I'm not sure about to write about this week

- - - - - -

The "Gray Lady", as the New York Times is often called, had a lot to report on the day I wrote this post.  And I was unsure about what was the most important thing out there.  Was it the resignation of Michael Flynn, after less than a month into Trump's regime? Was it Trump's statement that Israel need not pursue a "two state" solution with the Palestinians? Was it the revelation that senior Trump assistants were in constant contact with Russia during his campaign?  Was if the assassination of Kim Jong Un's half brother in Malaysia? Was it the revelation that Russia broke one of the nuclear anti-proliferation treaties, by testing a new type of missile? Or, was it the revelation that the American intelligence agencies no longer trust Trump or his staff to keep America's secrets secret, and are now withholding information from the president?  Any one of these things could be major news items in their own right.  But all of these things happening at once has gotten me worried.

- - - - - -

Our current president is as inept as he is corrupt.  Couple this with a GOP that is ethically bankrupt, and wants power over doing things for the public at large, and we are in serious trouble. One Republican that I once respected, Rand Paul, has just lost any support I might have given him.  He would prefer to dismantle the ACA (Obamacare) than to determine how close a relationship the Trump Campaign had with the Russians.  Paul believes that no Republican should be investigating other Republicans.  Paul Krugman notes that the GOP would rather choose treason to give tax cuts to the wealthy, as corruption is endemic to the GOP. Whether I'd go this far, I don't know.  But it seems as if the GOP wants power for power's sake, and not to exercise it wisely.

I am concerned about giving Netanyahu options NOT to pursue a two state solution in Israel/Palestine. This region is dangerous enough now.  Why give extremists any more fuel to add to the fire?  Our previous Secretary of State noted that Israel could be either a Democracy or a Jewish State. But it could not be both if a two state solution is not pursued. If we support Netanyahu's actions, we may just light the fire of the next Middle Eastern war without realizing it.

- - - - - - 

Often, what North Korea does is an interesting side show to the world.  They tend to make bellicose statements, but can't do much to cause trouble elsewhere.  Yes, they have forged $100 bills so perfect that the Federal Reserve told US banks to honor the "funny money" until they had a reliable way to detect the bogus bills. Yes, they have hacked into many computer systems, and caused organizations such as Sony Pictures much grief. But now, they have started to assassinate people outside their borders.  Can this be tolerated? Yes, the fellow who was poisoned was the half brother of the "supreme leader". But who might be killed next?

- - - - - -

Russia has tested a new cruise missile that the US says violates previously signed treaties. Would this have taken place had Hillary Clinton been in office?  I doubt it.  With Trump in office, Putin can do no wrong. Now that US intelligence agencies no longer trust the president to keep secrets, I wonder what comes next.  

These are scary times, and I don't trust our leaders to do the right things, nor do I trust the system of checks and balances to work in the presence of this much corruption in the system.  I could be wrong.  But when Joe Scarborough started worrying about the White House and its lack of respect for the Judiciary, we should see this as the canary in the coal mine alerting us to big problems ahead.  No president should have unchecked powers, and Joe makes this clear after reviewing Steven Miller's comments on the power of POTUS.

Persia, Iran, no matter what one calls this nation, we must deal with it.

I can still remember that in my lifetime, the United States once considered Iran as one of its closest allies. And there is no reason not to do so today, save for a 35 year pissing match that was triggered by the Embassy Hostage Crisis and the United States getting exposed as preparing to overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.

This conflict between nations should not only be examined from the American side (we have just complaints), but from the Iranian side as well (where they also have just complaints). What would be the key issue getting in the way of normalizing relations between the two countries after a generation and a half, if Israel was not given a veto over our actions in the Middle East?  Both countries want to crush ISIS. Both countries want stability in the region. And both countries have legitimate concerns about the balance of power in the region.

Looking at the above map, one can easily see the regional importance of Iran - it borders part of the former USSR, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and shares the Persian Gulf with Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, The U.A.E. and Oman. This country could either cause a lot of mischief, or be a valuable power for peace. But without normal diplomatic and trade relations, we have no direct way to influence them to work with us. (I must note that American soldiers are reported to being ferried over Iranian airspace to Afghanistan via foreign flagged aircraft, with the tacit approval of the Iranians. So there is something going on behind the scenes that few people want to talk about in a loud voice.) So it only makes sense to find ways to openly work with this country, if only because they hold a strategically important position in the region.

- - - - - -

When I started writing this entry, the P5+1 (5 Permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany - a major Iran trading partner) negotiations are taking place to resolve the West's issues with Iran's stated plans to develop nuclear technology for peaceful uses. These negotiations have been extended for several months because both sides realized the importance of cutting a deal everyone could live with. 

As it was 35+ years ago, both sides have legitimate issues. From our perspective in the West, it's easy to understand our goal - this world does not need another nation with the capability of making nuclear weapons. When India and Pakistan developed their bombs, it took a lot of diplomacy to develop deals that preserved most of the pre-bomb status quo, and allowed both countries to save face while not getting into a nuclear arms race as the USA and USSR did after WW2. But Iran has a legitimate issue that we in the West don't think of - Tehran is one of the most polluted cities on Earth. Iran's leadership knows that it must lead the country out of the fossil fuel age, and sees nuclear energy as the best short term way to bridge the gap from a fossil fuel age and a renewable fuel age. They simply want to control their destiny - and this is very understandable.

