Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Should Israel bomb Iran?

I read an article about why Israel should not bomb Iran, which I thought was limited in scope. I thought it would be a mistake to ignore the larger picture, so here are some additional thoughts on the subject.

Consider the influence of US Federal Reserve, constituent financials, and their manipulation of US markets and financial systems. (Which by extension lends control to other groups in their respective markets.)

Item 1) The ability of global-sized financial organizations to manipulate entire markets is vulnerable to their dependance on predictability.

If Israel were to attack Iran, the impact on oil prices at first seems predictable, however this predictability is predicated on unified, or at least calculable opposition to Israel. The problem is the unpredictability of opposition vs. support of Israeli action on the part of other OPEC members.

In the short term, obviously Iran would cease exports. Whether or not the IDF targets production and distribution facilities, Khameni will wield the only power he has. This is only a 12% reduction in global supply at best. They can sink a ship or two in Hormuz, but that will only delay delivery of another 20% of global supplies, and only for a short time. A USCSG would quickly assume control of the area, with the wholehearted support of every financial power on earth. The sum of Iranian retaliation ends right there, with the US 5th fleet.

But, how will the Islamic or Arabic or OPEC alignments pan out in response?

Item 2) It cannot be predicted whether Sunni and Shia will unite for a final assault on Jews, OR perhaps Arabs will support Jews attacking Persians, OR perhaps OPEC will put it's full weight behind a member state under attack by Israel.

Another possibility is the interested parties won't know themselves how they should align, resulting in a widening fragmentary conflict, with alliances shifting as quickly as arms support can make deliveries. A free-for-all could ensue. It seems probable that there would be at least some fragmentation, but even this is not certain. There is still a good chance an Israeli attack will provide a galvanizing effect for one of the first three scenarios, or one as-yet unthought of. Or one that shifts from one to the next, in effect reducing the profit making machine into a crap shoot.

Also, an Israeli attack could easily escalate and widen, costing everyone concerned hundreds of trillions of dollars. It might also be a 6-hour war that raises oil for a few months with less impact than Michael Jacksons funeral. No one can say.

Each of these scenarios is

  • possible,
  • cannot be predicted and
  • all have different outcomes and consequences
    especially on global markets.

This effectively undermines the predictability that global financial interests rely on. There are many possible outcomes with various probabilities, but nothing you can invest in with any degree of certainty. Therefore:

Item 3) Israel is not going to be given clearance to attack Iran by anyone, for financial reasons.

We can safely assume that PM Netanyahu meant what he said by "There are other considerations." The powers that be have no interest in rolling the dice on this one.

Now for the really big problem.

Item 4) If Iran is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, an Iranian first-strike presents none of the problems associated with an Israeli first strike. No alliances have to shift, no oil is threatened, the only market lost is Israels, and all of it is not only predictable, but calculable as well. Sunnis and Shias and Wahabbis can bicker about who lives where, Arabs can be secretly grateful to the Persians without admitting it. The only global financial impact is the exact dollar amount of Israeli commerce. Though a GDP of $200 billion is nothing to sneeze at, it is certainly not apocalyptic on a global scale if it suddenly disappeared.

Five trillion has disappeared from US coffers already, and the Four Horsemen are nowhere to be found, so... do the math.

$200 billion pales in comparison to the impact and fallout from the cascading failures in a global energy crisis today, which itself would be insignificant in the event the conflict actually does turn into WW3. Not totally likely, but then again, not exactly improbable either.

Israel knows that Khameni knows the world does not want Israel to attack Iran. Everyone knows that, and you don't need my analysis to prove it. The question you have to ask yourself is this: How cognizant is Israeli leadership of the imbalance between item 3 and item 4? And more importantly, how aware do they think Khameni is of the same imbalance?

In other words, does Netanyahu think Khameni knows Iran can get away with a first-strike? There would be some political fallout, and wide condemnation, but do you honestly think Iran would be dismantled as a result? Of course not. There would enough walk outs in New York to dismantle the UN before that would happen. And that goes even without any off-the-record assurances they may have from who knows who. Tacit, oblique or overt, it would be naive to suggest there haven't been promises whispered in "unofficial" support.

We can be sure Khameni expects Arabs to be secretly, hypocritically grateful in the event he levels Tel Aviv. We can be certain he at least suspects some of the pressure the Israeli government is under to sit idle. He clearly takes advantage of the room by moving full steam ahead on his nuclear program and vitriolic rhetoric. He has ongoing nuclear commerce with Russia, and trade agreements have not been hampered by any sanctions. Regardless of the anti-regime rhetoric in the wider world, we know he is aware that he has the full support of the financial community, because he actively exploits that support every day. All of which Israeli's are keenly aware of as well. Some go so far as to claim the propaganda supporting Shahids is only a precursor to convert Jerusalem fatalities into purple glowing martyrs; to undercut Arab resentment of a Persian bomb vaporizing Palestinians along with Jews.

