From Nukes to Banks: How Smart is President Obama? (Matlin)

The Department of Defense has announced the deployment of Prompt Global Strike in 2014. According to the US Government, a new conventional warhead of enormous weight, delivered at high speed with precision accuracy, will destroy its target with the destructive power of a nuclear weapon but without the radiation fallout. Because the weapon is not ballistic, it will be easy to control.

Viewing America: North Carolina, Tea Parties, and the Supreme Court (Matlin)

One might think that cruise missiles would be destructive enough for our American cousins, and as for pinpoint accuracy, well, we’ve heard this before. In an episode of The West Wing, President Bartlett is urged by his Chief of Staff to go to the Situation Room to witness the result of the latest Star Wars test.


“Intervention in fifteen seconds,” the President is told by a General.

Twenty seconds later, the President asks, “Did we hit it?”

The General pauses. “Not exactly, Mr. President, one hundred and thirty eight.”

The President leans towards his Chief of Staff, whispering, “one hundred and thirty eight feet, not bad.”

“Actually, it was one hundred and thirty eight miles, sir,” comes the response.

I suppose spending loads of taxpayers dollars on the latest war toy might be justified by the administration because of the huge numbers of people employed in the American munitions industry. But why, in the face of the recent nuclear treaty with Russia, is it necessary to add a new weapon of such destruction to America’s phenomenal arsenal?

I wonder if the administration is playing really cool, getting the Russians to agree to disarm nuclear weapons on a one for one basis. “You disarm a nuclear weapon and we won’t build a GPS missile” could be the deal. If so, what a clever move it might be, especially if this new American weapon system would never have been built in the first place. No money spent and missiles deleted. Obama has demonstrated more than once that he values “smart” as much or more than “tough.”

Is Obama being smart about financial regulation as well? The Republicans in Congress object to new financial regulation rules. These laws challenge the complete freedom hitherto enjoyed by the economic elite on how they run the hedge fund industry, with the federal government seeking to introduce transparency and fairness. Obama’s point is straightforward and well-taken. He has told Wall Street, “Unless your business model depends on bilking people, there is little to fear from these new rules.” into the hedge fund market.

Republicans are protesting on grounds of “more socialism” and “denial of freedom” by the federal government. Yet not so long ago, these same Republicans were very keen to have the federal government bail out their banker friends. Then they stood mute whilst the heads of suspect financial institutions paid themselves huge bonuses, to the disgust of the American taxpayer. Whoever said “the lunatics have taken over the asylum” was right.

Who do these bankers think they are? There seems to be a parallel with the way some Premier League football (soccer) players are treated in England and the acceptance of a separate set of social rules for the sporting prima donnas. The stars can rightfully claim to entertain hundreds of thousands every Saturday as they play the beautiful game, not that this is any excuse for some pretty deplorable behaviour on their part. In comparison, however, investment bankers play their game only for the very few and can make no claim for “the beautiful deal”.

Last week, we, the taxpayer bailers of the banking system, were treated to disclosure of the kind of behaviour that got the global financial world into the disaster from which we all suffered.

In 2007, as the American housing market showed signs of weakness, Goldman Sachs, the doyen of Wall Street investment bankers, sold an investment product based on the housing mortgage market. The product was inherently bound to fail, something which Goldman knew but neglected to mention. Worse, another Goldman client and customer, John Paulson Inc., was certain to profit from the inbuilt capacity for failure of the Goldman investment. As a result, the federal government has commenced a civil suit against Goldman at the very time that the new financial laws are coming to a voting boil in Congress.

I have no doubt that within the hundreds of pages of small print attached to the investment in question, Goldman will have warned buyers that investments can result in losses, that independent advice should be sought before purchase, and probably in a few words buried deep in the documentation, that the buyer would almost certainly lose. However, it is clear to me, as someone who worked in the City of London for many years, is that Goldman has behaved unethically and, in any view, wrongly by breaching conflict of interest principles.

