Posted on by Nathan Riley

Who Won? Israel or Iran?

July 4th was a significant news day. Finally, there was hard news about who won the Israel-Iran War.

Seymour Hersch, who has a distinguished record writing about the U.S. military, had just made an extraordinary journalistic  prediction. On the Friday before Israel attacked Iran, that is, the day before the attack began, Hersch, in his Substack post, predicted the start of the war.

On July 4th, Hersch answered the question, “Did Israel and the U.S. destroy Iran’s nuclear preparations?” According to this veteran journalist, the Iranians moved their “more than 450 pounds of the enriched gas… [to] at another vital Iranian nuclear site at Isfahan…[that] was pulverized by Tomahawk missiles fired by a U.S. submarine.” Trying to safely store its enriched uranium, Iran mistakenly moved it to a site that was “pulverized.” In Hersch’s view, the Iranian attempt at safeguarding its enriched uranium failed completely.

Most of Hersch’s article discussed the Defense Department’s leaks reaching the opposite conclusion. It hinted that Iran’s enriched uranium remained a threat. Not so, Hersch wrote. The United States and Israel denied their military success. They were inflating the Iranian threat.

Also on July 4th, the Financial Times looked back on the war and reached this conclusion: “Saudi Arabia sticks with Iran after Israel war.” The Saudis and Iran follow different branches of Islam. This led Saudi Arabia to lean towards the United States, but this changed in 2023 after China brokered normal relations with Iran. The war did not disturb these changes.

On Sunday, the New York Times concluded that China and Russia did not rush “to aid Iran during its war with Israel or when U.S. forces bombed Iranian nuclear sites.” According to the Times interpretation, Iran did not receive the support it should expect from an ally.

 The Times was not exploring an equally obvious conclusion. China and Russia refused to escalate a hot war between the U.S., Israel, and Iran. If this interpretation wasn’t brought to the public’s attention, it certainly registered with keen international observers. The Times article embraced the idea that China and Russia should have joined the war if they were true allies of Iran. That is hardly obvious. Their choice to diffuse tensions is clearly reasonable and arguably in Iran’s best interest. Had the war gotten hotter, the damage to Iran would have been greater.

The current issue of Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sketches the extensive damage done to Iran. Water supplies, the petroleum industry, and shopping centers were attacked. It seems likely that the Gulf states, China, and Russia will help Iran rebuild.

China, Russia, and North Korea, in all probability, will help Iran replace missiles and drones destroyed in the war. Tehran did not beat Israel, but its government was uplifted by demonstrations of support from Iranian citizens. Israel remains the most powerful nation in the region, but Iran demonstrated its ability to damage Israel.

Israel couldn’t deliver a death blow. Iran was fighting until the end and caused extensive damage, demonstrating that Israel’s vaunted missile shield could be penetrated.

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA analyst, prepared a map showing 17 sites in Israel that suffered extensive damage. Israel was as happy as Iran that the fighting stopped after 12 days. Israel has an edge over Iran, but it is no longer the undisputed military power in West Asia.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is Trump Winning Elections?

On Wednesday (March 26), Donald Trump, as part of his blizzard of new ideas and executive orders, announced that all foreign cars will have a 25% tariff. Presumably the three American manufacturers should be happy.

Curious, I looked for the American automobile manufacturers’ reactions. After saying they support President Trump, American Automakers, the trade association for American automobile manufacturers, was unenthusiastic. First, they wanted a durable solution, and the dramatic announcement of a major market change didn’t sound durable.

There is no sign that foreign competition is the American manufacturers’ major concern. The companies wanted answers to questions that governments normally provide before, not after, a drastic policy change is announced. General Motors, Ford, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler) wanted to “avoid raising prices.” Making it probable that their problem was not foreign competition but that their cars were too expensive for American buyers. If the tariffs raised prices and consumers could not pay them, the number of cars made by these automakers would decline. This worry was accelerated by another Trump tariff on imported aluminum and steel. Making metals more expensive means car prices will increase. Normally, a government carefully weighs these issues before starting a new policy. If Trump had done that it was clear he never told U.S. automobile makers. In fact, the suspicion is that Trump, forever the showman, picked the 25% tariff because he liked the number and wanted to make a public impression. No good can come out of policy changes that are not backed by serious study.