It gets even trickier than this. Some Jewish leaders believe Iran wants to nuke Jerusalem. Some of them do not. Some of them understand the pressure against an Israeli first-strike is economic, some believe it is racial, some believe it is religious. This adds a present ambiguity that may threaten global finance. Which leader believes what? Will that leader make a pre-emptive strike? Possibly. But if there is an Israeli first-strike, there is the potential for global catastrophe. If there is an Iranian first strike, the damage will be limited to a single country, Israel, and the financial impact is finite and known, and easily survivable. Therefore:

Item 5) The ambiguity itself is a clear and present danger to Israel, that can only be mitigated by removing the opposing faction, Iran.

Going a step farther, consider that Iran may be already under economic pressure to act first in order to pre-empt an Israeli attack. This would at least explain the belligerent comments from Pres. Ahmadinejad. Perhaps they are emboldened by agreements we don't know anything about. There is plenty of evidence to support the idea: There have been no effective measures enacted by any governing body. Nuclear trade and development continues unhindered, US policy is open to engagement and dialog, there has not been any measurable impact on Iranian economy from sanctions. The IAEA soft-peddles critical omissions, and consistently fails to enact measures to force compliance.

I think the current environment is not tolerable. I think Iran uses the ideology of apocalyptic Islamic theology to manipulate the attitude that the world needs to appease radical Islamics. Or else, they say, these crazy people we can't control will start Armageddon. Now, I don't think you can rise to the heights of power believing those ideologies yourself, I think you get there by making everyone else believe them. It has been suggested that Iran is not particularly disposed to attacking Israel, and left alone they probably would not. Personally, I think their first strategy is to outlast Israel, and invade by immigration and birth, and by shrewd usage of media and pop-psychology. So even if Iran doesn't want to attack, it may not be that simple.

No leader operates in a vacuum today, and an Iranian first-strike is FAR preferable for all concerned, except Israel itself. No country is entirely autonomous. No one stands alone, not even DPRK. I do not think Khameni is immune to corruption and influence, and there is more power and influence aggregated in private hands than any individual nation. I feel safe in presuming that these interests are in selfish individuals who can very easily and effectively rationalize to themselves that it's better for Iran to attack Israel, than the other way around, and also that these individuals have means beyond what my, and your, limited experience are able to imagine.

If Israel is going to survive, they must eliminate the option of having themselves eliminated.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Will Sanctions Work?

It has been suggested that properly applied pressure, in the form of sanctions, will result in bringing about any measure of compliance of the Iranian government with standards dictated by Western ideals.

I must emphatically disagree. The reasons why Iran will not comply with pressure from the West are extensive and profound. They have everything to gain by defiance, and everything to lose by compliance.

The Islamic revolution and Western ideals are mutually incompatible. The Islamic Republic cannot agree without denying it's own core values, and it's emergent identity.

Furthermore, in the current global atmosphere, there is far less ability for us to exert influence, and every incentive for Iran to seize opportunity now. If there was a time sanctions would have worked, it is certainly passed. The time to take Iran to task was sometime around 1992-1994, when the US was virtually unopposed in the global arena, flush with cash, and still feeling patriotic about Iraqi's surrendering to American journalists and photographers.

Here's a few reasons why I think we won't have the same story to tell about Iran.

Increasing Credibility

Confronting the West is the primary mechanism Iran uses to make themselves look stronger, and thereby gain support, ever growing in political power, aided by an all too sympathetic liberal press, and the taboo-to-condemn Islamic press. This is the same process that has legitimized outlaw terrorist groups as actual and official government organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah.

At this moment, the West is weak, fractured, preoccupied, over-extended economically, politically and militarily, and lacks experienced, capable, decisive leadership. All of which allows Iran to move much more boldly than in the past.

Their actions in supporting Hamas, Hezbollah, and others provide avenues for credibility in bringing together both Shia and Sunni opposition, via a common enemy (the West). This is a key long-term strategy and is finally beginning to bear fruit for them. Bringing together factions by creating and demonizing a common enemy rarely fails. It worked for Hannibal, Clovis, Hitler, and it's working for Iran in an area where they cannot progress any other way. There is nothing that brings people together like a common enemy.