Goldman has already sought refuge that an individual rogue director was solely to blame, claiming that this person was working on his own. That won’t fly. Does Goldman suggests it doesn’t have a vetting process for financial products and that its lawyers don’t write the small print? Methinks this banker doth protest too much.

Still, I dislike the probability that Obama’s administration has manipulated and politicised the Goldman affair, hoping to embarrass Republican legislators into accepting the new financial regulation laws. It may be a smart move politically but this is not the right way to pass important legislation. New law should be judged on merit alone.

It has been timely for me to get away to North Carolina. Beaufort, pronounced “Bewferd,” is a jewel of a town on the Crystal Coast. Part of the Inner Banks, The town was settled in colonial times and there is much West Indian architecture to admire.

I also took a boat ride to the Outer Banks, an Oceanside wilderness which has hardly changed since the founding fathers’ time. I have seen wild horses, all kinds of bird life, dolphins and maybe a whale --- one glimpse was too quick for confirmation. The boat ride, the beauty and peace there, the restaurants --- don’t miss Amos Mosquito ---- and the sights and sounds of the coast provided a refreshing change to large American and European cities.

So while I still ponder whether President Obama, from nukes to finance, is being “smart” as well as “tough”, I do hold this clear, immutable, and unchangeable opinion: on any view imaginable, the Inner Banks and Outer Banks of North Carolina are infinitely better than all of the Wall Street banks.

Iran's Detained Journalists: EA's (Vicarious) Confrontation with Foreign Minister Mottaki

On Saturday, thanks to our German Bureau, we posted a list of 101 journalists who have been detained during the post-election crisis. Imagine my surprise when an EA reader sent me evidence of how quickly and how far that list may have spread. An extract from an interview by Austria's Die Presse of Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who was in Vienna for discussion of Tehran's nuclear programme:

Iran: The List of 101 Journalists Who Have Been Jailed
The Latest from Iran (27 April): An Opposition Wave?

Die Presse: Iran must make a credible case that the nuclear program is for civilian purposes.

Mottaki: What should we do? We have agreed a few years ago the position of all our nuclear activities, we have agreed to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency. What did we get in return? Nothing. We have no interest in nuclear weapons. When Iraq used poison gas against our soldiers, did we respond with weapons of mass destruction? No. Weapons of mass destruction are not part of our defense doctrine.

Die Presse: Another issue I have here a list of the names of more than 100 imprisoned journalists and political analysts. Amnesties and releases were a gesture of good will.

Mottaki: Stick to the nuclear issue.

Iran Document: The Speech Khatami Would Have Given at Japan Disarmament Conference

Last week Iranian authorities, on the eve of their own disarmament "summit", pressured former President Mohammad Khatami not to attend a gathering this week in Hiroshima, Japan, where the first atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. This, from Khatami's official website via the Facebook site supporting Mir Hossein Mousavi, is the English translation of the speech he would have given:

In the Name of God

Hiroshima is not only a city in Japan; it also invokes painful memories of human suffering. It warns of the fate of humans and what they have endured.

The Latest from Iran (19 April): Stay Firm, Spread the Word

In the last moments of the Second World War, Hiroshima and also Nagasaki were destroyed by atomic bombs and their innocent residents perished and suffered in the most heart-wrenching manner. The effects of the pain and suffering from that catastrophe are still evident today.


It is unbelievable that this unbearable catastrophe occurred in Japan. A Japan whose intellectual language is that of poetry, a poetry which beautifully portrays vivid and natural metaphors and conveys the inner sentiments of humans. Coexistence and compassion with nature, affection for mountains, clouds, wind, rain, flowers and the pure spirit of humans is rarely seen in other cultures and languages as it is seen in language and culture of the Japanese.

It is natural that the Japanese would be more worried about the loss of the refreshing sense of life --- the season of spring, pouring of the waterfalls, and beautiful blossoms --- and incineration of humans, who are also a greater and beautiful part of nature. This is especially the case since Japan has had the bitter and painful experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The presence of the InterAction Council in Hiroshima is not only a homage to the innocent people who were incinerated in the fires stoked by arrogant killers, but is also a recognition of the efforts of transforming a world full of cruelty, discrimination, violence, oppression and injustice to a world in which all humans are valued and war and violence give way to compassion, cooperation and coexistence between all humans.

