Tag Archives: foreign policy

Keys to Watch

Posted on by
Reply

Damian Paletta, of The Wall Street Journal, has identified some keys to watch to see if the deal with Iran is a real one.

The Strait of Hormuz. Trump suggested that the Strait of Hormuz…would be opened after the deal is formally signed on Friday.

We’ll see. Iran has a long and hoary history of welching on its deals.

The blockade. The White House has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ships, with the goal—essentially—of economic strangulation. … If the blockade is removed, Iran might be much more likely to continue negotiating with the White House on other things, as it could ease pressure on their economy.

Paletta’s interpretation is wrong. With pressure taken off, the men and women of Iran’s government and of its shadow government, the IRGC, will be much less willing to do any serious negotiation. They will, instead, be much more likely to continue tapping us along.

Israel. One of the biggest strains on the talks in the past months has been Israel, which has continued bombing inside Lebanon. Iran has said this was a deal breaker. Trump initially brushed aside concern about Israel’s strikes against Iran, but in recent weeks he has become furious that Israel wouldn’t stand down.

This is President Donald Trump’s (R) mistake. The fight between Iran and Israel, with the former using its satrap Hezbollah for its continuing fight, is an entirely separate war from the conflict between the US and Iran. Trump needs to openly recognize this and refuse any connection between the Israel-Iran war in Lebanon and our own conflict with Iran.

Horning In

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) has potentially reached an interim agreement with Iran that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz as an international body of water to international shipping, end the embargo, and produce negotiations regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program, with the apparent deal good for 60 days.

France, Great Britain, et al., all declined to provide any assistance at any time during the conflict, bleating that fighting was too dangerous for their militaries. Now that it might be safe enough, though, we get this from Kaja Kallas, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (apparently the longer the title is necessary to manufacture importance for the position), as paraphrased by The Wall Street Journal:

the pact marked a potential breakthrough and her team was ready to assist with nuclear expertise.

No. As usual lately, we’re better off going it alone, rather than having a yoke around our necks. The EU and UK can continue to spectate from the safety of their porches. Cheering optional.

Not “Back to Other Agencies”

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are dismayed that an intel naif like Bill Pulte has been designated the Acting Director of National Intelligence. They go farther and want the whole office of the DNI eliminated altogether. I’ll not go into Pulte’s qualifications, or lack, for the position; my disagreement with the disposition of the office.

Its first director, John Negroponte, quickly hired hundreds of people who duplicated the job of the analytical side of the CIA. It’s now a vast political bureaucracy.

The editors are correct in this criticism.

However.

From the editors’ penultimate paragraph:

In a better world, Congress would use Mr. Pulte’s appointment to eliminate the DNI and send its staff back to other agencies.

No, if that staff really is redundant (and the vast bulk of them are), that better world would see the large excess returned to the private sector, rather than reallocated elsewhere in the government, inflicting their unneeded employment on other agencies.

Better yet would be for Congress to amend the legislation creating the Office of DNI: cap the total number of employees, volunteers, staff on loan to the DNI, and political appointees, Senate confirmable or not, at some low number like 100 and no more. In conjunction with this, explicitly limit the ODNI DOC to coordination among the other intelligence agencies, facilitating communications among them, and the like. Explicitly bar ODNI from doing its own intelligence gathering or fact checking of other agencies’ data, and the like. Give the DNI some teeth: his instruction for an agency to share these data, unredacted, in toto, and immediately, with that (or those) other agency(s) should be directive, not suggestive, with bureaucrats stalling, slow-walking, or outright refusing, being a fireable offence on the DNI’s authority, with the President strongly encouraged to fire the obstructing political appointees.

But as the editors alluded with their own proposal, that’s in an ideal world. We live in a Congressional world, instead.

Duplicity and Mistaken Imperative

Posted on by
Reply

There was a ceasefire agreed between Iran and the US and Israel in the recent US-Israeli conflict against Iran aimed at preventing the latter from acquiring nuclear weapons. Then, amid skirmishing during this ceasefire, which remains in official effect, Iran showed its duplicity by welching on the terms of the ceasefire by insisting, de novo, that Israel’s conflict with Iran’s terrorist satrap Hezbollah, operating in Lebanon, was actually a part of that ceasefire agreement.