Compliance with the West will destroy any cross-faction credibility they have gained there, while providing nothing in return. What does the West, US, UN, EU, Britain, NATO or IAEA have to offer in exchange? Iranian leadership is not suffering from sanctions, thanks to their veto friend Russia, and sometimes China. Any shortages on the street have more to do with internal politics than restricted international trade. Sanctions have not stopped Busehr, Natanz, the Shahib projects or anything else from going forward either.

The only delays in the Islamic world are created by Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities. Twice, no thanks to support from the West. Belated Western confirmation on Syrian aspirations notwithstanding.

Strengthening Support

They have Russian support.
  1. Iran is yet one more distraction to keep Western attention away from Russia.
  2. The Kremlin values its weapons and oil trade deals with Iran more than appeasing inconsistent US politicians.
  3. The President and Prime Minister are both personally vested in the Russian energy contracts.
  4. The Kremlin is thrilled to see a small nation as Iran putting the US back on its heels.
  5. It also provides for Mr. Putin to observe how Mr. Obama deals with such a sticky situation. He learns his opponent’s tactics without revealing any of his own.
  6. Mr. Putin has clearly demonstrated his ability to move decisively against NATO with impunity, as in Georgia, not to mention new deployments and patrols in the Pacific, Arctic, and Caribbean, which Washington publicly dismisses, but internally is frustrated by an inability to respond.

They are gaining Chinese support.
  1. China needs oil. They will also need natural gas.
  2. China needs trade agreements.
  3. China needs to marginalize Western dominance at any opportunity, for reasons not so dissimilar to Iran's.

They get all of this by tacit approval of Iran as well. If they can gain trade agreements with other nations that marginalize US influence at the same time, thats a double bonus for them.

At some point, support for Iran could conceivably reach a critical mass where dissenting Arab nations would have little choice but to go along with certain Iranian proposals, whether they like it or not.

Any dominating power eventually creates a backlash by those over whom it has reigned, and this is happening to Americans everywhere. The Islamic world is keenly aware, and relishes the change whether they admit it or not. Lets revisit Poland vs. Russia; this is exactly why Poland is so eager for the American missiles, after being dominated by the USSR for so long.

Weakening Opposition

There won't be any allied opposition because of the decreasing unity among Western Allies, not least of which is NATO. Examples:

  • On one side, Ukraine and Poland are willing to confront Russia. There is deep distrust because USSR domination is still quite fresh in memories of their leaders. I already mentioned Poland's eagerness and the reason why.
  • On the other side, Ukraine and Germany are not so willing to confront Russia because this is where most of their gas comes from.
  • In the middle, Saakashivilli manages to embarrass both sides at the same time, thus proving that there is in fact, no middle ground either.
  • NATO obviously cannot admit Georgia, but this leaves Ukraine in the lurch, while they contend with internal upheaval and Russian pressure over energy. They want an ally, but must accept Russian demands because, who is the West in the Ukraine?
  • There is little agreement among EU nations, and growing discontent in the current economic climate.

The only thing surprising here is that Putin hasn't used Germany as a wedge to break NATO in half. Clearly, Western alliances are fracturing. This presents a golden opportunity for anyone else capable of exploiting and gaining from it. Ali Khameni has been around long enough to recognize it too, if he was paying attention. But maybe he just doesn't know how.

Today, the most you can get is a lot UN signatures if you just want people to stop shooting, no matter what else is going on. Importantly, “stop shooting” does not apply to any Iranian R&D program. Until it's too late, anyway.

The US is weak, uninterested, and otherwise occupied

Economic sanctions have accomplished nothing, and there is no interest in conflict either.

The US president is an attorney who is very good at talking, looking good, and pandering to Hollywood, but not so good at anything else. Thats why he made a YouTube video for Nowruz, instead of sending David Petraeus to say “Hello and congratulations” to Benjamin Netanyahu or even tour some bases in Turkey, or make recommendations on the Crimean pipeline. Sigh. At least we have an Aegis group in the Sea of Japan now, but really, was that a hard decision? I certainly hope not. This is an important fact: Barak Obama is the least experienced of anyone at the table. And he is supported by a liberal majority, who also have nothing to gain financially from conflict with Iran, and everything to gain by avoiding it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Barak Obama will do nothing forever, but I do think he will wait until it's too late, and then probably he will do too much.

The new US administration has far too many complicated issues to deal with already. The economic situation dominates American and much of the global attention now. And they haven't even inked out a comprehensible position on anything yet, other than throw out good money after bad.

