The Iran Deal

Middle East

The purpose of my blog is to provide some historical context and/or comparison for what may be in the news recently while staying away from partisan politics. That’s pretty hard to do in the current political climate.

I’ve been reading a lot about the Iran deal. So much to say! Let’s start with the background to Iran’s nuclear buildup.  It appears that the Iranian regime got serious about developing a nuclear program out of fear of the invasion of Iraq–that the U.S. meant what it said about imposing democracy in Iraq as a model for the other authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.

The historical roots go deeper than that. When the U.S. and its allies removed Saddam from Iraq, President Bush encouraged the Shia and Kurds to revolt. They did and Pres. Bush had second thoughts about helping them since it could dismantle Iraq.

So, Saddam could proceed to decimate the Kurds and the Shia. The U.S. and others acted with no fly zones to aid the Kurds successfully, but stood by while Saddam eviscerated the Shia and proceeded to drain their water lands turning it into a desert.

Those Shia who could get out went to the only place offering refuge–Iran. Iran took good care of them. Not surprisingly this encouraged the Sia refugees to be receptive to seeing the U.S. As the Great Satan.

When the U.S. Invades again and decides to hold free elections, it was a given that a Shia coalition would win. Who might they look to for support?

Food for thought.

 

What If We Attack Iran?

International Relations, Middle East

I wish people who make foreign policy recommendations without having the responsibility of carrying them out would think through the what if’s and weigh the intended and unintended consequences. Someone asked, “What would happen if we attack Iran?” Here’s my 3-minute speculation. (recorded June 14, 2015 in the car on the Ohio Turnpike)  

Why We Have to Control the Persian Gulf

International Relations

As we drove the Ohio Turnpike near Cleveland on Sunday, June 13, I thought about Oliver Hazard Perry’s naval victory in Lake Erie and how that connects to the necessity of controlling the Persian Gulf. Here’s the 3-minute summary Suzanne recorded while I drove.

Prospects for the New Iraqi Government

Middle East

ISIS didn’t suddenly appear out of the mess in Syria. They had a well-planned, well-executed strategy. Maliki’s “removal” of all threats to his power and the socio-economic chaos in Iraq fit right in to ISIS’ plans. What about prospects for the new Iraqi government now that Maliki is gone? (recorded June 8, 2015)

An Inside Look at the Iraqi Army

Middle East

The chaos in Iraq as U.S. Forces withdrew enabled Nouri al-Maliki to rapidly consolidate power. If you understand the origins of the Iraqi Army, it’s not surprising that it has been so ineffective against ISIS. Here’s the condensed version of that story. (recorded June 7, 2015)

The Blame Game

International Relations

While I’m working out at the Y early in the morning, I can see three news channels. In dealing with ISIS, the reporting seems to focus on a blame game: Obama vs. Geo. W. Bush. This politicization and over-simplification isn’t useful. I’d like to set that aside and take a look at what has happened in Iraq. (recorded June 5,  2015)

A Tale of Two Borders

Middle East

One of these borders has been dominating much of the news coming from the Middle East. The other is not in the news at all. One features a smart fence with an area cleared away to be an open field of fire, army command posts with the weapons needed to cover those open fields of fire, and regular army patrols. The other has none of that. Indeed, one has to be shown where the actual border is located.

On the other side of the militarized border there’s an organization dedicated to the elimination of those who live on the other side. On the other side of the quiet border is a nation at peace with the country on the other side. So, no one writes about this border.

Until now.

Recently, my wife Suzanne and I had the opportunity to see both of these borders. The contrast could not have been more striking.

The first, of course, is Israel’s border with Hamas and the Gaza Strip. The other is Israel’s “South” near Kibbutz Lotan with Jordan. Both borders have a majority Sunni Muslim population on the other side facing Israel. If one wants to find “moderate” Muslims brave enough to criticize the jihadists, they run the government of Jordan.

Hamas has used a significant part of its resources to build rockets and a massive tunnel network to attack Israel. Their tunnel network doesn’t serve the purpose of being shelters when Israel retaliates against those who launch the rockets. Not even air raid sirens have been put in place.

Jordan devotes a good part of its meager resources without any fanfare to tend to large numbers of refugees, many of them Christian, from Iraq and Syria. Also, Jordan long ago extended its citizenship to Palestinians living there. A large majority of Palestinians have accepted this generous offer—no other Arab state has done that for their Palestinian Arab Muslim brothers.
We spent quite a bit of time staying at various kibbutzim near the Gaza border. They’ve adapted to the lurking murderous threat on the other side. Several years ago, those kibbutzim were facing an existential crisis as residents were leaving rather than deal with potential rockets dropping out of the sky.

Now, the “sons of the kibbutzim” are returning. We noticed shelters everywhere and a great deal of new housing—all old and new buildings have been designed to survive rocket attacks. One of our favorite scenes was a children’s playground in one kibbutz only 500 meters from Gaza. We saw a slide set up so that as children left it they could readily go into a shelter just a few meters away and that shelter was decorated with a painting of Winnie the Pooh.

While in that region, we were taken to a high vantage point set up with a memorial to an Israeli soldier who died some time ago in a helicopter crash. There were green fields with ripe crops stretching as far as the eye could see—except in Gaza.

Along the “South’s” border with Israel, we got to see what Israelis could do with the Negev. But, we also noticed on the other side some areas of green where kibbutz residents had quietly worked with their neighbors to develop that land. Sadly, we also saw residential areas on Jordan’s side where the folks there had refused those quiet offers of assistance. Those areas were much poorer
.
Why can’t Hamas demilitarize and accept living with their Israeli neighbors? They could live then along a peaceful border. Their neighbors wouldn’t have to have air raid sirens and shelters. Gazans would no longer have to deal with Israeli retaliations. The neighbors could attend the weddings on each side as they used to before Gaza went rogue.

Why not?

Financial Crisis in Illinois: Any Precedents?

Business and Economy

With State of Illinois finances at a new level of dysfunction, I’m re-publishing this post from August of 2009. Unfortunately, not much has changed.

The current financial crisis in Illinois is multifaceted and obviously connected to national and international trends. Nonetheless, the state has faced at least one occasion where it had promised more than it could deliver financially.

The year was 1837. The nation was involved in a mania of internal improvements inspired by the huge success of New York’s Erie Canal. Illinois was no exception to this fever.
Led by the “Long Nine” (a group of very tall Illinois legislators including Abraham Lincoln), the state committed itself to a large vision of internal improvements. This included moving the capital to Springfield (more centrally located) along with building railroads and canals to be greatly subsidized by the state treasury.

There was only one small problem. The proposed expenditures would have run the state’s debt way up beyond the state’s ability to pay.
Sound familiar? We face a similar crisis now. The state’s obligations have expanded beyond the state’s current ability to pay.

The national panic of 1837 soon made it clear that the vision could not be fulfilled unless one of two things or took place. The state could raise revenue to pay for its plans or not carry through on the program of internal improvements. If the state carried through with all of its proposals, it would face bankruptcy (which did happen to other states).

Illinois faces the same kind of choice today that it faced in 1837. Then, the state’s leaders elected to not carry through on most of the internal improvements. The capital was moved. However, only one railroad was completed and it had to be auctioned off within a relatively short time at a huge loss. The Illinois and Michigan Canal was not completed until 1848 and never achieved the lofty goals set for it mainly because of the development of vastly improved transportation technology—the railroad. The state did avoid bankruptcy—barely.

Today, the state can either scale back its budgetary commitments or raise taxes or opt for some combination of both. There isn’t any other long term choice. What should the state do? I look forward to receiving your comments.