Stock traders also worried. The price of Ford and General Motors stocks fell. The day before the tariffs Ford stock traded for $10.30; by Friday afternoon, two days after Trump’s announcement of the tariff, it was trading at $9.65. General Motors went from $52.59 at the close of Tuesday to $46.39 on Friday afternoon. Stellantis went from $12.40 down to $11.30.

In other words, the 25% tariff imposed on foreign cars did not bring good news. I’m not concerned about the automobile manufacturers’ stock prices, but I am curious whether these businesses really want Trump to be President. It is likely that the rich and powerful are nervously watching the President and wish he wasn’t there.

There is evidence that most people are turned off by the Donald. An election in Pennsylvania for its state senate flipped the district. A Republican local elected official, Josh Parsons, lost to a local Democratic mayor, James Malone. What was red turned blue in a district that overwhelmingly supported Trump.

Even the Trump administration is worried; they told Elise Stefanik from upstate New York she should stay in Congress. She will give up her chance to be the ambassador to the United Nations. Far from New York City, in upstate, the Republicans are the majority, but the administration was worried, and it decided to play it safe and keep her in the Republican majority.

Plainly, Trump is losing support, but the Republican in Pennsylvania lost by the narrowest of margins. The next test of Trump’s popularity occurs on April 1st. In Florida, there are two special elections for Congress caused by the resignation of Republican members of Congress. Matt Gaetz’s successor is being chosen, and Mike Waltz, who resigned to become one of Trump’s national security advisors, will have his successor chosen. In Wisconsin, millions of dollars are being spent in a statewide election, choosing a state supreme court judge. Brad Schimel, a conservative, is running against Susan Crawford, a liberal. The winner will decide if the state’s highest court has a liberal or conservative bent.

Clearly, one reason Trump is losing popularity is the aggressive behavior of Elon Musk. The Democrats are insisting their judge will stand up to Musk while Schimmel will do the rich man’s bidding.

We are just days away from an early read on Trump’s staying power. If the automobile manufacturers and Pennsylvania voters are changing their minds about Trump, this helps explains the decline in his polling numbers. On Tuesday April Fool’s Day we will find out if Trump’s bull-in-a-chinashop style will hurt him in the elections.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Is The World Heading Towards Catastrophe?

The nightmare of Trump joining Putin in damning Ukrainian President Zelensky signals the end of NATO and the unraveling of a world order, bringing a proliferation of atomic weapons as nations seek protection. Wars will break out all over the world. Concerns like these animate international affairs.

Israel with U.S. support will attack Iran while invading Palestine to remove its population. Russia will come to the aid of Iran, its ally. Taiwan watching the epidemic of violence will seek China’s protection. U.S. troops will converge on this trouble spot deserting South Korea. Japan will be on its own and rearm. Violence will break out with China at its Philippine border, bringing Australia into this international maelstrom.

In West Asia, forcing Palestinians out of their homeland will inflame tensions between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Turkey will protect its interest in Syria. Europe will unite and form an armed service to protect itself from Russian expansion.

In an optimistic view, there is no necessity for these trouble spots to bring armed conflict.

On Friday Feb 21, in Saudi Arabia a $20 billion Egyptian plan to redevelop Gaza under the supervision of the U.S. will be discussed by a working group preparing for an Arab summit in March. “The Arab proposal, mostly based on an Egyptian plan, involves forming a national Palestinian committee to govern Gaza without Hamas involvement and international participation in reconstruction without displacing Palestinians abroad.” The Arabs believe their 20-billion-dollar contribution will entice Trump while Israel will get a sweetener. Its firms will receive contracts. The Arabs want to prevent the expulsion of Palestinians, a human rights nightmare trumpeted by Netanyahu and Trump. Last week’s genocidal removal of the Palestinians could end with a reasonable solution and the rebirth of Gaza. Israel lowered tensions by publicly considering allowing Palestinians to emigrate voluntarily.

