisor/troop build up in Syria and Iraq.  These two badly managed wars were pointless exercises, with foreseeable outcomes (i.e. U.S. failure, but MIC management and stockholder enrichment).

These wars effectively bankrupted the nation, and are symptomatic of a mentality (strongly prevalent among Republicans) that believes force and military might are the answer to every foreign policy problem the U.S. faces.

The Obama Administration deserves some credit for attempting to end and prevent the cycle of abuse, suffered by the men and women who serve and the U.S. taxpayer.  For surely, that is exactly what the detractors of the Iranian deal hope to achieve: Start up another Middle East war, this time against Iran.  President Obama took some heat for saying as much within the last week or two.  But anybody who listened to the GOP debate last Thursday evening basically heard the same thing:  A Republican Party that is clamoring for yet another war in the Middle East; a GOP that has learned absolutely nothing from Afghanistan and Iraq (or Vietnam); and who would put this country into an even deeper fiscal hole by starting up another credit card war.  (As an aside, it’s interesting isn’t it… from the perspective of the GOP leadership, there’s plenty on money to go bombing around the globe, but never quite enough money to give teachers a raise, rebuild U.S. infrastructure, or to care for the indigent.)

Of course, war, and waving the flag, are both highly convenient distractions from the real problems that this country faces.  Topics that were conveniently omitted from last Thursday’s Republican debate.  Problems such as:  race relations; ever rising wage and wealth inequality; campaign finance reform; and the obscene amounts of money flowing into U.S. elections.

Senator Rand Paul said it best:  It’s hard to project global power from a bankruptcy court.  The reality is America will never be able to pay back the money it owes, and at some point, this nation too (like Greece and Puerto Rico) will need to default or write down its debt.  In short, the national debt, TBTF banks, and the MIC are all threats to our national security and our financial well being. 

By supporting the Iranian deal, the nation prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power for at least another decade, while also giving America an opportunity to address its very real domestic problems.  Problems the GOP obviously, would rather not address or talk about.

History

If we look back in history, great leaders have acted in a contrarian manner, and pivoted in ways that were completely unexpected to better protect this nation and its people.

President Kennedy, the Demo-Hawk, signed a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviets to protect the planet from nuclear contamination and fallout. 

Richard Nixon, an ardent anticommunist, when the nation was war weary and in the midst of a recession, pivoted to China.  This was done at a time when it was feared in some quarters that China and Russia might unite against the U.S. (when the nation was exhausted and truly weakened, from another failed nation building exercise, called Vietnam).   The pivot to China was an excellent demonstration of both realpolitik (something that J.M.H. is not always a fan of, but it has its usefulness), and the opening of channels of communication with a powerful frenemy.

Ronald Reagan, perhaps the ultimate cold warrior, opened up significant dialogue with Chairman Gorbachev to bring about substantial reductions in both countries’ nuclear arsenal.  This too, was done at a time when the nation was coming out of a significant recession, and still war weary.   Like President Obama’s critics today, armchair warriors, and chicken hawks thought Mr. Reagan had lost his mind, and the criticism was harsh --- such is the power of the U.S. war lobby that President Eisenhower warned us about.  Here, it's particularly useful to note that Reagan took out the Soviet regime w/out firing a shot in anger.  That's the mark of a great leader, and very Sun Tzu.

Nixon and Reagan both had their detractors, at a time when this nation was far less politically polarized than it is today; but in retrospect, we now see that the moves made by the aforementioned Presidents were for the good of the country, and quite possibly shielded this nation from a war, or worse, nuclear annihilation. 

(Interestingly, America was far less polarized under Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan than under President Obama.  The top tax rates for these Presidents, respectively, were/are:  Kennedy 90% income/25% capital gains - the same as under Eisenhower; Nixon 77 to 70% income/36.5 to 27.5% capital gains; Reagan 69% income/28 to 20% capital gains; and President Obama 35% income/15% capital gains.  Is there a lesson here?  Yes, the lower the tax rates on the rich, the more economically and politically polarized our nation becomes, but that’s a topic for another day.)

President Obama has taken another bold pivot, done the unexpected, at a time when the nation is sagging under a mountain of fiscal mismanagement and debt (and two very badly botched wars).  Call this the gift that keeps on giving, left behind by his predecessor, Mr. George W. Bush.  History tells us that the Iranian deal should be viewed in exactly the same light as the deals and relations fostered by Messrs. Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan.  

Don’t just take my word for it… dozens of U.S. Generals have already gone on record stating their support for the Iranian deal.

Really, the Iranians are more dangerous than the former Soviet Union? 

Hardly.  But you wouldn’t know it from the GOP’s cacophony of continuous calls for more war.

Politics

One can learn much about the Iranian deal by studying the parties that oppose it, and their reasons for opposing it.