There is no interest in spending even more money on a new military conflict, but rather the opposite. Barack Obama wants to reduce military deployment and expenditures. His government and country needs the money, and he wants the domestic and international political capitol he imagines he can gain from the reductions.

This view is bolstered by the fact that he defeated an actual military hero in a Presidential election. The US doesn't want confrontation on any front. They want comfy homes, a vacation, and a college education for their children.

Confronting Iran is complicated by Russian interests, as well as Beijing and other arrangements involving oil served in pipelines, with money baskets, back scratching and formal contracts, served with suspicion for all and by all. This is simply too much for a new administration who already have too much on their plate with the growing meltdown and its attendant domestic disapproval, coupled with the sudden depreciation of influence and increased global disapproval of the US in general. Meanwhile, every time the White House looks at the board, our friendly KGB man and his protégé have moved the pieces again. So when a guy like Barak Obama is planning on re-election, damage control takes precedence over getting one's hands dirty.

Moreover, even if he wanted to (he doesn't), the US has no credible military pressure against Iran right now anyway.

The US already has two major deployments, with all reserves deployed for three years now. As a Marine friend of mine succinctly stated: “There's not enough troops in Fort Bragg to fight off an invasion from the Post Office.” There are simply not enough assets to confront Iran militarily. At least not without a draft, and that would certainly end any chance for Mr. Obama’s re-election, who is more concerned with politics, money, prestige, and all that goes with re-election, than any “unpleasantness”. Like war, depression, or terrorism.

Iranian Leadership cannot survive without defiance

With each provocation, the Iranian government furthers its identification with radical Islam, which identifies itself by it's philosophy of martyrdom for the sake of destroying the West.

So Ali Khameni knows that so long as he keeps his formal military within his own borders, then he is free to pursue any program he wants. Not only does it work to his advantage to defy the US, but in fact the Iranian leadership knows its survival depends on it.

If they have any lofty expansion plans, those will be contingent on how successful they are at contending with and overcoming roadblocks made by the West, too. They will never accomplish their goals by playing along with our standards, because they would cease to be what they are if they tried to. So, while he is not likely to invade Iraq or Israel, Khameni is politically bound to pursue military superiority over his neighbors. This includes any and all weapons development, with an added incentive for developing systems the West frowns upon, no matter how harshly we frown.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Handouts and the Homeless

I agree that the idea of supporting the homeless as a community service is a matter of perception, I.e., is it really constructive to enable people to live on handouts? However there are some important facts being left out of the discussion. In a society of more than 300 million, there are a number of inescapable eventualities.

It is true that some of these people simply choose not to work because as a society we enable them to do so. That is not to say that ALL of them do, because that is not the case. In fact the majority of these people are mentally ill. Some of them are so tragically ill that they even refuse critical aid they need.

Lets show some temperance here and make a distinction between these groups. I don't have any sympathy for the minority young male who views society as hostile because in his view we owe him a living. But for the aging schizophrenic alcoholic whose objective view of reality is no better than a Picasso abstract, aid becomes a societal obligation.

Let me emphasize that I not implying that every working person is personally responsible. I am only saying that as a whole, we need to address the mathematically inevitable underclass. The idea that every person is capable of making their own way is just indulgent naiveté. We have created a massive society that as a whole seems resoundingly successful, but that comes with a cost: There is always going to be a certain percentage of the population that is mentally incompetent, and until we can cure mental illness that will continue to be the case.

If we house them, the quantifiable cost does go up. But if we don't house them then crime and its costs, and abuse by others goes up. There is no easy or perfect solution. So, with the realization that many will not agree with any solution, I say the closing of the mental institutions was a misdirected sentiment.

They were closed because of claims of abuse, and because “They don't work”. Yet, the exact opposite is true. Yes there were abuses of some, but throwing these people out victimized them all. So now they freeze and starve in the winter, and defecate in public while providing targets for street thugs. When they are not being robbed or beaten, they are stealing as well, in order to survive. Putting these people on the street is always going to make them worse, not better.

Secondly, the point is not to “rehabilitate” the mentally ill anyway. They created jobs. They provided employment for medical, psychological, and research staff. I don't care if the government funds American scientists to study American patients if it comes at the expense of funding some automaker in Zkrgzftambia.

If that leads to reports of abuse of patients in our asylums, fine. That only means we can provide training and employment for human services professionals to monitor and improve the system. This is where government money should go. Not legislating the proximity of billboards to schools, or giving tax-breaks to oil companies with historically obscene profits, or funding outreach programs in foreign countries.