South Korea is getting a new President who may want the U.S. armed forces to leave. Japan may be thrilled and seek the end of U.S. supervision. What looked like a catastrophe might seem like a new beginning for Japan and South Korea. Japan and China share a mutual security interest; they depend on freedom of the seas. Food, fuel and other necessities must be delivered by ship. A pullback of U.S. forces would encourage the two nations to enter into cooperation agreements.

A calamity is not inevitable.

Everybody recognizes that forcing Zelensky out will have international repercussions. It’s possible to oust Zelensky without accepting the controversial view that Ukraine provoked the crisis. During Trump’s first term, Zelensky cooperated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in making the argument that Trump was pro-Russian. The first impeachment of Trump revolved around the Ukraine and Zelensky sided with the Democrats. This political history demands a Trump reprisal against Zelensky.

But the bottom line remains, Putin is winning the war and is under no obligation to make concessions.

As is normal, the future is laced with possibilities, and we may hope that human wit will avoid disaster.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Through the Looking Glass

June is China Month in Washington D.C.

The G7—once the most prestigious group of nations in the globe, now reduced to an alliance of the U.S. and its allies—met in Italy and issued a communique at the end of its meeting. China didn’t attend, but it was mentioned 28 times.

In a front page New York Times story, clearly at the behest of U.S. diplomatic sources, China is described as a “malign force.” Among its numerous sins, said U.S. officials, is helping Russia build weapons to fight Ukraine and a possible threat to withhold the exotic minerals used in batteries and microchips. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists has written two articles about reducing tension between Washington and Beijing.

The U.S. and China navies come dangerously close to each other in the South China Sea. Gone are the days when Apple proudly announced new sales figures from China for its products. Now the U.S. issues stern warnings trying to limit China’s alliance with Russia.

If we had a looking glass that could peer into the future, war between these superpowers is conceivable. China is protecting its borders. Its soldiers and weapons are close at hand. The U.S. is at the other side of the world and depending on its collection of bases in the Pacific for supplies to fight a war. Nonetheless the U.S. confidently assures us it can master the Chinese, who already forced U.S. troops back seventy years ago in Korea.

It is all too conceivable that war could flare up between the world’s two superpowers. This is high risk politics, and the U.S. acts like it is prepared to confront this worst-of-all possible outcomes.

The push for world government is one possible way to prevent these two atomic powers from coming to blows. If we turned the United Nations into the World Government we would have a better chance of resolving these tensions without the death and destruction of war.

Even in the unlikely event that Ukraine beats the Russians their nation is a shadow of its former self. Cities, farmlands, and power plants would have to be rebuilt. The millions of people who fled will need strong reassurances to return and are more likely to prefer the peace and prosperity in their new homes. Restoring Ukraine will take decades.

In Gaza, the destruction is even graver, and there is the strong possibility that Israel has no intention of letting the Palestinians return to their homes. Death, destruction, and possible starvation are the realities that govern Palestine. Furious at the October 7th massacre by Hamas, Israel believes that its weapons can destroy Palestinian militancy. There is widespread skepticism that this final solution will be achieved by the Israeli Defense Forces.

We should remember that the problem isn’t a Hamas massacre or an Israeli blockade of humanitarian aid. The problem isn’t separating the good guys from the bad guys by the evil deeds they commit; the problem is war. Using weapons to settle disputes will always bring war crimes. Only if we find an alternate way to resolve disputes can we stop these horrific crimes.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, coming out of the World War II victory, clearly hoped the United Nations would prevent wars from starting. He did not envision subordinating nations to an international peacekeeping force. As we approach the first quarter of the twenty-first century, the need for a world-governing body like the United Nations to control national governments persists. What was a step too far for Roosevelt can happen if Americans unite into a political party supporting this drastic solution.

World government, I believe, is one reason to support Freedom Democrats and to ally ourselves with the fight for the rights of sex workers, drug users, and people who party. We can create new possibilities and move the United States, and hopefully the world, in a peaceful and prosperous direction.  

