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)
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.
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