What happened in Hiroshima in 1945 was an unprecedented disaster in the history of humanity. Even though this history is filled with wars, destruction and bloodshed, but this time the scope of the disaster was not comparable to what had ever happened until that day.

Shortly after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters, the other "superpower" of the time, the former Soviet Union, conducted its first nuclear test. After that, the whole world was placed in a bipolar order in which both poles had based their relationship with others on force and were armed with a weapon that was becoming more destructive and terrifying by the day. It was not long before the nuclear reserves of the two super powers --- which were later joined by a few other countries --- reached such a level that it was capable of destroying the planet several times over.

After that, the Cold War covered the world in a fog of horrified shock and military alliances revolving around the nuclear powers cast over the entire world a shadow more horrifying than the mushroom cloud cast over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the remaining superpower, under the illusion of unrivaled invincibility, continued to spread the shadow of fear over the world. As a result from the end of the Cold War until now, we have witnessed many times its costly interventions in different countries and its continued striving to impose its will on the world, and even going so far as to threaten to use nuclear and chemical weapons. Military intervention, coup d’états that were also seen during the Cold War, unilateral imposition of their will on others and an empty claim to be the leader of the free world are all examples of the unpleasant situation with which all humans have been confronted.

On the other hand we have witnessed an exacerbation of a dangerous phenomenon which is no less worrying and destructive than the atomic bomb. This phenomenon is terrorism, especially in its most recent horrifying forms. This has also given the current arrogant powers an excuse to further aggravate and deepen the crisis in which the world finds itself.

What is missing in today’s world is peace and compassion --- a peace that has been the desire of all great peacemakers in history and the aim of the calling of great prophets and the essence of cultures and civilizations. The Holy Quran invites all believers into the realm of peace. Peace with oneself, peace with others, peace with the world and with nature. Is it not the book of Isaiah the Prophet that caresses the soul of all peace-loving people with its statement that “He will judge amongst the tribes and chastise many tribes and they will break their swords for ploughs and their spears for saws. One tribe will not pull a sword on another and there will no longer be wars"?

And, as I mentioned before, is it not the Japanese culture, especially with its combination of Buddhist and Shinto values, that plays the sweetest song of peace?

There are not many words that resonate as strongly and are as emotionally fulfilling as peace. However, in reality, what has prevailed in history has been conflict, war and insecurity. In modern times, especially with incredible technological achievements which when used by powers who see the good of humanity in their unquestioned and unchallenged domination of the world, this situation has worsened.

Fear of war and concern for peace is nothing new. Great religions have called for peace and have condemned war, and in modern times the great figures who have denounced war are not few. Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher, in his famous work entitled Zum ewigen Frieden” (Perpetual Peace) states that: “Kings who use their soldiers in offensive wars for their own grandeur or territorial expansion are using intelligent beings as mere tools for the attainment of their desired goal”. In Kant’s view, standing armies ready for battle must be abolished with time, because hiring human beings for killing and being killed requires that they become mere tools in the hand of governments. This does not sit well with human rights, which recognizes the absolute value of intelligent beings in and of themselves.

However, despite these wishes and ideals war still exists and we have not even taken positive steps towards eliminating the most horrific weapons that humans have created. Peace needs peace-loving spirits and more than ever before we need our rulers to be endowed with this virtue. In any event we are to take practical steps in this direction which is the world expectation from such an important body as the InterAction Council.

I would like permission to express my proposal for making the role of the Council more influential. In 2001, I made the proposal for the Dialogue among Civilizations, which was met with great fondness in the international community. It was intended to reduce the commotion of “Clash of Civilizations” which had particularly arisen after the September 11th catastrophe, at a time when warmongers were using misleading labels to create alliances for war, before the General Assembly of the United Nations I make a proposal for an alliance for peace based on justice, as a complementary theory to the Dialogue among Civilizations.