Instead of spending trillions of dollars bailing out irresponsible corporations in dire straits for no better reason than greed, what if we had been spending the money on social programs that protect the vulnerable while creating competitive jobs for the responsible? Would we still have needed to force banks into so many trillions of dollars in sub-prime mortgages if people could have afforded their mortgages in the first place?

Instead of forcing loans to people who can't afford them, how about helping people afford them? Promoting the general welfare is mandated in the constitution, corporate bailout is not. Defense of American soil is mandated, defense of foreign national interests to our own detriment is not.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Religion and war

I am sick and tired of people turning off their brain and blaming religion for no other reason than that is what they WANT to believe. It is a lie. The true problem is money and power and the access ignorance of the masses gives to insane leaders to acquire it.

I think ignorance is the greatest killer of mankind. A self-imposed learning disability that makes billions of people parrot back simple-minded feel-good homilies that do nothing but make sheep of nations.


US vs Iraq: Geopolitical threat of Saddam acquiring and distributing RBC weapons, and oil/economic reasons.
Rwanda: Hutu vs Tutsi reprisal for perceived political assassination.
Kosovo, Chechneya, Balkan wars etc:, ethnically motivated geopolitical nationalist pro vs anti communist/capitalist ideology towards independence & statehood.
Vietnam: US vs Russian expansion.
Korea:US vs Chinese expansion.
WW2: German expansion.
WW1: Perceived assassination of Ferdinand.
American civil war: Liberal democracy vs. republic issue.
American revolution: National independence from England.
Europe 1600-1800: Wars of accession, land, and independence.
Rome 300BCE to 800AD: nationalistic expansionism, and conquest for the sake of conquest.
Greece: see "Rome" above.

Even the Islamic vs Jewish problem has more to do with land, than religion. If Jews would just go away, they could worship somewhere else (like Alaska or Antarctica I guess). The Arabs don't really care, they just want the land, and for Israel to go away.

That accounts for BILLIONS of casualties, almost entirely based on nationalistic expansion for economic reasons, to gain land and power, often directed by charismatic leaders followed by people who fail to think critically.

So, do you want to compare "The Crusades" or "The Inquisition" to 4,000 years of greedy, power-hungry megalomaniacs leading, dismembering and murdering billions of humans simply because they can? Stalin? Ghengis Khan? Napoleon? Hannibal? Did the Vikings engage in conquest in order to convert the masses to another religion?

Yes, you can blame the few thousand deaths in the Crimean war, the Crusades, and perhaps some of the Ottoman/Persian conquest on religion, but that is a laughable comparison to the true motivation for war: MONEY and POWER. And in fact, where there is a religious reason involved, it is STILL driven by leaders struggling for POWER over masses of morons, because the people provide the means for them to do so in the first place.

Stop blaming "religion" and start taking responsibility for your own intellectual laziness and lack of humility, i.e. pride. These are the tools the masses provide the morally bankrupt and insane leaders the means to murder millions at a time, and impose economic slavery for their own personal benefit, whose only religious motivation is to make themselves into gods.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Byzantine governmental policy

I first wrote this as an assessment of the process and results of our current intelligence classification and structure, (i.e., CIA, NSA, DHS,etc.) but another review makes clear that the principles involved apply to much more than the areas originally targeted. Following is the original post:

Governmental organizational policies are almost always going to evolve into incomprehensible and illogical quagmires.

Those struggling for solutions often find themselves victim to another human failing; fixating on foreground details, mistaking immediacy for importance. Inevitably this leads to bandaging the problem, and patting oneself on the back for creating such an effective "solution", when in fact only the symptom has been addressed. The actual problem requires emotional divestment and enlarged perspective.

In this particular case, the problem is not the byzantine system that has been implemented, but rather that the system is specified by personnel who have no business specifying these systems in the first place.

Instead of microanalyses of individual procedures, a better approach would be a reworking of the expectations of and requirements for the policy making individual, with a heavy emphasis on real-world experience, with a track record of proven results, and not someone who has developed their philosophy from inside the governmental structure.

This is the origin of the current system and it relies on political alliance and legal-writing skills, with a focus on self-advancement more than technical understanding and experience.

Once again, the politically adept emerge victorious over the socially-impaired genius. Lets stop rewarding idiocy and emotionalism and start giving the public a more positive view of intellectualism. I will talk about that dynamic later. For now, I suggest a reread of Dale Carnegie's book.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

You have just been Java Clicked?


I'm JavaClick. I likes my Java, and I likes to CLICK!

Expect to see some deeply insighful observations, and occasionally some truly whacky sounding ideas here. Sometimes there will just be random thoughts.

Right now, I'm just going to get some more coffee.

(off to a roaring start, I see)