Options in Iran

[A]nalysts, lawmakers, and former administration officials all are busily insisting that President Donald Trump’s (R) options for helping the Iranian people are limited. What’s limited, though, is their thinking on the matter.

A limited strike against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s main security force, is unlikely to decide the outcome of the popular uprising….

And

There are nonmilitary options to put pressure on the theocratic leadership, including cyberattacks on military and civilian institutions….

And

A raid like the one that targeted Maduro in his Caracas residence would be far-fetched in Iran, a much larger country with defenses built to protect Khamenei, including a Revolutionary Guard unit known as Vali-ye Amr, which counts several thousand forces.

These are being posited to occur in isolation from each other, though, and that would be unproductive. All of these and more (see below) would need to be done together and in coordination with each other. Nor is there any need to “raid” Tehran to capture Khamenei and his immediate deputies. American and Israeli intelligence are fully capable of tracking these folks’ whereabouts, and there’s no need to attempt capture. Having located them, it would be necessary only to direct the appropriate ordnance onto them in those locations. This is, after all, what both the Israelis and Americans have done with other terrorist leaders, whether Hamas, Hezbollah, Daesh, or Iranian.

There’s also the matter of sanctions, though these would need to be addressed only after the fact.

The US could also offer to remove sanctions that have crushed the Iranian economy, if moderate military and political leaders remove Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his circle of clerics from the government and promise elections for a secular state.

Sanction removal already is on the table as part of their imposition, on the condition that the Iranian government materially and sustainably alter its behavior. That alteration would require the actual removal of Khamenei, et al. Iranian government promises, in any event, are worthless, and actual, provably fair elections would need to be held before sanctions relief could be contemplated.

Peyman Jafari, a supposed expert on Iranian social movements at William & Mary University cautioned that an attack could rally millions in defense of the Islamic Republic.

The foolishness this sort of thing has been empirically demonstrated within the last few months by the Israeli and American attacks on Iran, which resulted in…no one rallying to the government’s defense.

This is one area where John Bolton is on the right track:

Trump would need to hit the Revolutionary Guard’s bases, its volunteer militia known as the Basij, its nuclear and ballistic weapons programs, and its navy, “and that is just to get started.”

Trump has naval and air forces getting positioned in and around the Arabian Gulf, from which broad, simultaneous, and sustainable actions can be taken—not in constant successive waves, ideally, but on a shoot-look-shoot basis, where the shoot is each wave of attacks. It’s necessary only to act.

What’s the Deal with Little Liam?

Recall that little Liam Ramos was seized and held by ICE agents a few days ago. Or at least that’s the narrative an intrinsically dishonest “news” media has been peddling. Some facts, though, are coming to light despite the best efforts of the core of that guild, courtesy of some few news writers who have different ideas regarding reporting news.

The Department of Homeland Security said ICE was conducting an operation to arrest Liam’s father, who the department said was in the country illegally, when the father fled and left Liam alone in a vehicle.

This is a little boy’s father abandoning his son in his own attempt to escape to continue violating US laws.

And

Agency spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said an officer stayed with Liam while others apprehended his father.

Making sure the little boy wasn’t just left to wander.

Then,

Officers made several attempts to get his mother, who was inside the house, to take custody of him, saying she wouldn’t be detained if she did so, McLaughlin said.

Several attempts. Because the little boy’s mother was more worried about her own neck than she was about her son. Today, both the little boy and the man who may be his biological father but who has in no way acted in that role are being held in a Texas facility that’s set up to handle both adults and children. The boy is there because, ultimately, his biological mother refused to take him, despite those repeated ICE attempts.

Keep in mind that ICE is the agency that took care of a little boy who’d just been deserted by his parents and which a leading Minnesota candidate for the US Senate, along with incumbent Congressional Progressive-Democrats, want to completely defund and abolish.

This is how little Progressive-Democrats and their Leftist supporters—all of whom have become mainstream left, no longer being an extremist fringe—care about facts. This is how little those folks care about a little boy, all of five years old, mind you, who was deserted by his parents.