When the Israeli PM, Bibi Netanyahu, was invited to speak to Congress, it was a slap in our president's face, and a violation of protocol. Congress does not make foreign policy. That power is solely invested in the executive branch of government. When Bibi spoke, he was against a deal with Iran, considering that nation's policies to be an existential threat to his country. And most in the GOP support Israel with unquestioned loyalty - as if they want to accelerate the "Second Coming" via support of Israel's bellicose policies. Bibi had no alternative to negotiations - and it appeared that he wanted the USA to fight a war against Iran that his country couldn't win alone.

Luckily, Obama is more cerebral in his thought patterns. He knows that we have a once in a generation chance to gradually shift Iran into a partner for peace. With the exceptions of Egypt and Jordan, no Middle East Muslim country has relations with Israel. Officially, they all call for Israel's destruction, while working very quietly with Israel on the side. This is what we would likely see several years after a deal with Iran. But it will take time to get there.

- - - - - -

Sadly, 47 US Senators wrote a letter to Iran attempting to undercut Obama's ability to work with the Iranians in negotiating a nuclear technology treaty. The NY Daily News labeled these Senators as traitors on its front page. And the Washington Post simply considers the actions of these senators irresponsible. Luckily, the Iranian leadership recognizes this as a Propaganda Ploy and responded accordingly, enlightening these Senators about what our Constitution and International Law say about the subject. And in an article in the Daily Kos, they note that Al Jazeera got it right - The Iran deal will be a Security Council Non-Proliferation Treaty Resolution, and likely be covered by a previous treaty ratified by our Legislative branch of government. I'll bet that these Senators now wish they had tried to make their point with softer words and actions....

- - - - - -

As I said in this entry's title - Iran is a country that must be dealt with. And it only makes sense for us to deal with Iran from a position of mutual respect, as only with respect will we be able to resolve our differences.....

Bibi's visit

Both left and right in the USA are following their tribe's "official" position. Sadly, no one is asking the right question - how much of America's security depends on Israel's existence? If we ignore moral dictates on whether Israel should exist or not, do we have any good reasons to preserve the country?

Israel and Palestine are in a deadly embrace, where Israel will likely lose because of demographics. The Haredim are deadbeat leeches, but they are preventing the moderates from cutting a deal. (One could say the same thing about a couple of Palestinian factions.) Unless a two-state solution is enacted soon, Israel will have no choice but implement a single state Apartheid type system where the natives of what might have been called Palestine are even more harshly repressed than they are now - and then cut off from the world, as South Africa was. Can America afford to take the "wrong side" if this happens?

There is an effective taboo in American politics - "Thou shalt not criticize Israel." In the urban areas (mostly Democratic), there is often a sizable and influential Jewish population, with the vast majority supporting Israel's existence, simply as a potential home in case of domestic persecution. In the rural areas (mostly Republican), there is often a sizable Christian fundamentalist population who wants to see Christ's second coming in their lifetime, and will do anything to facilitate it. Israel, more so than fixing Social Security or cutting military spending, is a third rail of American political thought. Touch it at your own peril.

We are now seeing an unholy alliance between America's rural (usually Republicans) politicians (playing to their base) and the hard core Israeli leadership that feels there is no way to ever cut a deal with the Palestinians. This group not only wants to emasculate Palestine, but abort the birth of a new nation. And they have good reasons to do so, considering what Hamas has done in the Gaza Strip. Yet, an equally good case could be made for striking a deal with the moderates, given Israel's relationship with Al Fatah in the West Bank.

Sadly, Congress has made an invitation for Bibi Netanyahu to come to America, so that he can speak to the Senate and House of Representatives. However, this invitation was not made through the State Department or any other part of the Executive branch of government, and protocol does not require our President to even recognize this visit. They want to make it harder for Obama to work with Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons. They want to continue the war of words and isolation that started over 35 years ago when our embassy was taken, and hostages held for 444 days. (They conveniently ignore the fact that the USA was actively preparing to overthrow their newly elected government. and that the Iranians had no way to back down the rhetoric against the USA once this proof was pieced together - literally pieced together from shredded paperwork coming from our embassy.) 

In this case, Iran is a side show. The fundamentalists in both countries are afraid of what will happen if Palestine stands on its own. Would it be a threat to Israel? No one knows. Would Palestine accept a foreign presence on its soil to insure it is no threat to Israel? Probably not for long? Could a new Palestinian government hold its people responsible for any attacks on Israel? I doubt it. There are many good reasons for fearing the existence of a healthy Palestine.

Bibi, like many in his political faction, wants to prevent Palestine from ever existing. The illegal settlements have never been removed. Can Palestinians act "responsibly" when they continue to be squeezed out of their own lands? (We've seen this in our own country, with the forced migration of our "Indians" into reservations, and then the mismanagement of their resources by the Bureau Indian Affairs, with no profits being sent back to the native peoples. No wonder why the Indians fought for so long in the West!)

Could Palestine be a peaceful partner of Israel? Given how Jordan works with Israel to deal with water rights, the answer is a maybe. Could Palestine hold off fighting Israel as Egypt has done? I'd hope so. There are many possibilities for Palestine to prosper by having a peaceful and friendly relationship with Israel. But I'm not sure if the Palestinian people would realize this, and accept the fact that they have to co-exist with a powerful Israel.

The reality is - do we want to be on the side of the people who get to write the history books, or do we want to be seen supporting another lost cause - whatever that is? And even more importantly - what is in America's best interest regardless of tribal loyalty?