Posted on by Nathan Riley · 1 Comment

Strategy

Abraham Lincoln, at 33 and on his way to becoming a leader of the Whig Party in Illinois offered this caution to a local temperance society about helping people give up drink. His advice was simple: offer friendship. If you don’t do this but choose “to dictate to his judgment… or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself…you shall be no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise.” Be gentle, caring, and friendly was Lincoln’s advice.

Freedom Democrats are trying to start a movement by cultivating friendship. The key organizing tool is weekly parties. In my opinion, it should be an opportunity for sex workers, persons who are not highly educated, and those who want to reform government to dance, talk, and become friends.

United in their belief that freedom includes the right to take the currently illegal drugs, trade sex for money, watch and make porn, these people can unite in a common cause. One main hope is that these parties can bring the college professor together with the high school dropout. To be a success, black, brown, and white people must be welcomed and have fun.

The objective is to become players in the Democratic Party, and from this base, to have an impact on government.

Everybody goes to parties and has good times. The key to success is that everybody feels welcome at these weekly events. No special skills are required to throw a party, but since Freedom Democrats are political, the hosts should establish ties with lawyers. It can be expected that while we are enjoying ourselves other people will badmouth us and some will call the cops.

In this way, from the very beginning, the host will establish ties with people knowledgeable about the law. A major objective of Freedom Democrats is to get activists and people with little interest in politics to become acquainted. In this way, Freedom Democrats can grow until they have an impact.

People who party should become friends with coat-and-tie people.

For years, congress has talked endlessly about making marijuana legal, but in the end fear of change has limited progress to baby steps. The same hesitation slows progress among state and local officials. Freedom Democrats are numerous, and the strategy is to create unity so that politicians take notice.

By throwing parties we develop local bases in communities all over the state.

In my opinion, Freedom Democrats should push for new attitudes. Drug users should be able to go to their doctors without interference from government agencies like the DEA. Some people want to give up their habit; others want to be left alone. It is a private matter between the doctor and the drug user. Drug users, like everyone else, should get substances prepared by doctors and scientists that minimize side-effects.

Currently, drug users must buy their drugs from underground suppliers without any of the safeguards that a person has when they take a prescription to a drugstore. Overdose deaths rocketed higher after politicians made the disastrous mistake of telling Oxycontin users that they could no longer get pharmaceutical drugs. It made no more sense than telling overweight people they can no longer buy food. The chance of an Oxycontin user overdosing is limited, while illegal drugs are killing thousands every month. The Oxycontin users should have had the right to go to their doctor and develop a course of treatment. It is obnoxious and stupid for government to simply tell people, “Stop,” denounce the drug, and then expect people to give it up. Some do, but many don’t and buy their drugs from dealers. Government, in its stupidity, created a large market for criminals. Some Freedom Democrats can make it clear that this stupid policy subsidized criminals.

In recent months, wars in Palestine and Ukraine have added to the list of armed conflicts that are a constant feature of this century. Since the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the United States’ Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delanor Roosevelt have recognized that the best way to hinder war is to start a world government that controls national states.

For this reason, I proposed that the United Nations become such a world government. It is a change that is familiar to American history. The Confederation of 13 colonies that beat the British couldn’t last. The Confederacy was too weak to collect taxes, make it easy to do business between states. Thus, in 1787, after the peace treaty was signed with Great Britain, a group of patriots drafted the Constitution, and the Confederation became history.

I propose that similar agreements be drafted that would control Israel, Russia, China, the United States, and all the other countries in the world. If a dispute develops, these nations would hire lawyers, not troops. I have no idea if this proposal would prove popular in the United States or with Freedom Democrats, but it is a major reason why I want the Freedom Democrats to get organized.

Posted on by Nathan Riley

Do Not Fall into the 9/11 Nostalgia Trap.