That conflict is a separate matter between Israel and Hezbollah, and never has been a part of the ceasefire. Iran’s insistence that it is is Iran’s confession that Hezbollah is an instrument of Iran’s terrorist government, and that lately insistence is a demonstration (as if another one is needed) of the Iran government’s duplicity and intrinsic untrustworthiness.

President Donald Trump (R) has long made clear his abhorrence of war, with its broad destruction and civilian casualty rate. The conflicts Trump has fought despite that abhorrence are emblematic of that, with their brevity, sharpness, and precision, which have vastly limited civilian casualties, including during the current conflict with Iran. In this latter case, sharpness and precision have limited destruction to Iran’s nuclear weapons development-associated facilities and military facilities and personnel. Civilian damage, damage to civilian infrastructure has been remarkably constrained.

Therein lies Trump’s mistaken imperative. In his desire to bring a diplomatic end to the conflict with Iran, he is overemphasizing his abhorrence for death and destruction by acceding to Iran’s insistence that Israel’s separate conflict with Hezbollah be included in any ceasefire agreement: Israel must end its conflict with Hezbollah. Trump pushed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu into agreeing that separate ceasefire.

This is a broad mistake, and it will lead only to a prolongation of both conflicts with concomitant increased death and destruction. The better answer would have been (and still could be) to require Iran and Hezbollah work a separate peace with Israel and to resume full out attacks on Iran, this time with a view to destroying its ability to fight at all, with the conflict continuing in full force until Iran’s government men and women agree to forswear in a provable way its ambition to acquire nuclear weapons and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, including an official statement acknowledging that the Strait is international waters and that Iran has no ambition to control it.

Tradeoffs

Posted on by
Reply

We, as a nation, have three questions that we must answer in order to proceed optimally into the future, according to Matthew Slaughter, of Dartmouth‘s Tuck School of Business, and David Wessel, of Brookings‘ Hutchins Center on Fiscal & Monetary Policy. They’re largely correct, but they miss one Critical Item without which our path into a prosperous and growing future would be severely constrained, if not blocked altogether.

In their question regarding “walls or bridges,” the two argue against walls—tariffs—and for trade globalization as the path to prosperity via competition and its heavily encouraged innovation rates that such free trade creates.

[R]esearch has long shown that globally engaged companies tend to create the good jobs at good wages for which so many Americans are yearning. In 2023, the US parent companies of US-based multinational companies paid their 29.9 million workers in America an average total compensation of $97,078—about 20% above the average in the rest of the private sector.

They didn’t address, though, the downside of their largely unfettered free trade regime. That downside was amply illustrated by the recent Wuhan Virus situation, during which our dependence on the People’s Republic of China’s medicines—and not just for Virus medical supplies, but also for over the counter pain killers and anti-inflammatories, even a variety of flu medicines—was exposed, along with the world’s dependence on the PRC even for simple things like face masks.

The downside was graphically demonstrated much more recently by the PRC’s control over rare earths, from ore through processed rare earths to finished products, and its use of that control to throttle their export and thereby threaten our economy and that of Japan’s.

The Critical Item is this tradeoff. Carry out free trade globalization; it is valuable, but do it within this framework. There are a few items that are critical to our national security and to our economy (there is a lot of overlap between them): those rare earths, the raw materials for medicines. For these, we need to have our own supply paths, wholly contained within our borders, that stretch from dirt in the ground through final product deliverable to the domestic end user. These nationally-contained supply lines need not be the only sources for these materials; it’d be sufficient for them to be in place, actively used, and able to be rapidly expanded during periods when overseas sources become constrained.

That tradeoff will be expensive, but that cost is simply—and necessarily—a cost of maintaining our national security, our ability to defend ourselves, whether militarily or economically. The cost of being unable to will be far greater, and not only fiscally.