Wrong Answer

House and auto insurers’ profits and the rate increases they charge policy holders are coming under political scrutiny, but politicians’ proposed solutions are badly counterproductive.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul (D) this month became the latest state lawmaker to advocate profits caps on insurers, to tackle escalating home- and “crushingly expensive” auto-insurance rates.
Her plan would require home insurers with “outsized profit margins” to lower or justify their rates, and review the profits threshold at which auto-insurers are required to refund customers.
Also this month, lawmakers in states including Oklahoma proposed profit caps targeting insurance.

No.

Government definitions of “outsized profit margins” have nothing to do with business imperatives or what happens in a free market. Those definitions serve only the personal political ambitions of the politicians doing the defining, and they’ll vary across politicians and their political parties.

Beyond that, all price caps do is limit the availability of the product being capped—whether oil and natural gas and gasoline, rental housing availability and quality…or insurance policies. The limit on supply, too, hurts those on the lower economic rungs of our economy first and hardest.

Requiring insurers to justify their rates and the profit levels at which policy holder refunds are paid is a good idea, but government is the wrong crowd that must be satisfied.

Better simply to require insurers to disclose their profit margins and the basis on which they arrive at their definitions of profit. Their policy rates already are publicly available; making both sides of that process public would let the public more effectively shop for policies that suit their individual needs.

Doing that within an increasingly deregulated (not unregulated) insurance market environment would move the industry closer to a truly competitive market within which insurers would reap fair profits and insurees would pay fair premium amounts for the policies they want. And the Critical Item: “fair” would be defined within that competitive market by those market participants, not by any government.

Trump’s Board of Peace

President Donald Trump (R) is looking to stand up a Board of Peace that would seek to broker peace deals between belligerents and between soon-to-be belligerents. In many respects, this BoP would supplant the UN, which is famous for its failure to create peace and infamous for its failure to maintain any peace in which its peacekeeping forces are involved.

Some nations, like putative allies France and UK are reluctant to join it. Enemy nations like Russia and the People’s Republic of China also are reluctant to join.

UK and France…worried about joining an organization subject to Trump’s whims that could give equal status to authoritarians such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

A Board of Peace, whether or not led by Trump, may or may not be a good idea, but the plaint that the BoP would give folks like Putin an equal status is just silly. He, and the PRC’s President Xi Jinping, already have equal status in the UN via their positions as permanent members of the Security Council and their veto authority in that body.

Different Purposes

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors missed on this one. Their editorial’s headline and subheadline lay out the editors’ case.

NATO Is the Board of Peace
Trump’s new coalition couldn’t do better than the Atlantic alliance.

Their editorial goes on in that vein, and that’s the editors’ miss.

NATO looked good for a while, maintaining the bluff that the alliance members, acting collectively, could respond to a Soviet Union- (read Russia-) led Warsaw Pact invasion, and by that capability deter such an invasion. The alliance’s apparent deterrent capability did, in fact, deter the Warsaw Pact. Or successive Russian leaders of the Pact recognized how weak its military establishment was, in fact, offering no guarantee of victory in an invasion even in the absence of NATO. That’s speculation regarding a history that didn’t occur.

However, with the demise of the Soviet Union, an unfettered even a little bit Russia has shown no reluctance to expand by force, as Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and his open threats against NATO members that used to part of Russia’s Soviet empire has shown. NATO, far from an operational alliance, has been exposed an aspirational alliance only.

For all that, NATO as an avowed defensive alliance was even operationally only a reactive one, intended to win a war already in progress that it had failed prevent. Deter, then fight.

Trump’s Board of Peace is an entirely different kettle of fish, with an entirely different imperative. The proposed Board of Peace does not have as its DOC either deterrence or fighting. The Board is intended to broker peace between conflicting nations on the brink of war or during their war.

However well or poorly NATO functioned and however well or poorly the Board of Peace will function once it’s stood up, the two are not comparable. The allegation that the Board would do no better than NATO is a non sequitur.