By Nathan Riley 9/23/2021

Keep this in mind: Al Qaeda attacked three buildings and killed 3,000 persons. The deliberately theatrical coup amplified violence besieging the Muslim World since before World War I. Osama Bid Laden must have been surprised; only in his wildest dreams would his plan knock down the World Trade Center skyscrapers. The attack outstripped a 1993 terrorist triumph after the Desert Storm war. A truck packed with explosives blasted the World Trade Center garage with the force of a bomb. Six were killed; 50,000 fled smoke and fire. 1,000 were wounded. 9-11 was one ambitious terrorist outshining another master. Bid Laden’s hijacked airplanes surpassed the truck bombing. His attack crushed thousands, was broadcast on worldwide television, and collapsed the two tallest building in the fifty states.

This brutal provocation led the United States into a reign of error and atrocities. Were Bid Laden-Robin Hood provoking the Sherriff of Nottingham the mistake would be obvious. The Sherriff’s men would chase the merry men into Sherwood Forrest and be ambushed. Roaring with fury and giving little consideration that harsh policies might increase the popularity of the opposition, the United State declared war against terrorism all over the world. Elevating a group of guerrillas into a test of U.S. power.

This gung ho response led to a victory for Islamic insurgents caused by American’s confidence that it could crush the enemy in Afghanistan the way Desert Storm overwhelmed Saddam Hussein’s soldiers. By September 18, 2001 every member of Congress except California’s Barbara Lee voted for war against “against those nations, organizations, or persons” involved the attack. She was the only voice backing “restraint” and “caution.” Her vote gained her a place in history. The terrorist operating on a shoestring budget provoked the United States into a costly 20-year war.

The network of Radical Muslims, almost all Saudis, raised approximately $250,000, sacrificed their lives, and flew the planes into the buildings. They ignited this war, but the United States provided the fuel to keep the engine running. By the time the U.S. left it spent $2.3 trillion, and still lost to the Taliban.

This is a defeat. A defeat of such magnitude that it calls into question the competence of our leaders. Popular fury fed Washington’s conceit it could crush the furious hostility of radical Muslims battling the “Great Satan.” Unfortunately, the United States was trapped into being the bad guys-the invaders.

From this perspective the Taliban’s speedy takeover at the close of hostilities reflected popular hostility against the NATO forces but also sound judgment by Afghan Security Forces eager to avoid the grave danger of a civil war.

Undoubtedly, we will hear stories of Kabul Army leaders pocketing corrupt payments – turning government positions into private fortunes is practiced all over the world. But money should not obscure important point. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan speaking to the BBC expressed his concern that the civil war might return. The collapse of the Kabul forces brought domestic peace. The surrender of the pro-American soldiers ended the war.

Afghani supporters of the U.S. were left in a dreadful position; the only way women’s rights and intellectual freedom could be saved was by going to war with the Taliban. A bloody outcome that would have prolonged the agony flooding the region with refugees. Lindsay Graham, the South Carolina Senator, vehemently supports guerrilla war against the Taliban. A Republican victory might make his proposals carry the day.

Normal relations with the Taliban government would allow the United States to match the growing influence of the Chinese. If the U.S. traded and provided aid, Washington could gain a perch that might help women and people trained in the sciences. Punishing the Taliban with sanctions and brandishing U.S. power puts these cosmopolitan groups in the difficult position of being identified with a hostile nation.

Afghanistan has many non-terrorist features that might be accessible if normal relations are established. A huge copper mine supplies international markets. Lithium, the stuff that make the batteries in cell phone and electric vehicles work is another Afghani asset. If the American government swallowed hard, maintained its aid to the Taliban, it could make a claim to these natural resources.

This policy would place the U.S. in direct competition with the Chinese in their backyard but without the antagonism that Washington seems to prefer. In fact, the Chinese Silk Road expansion is laced with major construction projects that might attract American business.

China is waiting to pick up the pieces left by the U.S. departure. Afghanistan is in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. CPEC is a $50 billion Pakistan component of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Talks are starting about including the Taliban government. Continued hostility towards the Taliban helps China.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A competition over who builds the improvement on the silk road from Europe to Beijing makes the United States try to win loyalty of Muslim nations with public works not weapons. It turns the Chinese challenge into coexistence. That would transform the Taliban victory into a happier moment.