A Rhyme in History?

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing rise of tension between the US and Iran, which latter includes ties with Russia and the People’s Republic of China, The Wall Street Journal had this bit:

Iran is an important partner for Moscow and one that it wouldn’t want to lose, especially after the US deposed Nicolás Maduro, an ally of Russia, in Venezuela last month. At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t likely to come to the aid of Khamenei if US strikes appear on the verge of bringing him down.
“These relationships are highly pragmatic, highly transactional,” said Alexander Palmer, a fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, on Tehran’s security ties to Russia and Iran. “They don’t have a sufficient strategic interest in Iran to be willing to go to war with the United States over the country.”

Early in WWII, the UK and Russia invaded Iran and occupied most of the country. The two had agreed to leave Iran six months after the war against Nazi Germany had ended. At the end of those six months, the UK began withdrawing, and Russia indicated it intended to stay for control of Iranian oil. It was only under pressure from the US that the Russians ultimately withdrew.

These days it’s another contest between Russia and the US for controlling influence in Iran. Should the current Iranian government fall, there will ensue two questions: one is whether a stable government be quickly formed and installed. In that event, there likely won’t be much Russia can do, especially as bogged down as the barbarian is in Ukraine.

The other question flows from the political chaos that will develop if no national-capable government is quickly formed. In that event, Russia will move to gain overt control over Iran’s domestic affairs, particularly with regard to Iran’s oil, of which Russia’s primary need is denial of the oil to the world market in order to prop up the prices Russia can get for its own oil, and with regard to Iran’s war materiel production, especially its drone production. From this, the question expands to include the US response to Russia’s moves for control and the contest between Russia and the US over that control.

Deterrence and the Need for It

Posted on by
Reply

In the present…negotiations…between the US and Iran, the US wants

…Iran’s nuclear programs eliminated, regional proxy forces disbanded, and ballistic missiles dismantled. Iran is seen as unlikely to agree to the last point, because it doesn’t have much of an air force and relies on missiles as its main deterrent.

Iran won’t agree to eliminating its nuclear programs, most especially its nuclear weapons development and (future) production programs, either. Nor will it agree, in practice, to disbanding its proxy terrorist entities, no matter how much the mullahs and their negotiating representatives might lie about agreeing to do in any agreement.

The bit about deterrence is what’s important in this post, though. One component of this failure to agree is on the US’ negotiators. Iran has no serious fear of attack by its neighbors, and so no real need of deterrence, since Iran has nothing in the way of resources, either in raw materials or in production output, that any nation might want that can’t be gotten far more cheaply and far more beneficially for both that (those) nation(s) and for Iran through freely achieved trade agreements than from invasion, conquering, and occupation. Not even from putative adversaries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Pakistan. Not even in tit for tat, blood for blood honor vengeance attitudes in the Middle East.

The US needs to make this case directly. President Donald Trump (R) already is hinting at it with his trade deal commentary, but he needs to be bluntly explicit about it.

A Proper Response

Posted on by
Reply

People’s Republic of China’s President Xi Jinping is looking to bully President Donald Trump (R) into stopping arms sales to the Republic of China in order to ease Xi’s coming invasion of the RoC. Xi has ordered the PLA to be ready for the invasion by 2027, and the arms sales to the RoC are critical in forestalling that invasion or defeating it should it come.

As the Wall Street Journal‘s editors note,

giving in to Mr Xi’s threats on Taiwan would send a dangerous signal about America’s reliability as an ally. The Taiwan Relations Act obligates the US to supply defensive weapons to the island. If Mr Trump abdicates on that obligation, China will immediately use it to tell the Taiwanese people that America can’t be trusted to defend them. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines will also get the message that Mr Trump’s priority in the Pacific is China, not their mutual defense.

It also would tell Xi that the US is a paper tiger, easily cowed, and his pressure on us would only increase.

The proper responses to Xi’s bullying attempt are two. One is to increase the sales of weapons—including offensive weapons, now—and to greatly accelerate their delivery. The other is to increase our own combat suites in and around the South China Sea and the island of Taiwan, with particular attention here to the Taiwan Strait. Every time Xi waxes angry and threatening, we should up the ante further, each time much more than the prior increase.

Who Owns our Economy?

Posted on by
Reply

Greg Ip, a writer for The Wall Street Journal, says those of us older than 65 do.

As of the third quarter of last year, people 70 and over controlled roughly 39% of all equities and mutual funds owned by households, compared with 22% in 2007, according to Federal Reserve data. Their share of net worth—assets minus debts—was 32%, up from 20% two decades earlier.

And

Wealth accumulates with age, so people at retirement tend to have much more than younger generations, a pattern evident in Fed surveys back to 1989.

And so on.

Even were that true, it’s only a temporary ownership. What Ip missed is this truism: we can’t take the economy, or our wealth, with us when we relocate to Dirt Nap Acres. We leave that wealth to those younger generations, our children, and to a variety of charities and endowments, all of which benefit those younger generations.

All that means that tomorrow, those younger generations will own our economy, starting well before they become the next geezer owners of the economy.

It’s a generational cycle, and that background is the framework within which the economy’s business and political cycles play out.

California Teacher Strikes

Posted on by
Reply

More accurately, teacher union strikes in California.

A wave of teacher contracts is up for renegotiation now, thanks to a strategy the unions implemented a few years ago to synchronize expiration dates. Dozens of California school districts are in talks, with some already at an impasse or in mediation.
…
By coordinating negotiations across the state with the threat of strikes, the unions aim to escalate funding battles from local school boards to the state legislature, said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, a union representing more than 300,000 educators. …
“This resets the power dynamic,” Goldberg said.

There’s this, too:

Total enrollment in the district has fallen by about 37% since 2018-19 to just over 390,000 students, officials say. Over that span, the number of teachers has held steady at around 25,500 while overall staffing has increased 15%.

Can you say “featherbedding,” boys and girls?

Kids’ public school education would suffer from a strike prolonged by school boards’ refusal to deal with unions “negotiating” in blatantly bad faith? How would anyone tell the difference? Kids in California already are afflicted by an education regime in those public school environments that’s so bad as to border on child abuse.

School boards need to screw their collective courage to the sticking post and tell the unions and their baldly excessive demands to go…pound sand.