Here I would like to reiterate my belief that peace is a fruit which will only grow on the tree of justice. And until justice—whether on the national arena and in the treatment of governments of its own people or on the international arena—is absent we cannot expect real peace to take hold. Perceived stability which is brought about by fear and oppression will not be lasting and it will only result in the increasing of resentment and hatred and depravation of humans of all their deserved rights and integrity.

In the international arena a peace that is based on the destructive force of devastating weapons and policies of occupation and repression and sanctions will not bear any result except creating ever more distance between nations and grounds for breeding violence and terrorism. One of the most important reasons that the various proposals for peace have failed is that they do not pay enough attention to the factor of justice.

This proposal for an alliance for peace was not given its due the attention in the commotion of violence and anger prevailing at that time. But now, in this gathering of well-intentioned and internationally respected figures, I will repeat this proposal and announce that the Foundation for Dialogue among Civilizations is ready to undertake comprehensive analysis of this issue and call upon the thoughts and experiences of experts to prepare a plan in this field so that after it is considered in the meetings of next year it can be codified as a charter and presented to the United Nations and other important and influential international organizations and associations in Europe, Asia, Africa and America as well as within parliaments so that it will be given enforcement mechanisms. The strong backing of the InterAction Council will ensure that such a proposal will be accepted by the relevant organizations and institutions.

The Middle East is rightfully considered the most crisis-prone region in the world. In this regard our proposal has been that the world’s nuclear disarmament can start from the Middle East. Today there are nuclear arsenals in this region and nuclear warheads are stored in the some of the region’s countries by some military alliances, which have added to the threat and concern. The Council can prepare a proposal for a Nuclear-Free Middle East in a committee and take on the responsibility of its implementation on behalf of the United Nations and international community.

UPDATED Iran Analysis: And The Nuclear Sideshow Goes On...And On...And On

UPDATE 1200 GMT: The US side of this nuclear dance just gets stranger. In a clear sign of the bureaucratic in-fighting, the Pentagon has issued an official statement repudiating the Secretary of Defense's reported three-page memorandum denouncing a lack of clear US strategy. Spokesman Geoff Morrell said the Obama Adminsitration has "spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort considering and preparing for the full range of contingencies".

So who was the original mischief-maker (and from which agency) who fed the Gates story to The New York Times?

The first day of Tehran's 48-hour nuclear disarmament festival, a response to Barack Obama's Washington summit, dazzles the non-Iranian media this morning. Even the top analyst Juan Cole follows the lead, with attention to the Supreme Leader's declaration that the use of nuclear weapons is forbidden (haram) in Islamic law:

An American audience just assumes that Khamenei is just lying and they feel (with some justification) that he is simply engaged in anti-American propaganda, and so he words fall on deaf ears here. But in much of the world, Khamenei’s speech will be taken as devastating to the US position.

I'm not sure how much rhetorical devastation has taken place --- I suspect that shrewd onlookers, despite the media brouhaha, will see both the Washington and Tehran gatherings as posturing in the US-Iran political contest.

However, our old friend David Sanger at The New York Times, fueled by the US Government, has his own mini-explosion to contribute:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document.

Several officials said the highly classified analysis, written in January to President Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, came in the midst of an intensifying effort inside the Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence agencies to develop new options for Mr. Obama. They include a set of military alternatives, still under development, to be considered should diplomacy and sanctions fail to force Iran to change course.

Officials familiar with the memo’s contents would describe only portions dealing with strategy and policy, and not sections that apparently dealt with secret operations against Iran, or how to deal with Persian Gulf allies.

One senior official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the memo, described the document as “a wake-up call.” But White House officials dispute that view, insisting that for 15 months they had been conducting detailed planning for many possible outcomes regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

If Sanger took a moment's retreat from his dramatic prose, he might realise he is being given a walk-on part (see the precedent of Rosencrantz and Guildestern in W. Shakespeare's political case study Hamlet) in a bureaucratic battle over Iran policy. Gates isn't entirely happy with the State Department's diplomatic approach, so he fires off some paragraphs to the NSC to ask them to have a look at military options. Some of his staffers or allies in other departments pick up the phone to Sanger so he, as reporter, could put on some public pressure. Other officials (NSC? State Department? White House?) counter with the assurance that the US policy is being thoughtfully and carefully formulated.