First, we have the oil rich Arab monarchies or despots, Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., and Qatar.  Also known as our so-called allies in the region.  These monarchies are well known for human rights abuses, abhorrent treatment of women, and the fundamentalist spread of Wahhabism, a most virulent form of the Sunni branch of Islam.  In fact, the oil rich monarchies have been responsible for the expansion of this religion and the chaos that often ensues, in the form of terrorism.  Here, think of ISIS or ISIL, and also, the House of Bin Laden and its ties to The Kingdom, as just a couple of examples.

The U.S. has been kissing up to these monarchies for decades because we needed the oil, and with U.S. military backing, these “royal” abominations have enjoyed considerable power and leverage over the Arab countries of Islamic Shia faith (i.e. Syria, Iraq and Iran).  In short, the U.S. has often run around the globe putting out fires started by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, w/out addressing the root cause, the Kingdoms themselves…. Again, because of the oil.

But the U.S. has rapidly become energy independent, and if like Germany, we push renewables to supplying 33% of U.S. energy needs, we can kiss our dependence on Middle East oil good by, forever.  And good riddance.

The aforementioned monarchies know this, and they especially don’t like a deal with Iran that will reinvigorate the Iranian economy, and drive the price of oil down further, globally.  This is a region that is heavily dependent upon natural resources for state cash flow.  The Middle East also has some of the highest unemployment rates in the world, which makes the region exceptionally volatile, and also makes jihad and fundamentalist Islam appealing.  A resurgent Iran (Shia) will be a direct counterbalance to the impunity with which the Sunni monarchies have been operating in the region for decades.

Here, President Obama’s and the Security Counsel’s (P5+1+EU) goal in striking the Iranian deal appears not unlike former Secretary of State Kissinger’s advocacy of realpolitik.  That is, at a time when the U.S. is over-extended economically, fiscally, and militarily, and our European allies have no will to fight, why not establish a Iranian/Shia force in the region to help offset Saudi/U.A.E./Qatar/Sunni hegemony’s worst excesses?  

Given history, Sunni oppression of a Shia minority is highly destabilizing.

For many of the reasons that Sunni Arab governments don’t like the Iranian deal, Israel, the preeminent superpower in the region, doesn’t like the deal either.  Israel, the only Middle East nuclear power, enjoys supremacy over all the countries in the region, particularly with U.S. backing (which is not going away).  Like any superpower, its regional, perhaps global, dominance is supported by, and conversely related to, the weakness of other Middle East countries.   While a resurgent Iran is not a direct threat to Israel’s primacy, it certainly does make things more challenging; but at a time when the U.S. is growing more energy independent, and winded from decades of failed Middle East military adventures, Israel is well positioned, indeed better positioned than ever, to continue its regional dominance and control. 

In short, nobody screws with Israel, and those that dare, have paid a very dear price.  The U.S. can no longer afford to police the Middle East, and so our allies/proxies/new found friends should, as they have the greatest interest in doing so. It's in the economic interests of all countries in the region to play nicely in the sandbox.

It’s interesting to note that the hawks in the Israeli government have a near lock on the United State’s Middle East foreign policy, by controlling at least one U.S. political party, the Republicans (in fact, GOP candidate Romney said he’d subcontract out Middle East foreign policy to the State of Israel).  Israel is a terrific friend and ally, but does the U.S. really want to subcontract out its foreign policy to any country?  Taking Mr. Romney’s logic a step further, why not pass U.S. sovereignty onto Canada or Exxon?  (Note, a majority of Americans of Jewish heritage support the Iranian deal.)

The GOP receives tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, and additional lobbying efforts, from AIPAC, Big Oil, Sheldon Adelson, and the U.S. defense industry.  These industries, and the aforementioned countries, have a vested interest in: not seeing the Iranian deal go through; war; and they also stand to profit from the deal's failure, mightily.

While J.M.H. is not a fan of Mr. Trump, if he’s said at least one thing truthfully, repeatedly, in the last sixty days, it’s this:  These politicians are owned by special interests, and they do whatever the special interests tell the GOP to do.  Therefore, the GOP leadership’s slavish devotion to Big Oil, the MIC, and right-wing Israeli politicians.

Hence, the extreme optics of nearly every GOP presidential candidate trashing the Iranian deal before the ink was dry, or they possibly could have read the agreement.

The Iranian deal is undoubtedly far from perfect.  But given the economics, history, and politics surrounding the region, the U.S., and members of the UN security counsel (P5+1+E.U.), there is little doubt that this deal is far better than the alternative, War with Iran (a War which will almost assuredly hasten Iran’s march towards nuclear weapons).

For as any world leader is quick to recognize, the U.S. doesn’t mind throwing its martial weight around countries who do not possess nukes; but historically, the U.S. takes a far more diplomatic tack, once a country has acquired nuclear weapons.  That’s not opinion, that’s fact.  A deal that pulls back Iran’s nuclear timetable by a decade or more is a deal worth doing.

The alternative, War with Iran, could prove to be the United States undoing.  The credit cards are maxed, and Mr. Paul’s comment about projecting power from a bankruptcy court is highly prescient.

Copyright JM Hamilton Publishing 2015