Beyond this internal battle, Gates' "military alternatives", contrary to Sanger's implication in his lead paragraph, does not mean attacking Iran but strengthening the "containment" of Tehran in the region through a bolstered US presence and through the now ever-present rationale of tying the nuclear issue to "terrorism". That is not that distant from the policy being considered in other parts of the Obama Administration; the issue is one of degree --- how far to consider Iran as rival to be contained? how far to think of Tehran as a power who can be approached in discussions, to the point of pursuing a rapprochement over issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan?

Needless to say, Sanger never countenances the possibility that Iran is far from marching --- a la Khamenei's own theatrical declaration --- toward an atomic bomb. And he sprinkles in, from his unnamed Government officials, generalisations such as, "[Gates] wrote the memo after Iran had let pass a 2009 deadline set by Mr. Obama to respond to his offers of diplomatic engagement."

(Set aside Iran's media spin that it is taking the lead in diplomatic engagement to pursue disarmament. Tehran's reiterations that it wants discussions on a swap of uranium fuel --- albeit still murky as to whether that occurs inside or outside Iran --- is enough to puff away this US Government-supported article.)

Oh, well. Another 24 hours in Tehran of poses and declarations today. Then we'll be back to the rat-a-tat-tat, with no "That's All, Folks", of sanctions, sanctions, sanctions v. Iran's declarations that it stands tall in the face of Western provocation.

Iran: A View From Tehran "The New Year Challenges"

Analysis from inside Iran can often be as interesting for what lies behind the words on the page as for the claims on the surface. Consider, for example, the latest perspective in Iran Review from Firouzeh Mirrazavi:

About one month after the beginning of the new Iranian calendar year (March 21, 2010) and following international registration of Norouz by the United Nations General Assembly, Iran is facing new challenges: part of this is domestic while another part emanates from Iran’s international and regional policies as well as international pressures it is bearing. Some Iran experts maintain that social unrests following presidential polls in 2009 have led to the isolation of certain parts of the Iranian society, political circles, media crew, and political parties and activists. Post-election events have deepened the gaps and put the country on a wrong track which cannot help to solve any of the existing problems.

The Latest from Iran (15 April): Accepting Authority?

As history has proven in past several thousands of years, enemies usually hit the country in such junctures by fanning the flames of differences. Ambiguities in international relations, especially where Iran’s national security is at stake, have further complicated the situation. Examples to the point include:


1. Iran’s nuclear case and plans by the Security Council and 5+1 to impose tougher sanctions on Iran as the country is getting ready to host an international conference on disarmament and nonproliferation and a similar conference on nuclear security is forthcoming in the United States;

2. Elections in Iraq and persistence of political challenges over the composition of the next Iraqi government;

3. The ongoing situation in Afghanistan and prospects of possible reconciliation between [President Hamid] Karzai and NATO alliance and Taliban forces;

4. Iran’s relations with Saudi Arabia which have been marred by an ongoing crisis of distrust between the two states in addition to territorial and strategic pressures from other Persian Gulf states which are in line with the regional interests of western countries;

5. Israel’s continued threats to use military force against Iran;

6. Tension between Iran and its northern neighbors over the country’s share of the Caspian Sea’s energy resources; and

7. Insecurity of the Iranian borders due to widespread presence of foreign troops in neighboring countries and activities of terrorist and insurgent groups in border areas.

Having a healthy, happy and progressive society by taking advantage of knowledge, expertise and efficiency of all social classes and political groups is the best way to overcome the above-mentioned difficulties. Problems can be successfully solved only when the majority of the Iranian nation, regardless of their political tendencies, lends its support to the government. National unity is an inevitable necessity under existing circumstances and to secure Iran’s rights and interests, there is no better option than strengthening national unity and fostering peace and tranquility in the country.