Blogger Philippines Flag US Flag Hungary Flag

Israel-US vs. Iran War

Context

The armed forces of Israel and the United States have attacked Iran. Neither has formally declared war. Every sovereign nation has the right to defend itself. One of the defensive moves Iran has made was to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Israel

Iran has consistently maintained the position and policy that Israel has no right to exist. Obviously, Israel has a problem with this, especially as the Iranian regime openly sponsors its various proxies to wreak havoc on Israel — Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, etc.

While often seen from the outside as imperialistic for its incursions into Lebanon and Gaza, as well as the killing of civilian Palestinians, Israel's rhetoric is, "We just want to be left alone and live in peace." Israel claims that hey were neutralizing threats from one of the aforementioned Hs.

The United States

The US' problem with Iran is not the Ayatollahs, or Islam, or theocracy in general, but the fact that Iran was and is willing to sell its oil in currencies other than the US dollar. The US cannot tolerate this, hence the reason for removing Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela and Saddam Hussein of Iraq from power. The US must defend the dollar hegemony and the rule of the petrodollar.

So far, Donald Trump has declared victory seven times, yet the bombings continue. Trump has also said that he wants a say in who will lead the next Iranian government, which would require Iran's unconditional surrender. The US cannot ask for surrender, unless it has officially declared war, which requires an act of Congress.

Iran

Surrender??? Not happening. Iran will defend itself until it has exhausted the last drop of blood and oil. If the US Marine Expeditionary Force were to occupy Kharg Island, where Iran processes about 90% of its oil for export, it would put Iran in a difficult position, depriving it of critical flow of funds. Its only remaining option would be to use all of its resources to defend its control of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical choke point for about 20% of the world's oil and natural gas needs.

And, if there is a regime change, then change to what? Iran has tried theocracy for four decades and it didn't lead to prosperity (for the people). They tried monarchy under various kings, the latest Shah was Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. His son harbors aspirations of returning to the throne. Is Iran ready for democracy? Maybe, or maybe not. There are very smart people in Iran who will figure it out.

Europe

The United States has requested its allies' support for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. It even asked China, the country most dependent on Iranian energy exports. The EU nations have politely refused (so far), saying to the US, "It is your war (which you have already declared won), so you deal with it. No, thank you." Other nations are similarly reluctant to be drawn into a conflict with the potential for world war.

The sad part for Europe is that yet again, we must suffer the consequences (higher energy costs) of actions we had nothing to do with. I have a feeling that this applies to all the people, everywhere.

China

China, for the time being, wants to have nothing to do with the mess. Donald Trump has even delayed his planned trip to Beijing, saying he cannot come out to play, as he is too busy with the war. Hsi Jin Ping has declined Trump's invitation to help clear the Strait of Hormuz.

It is widely known that China plays the long game, so it is no surprise that they want to wait and see how events unfold in the Middle East before taking action. If they decide to act, they are more likely to make a move against Taiwan than become involved with Iran.

Map of the Strait of Hormuz

Minneapolis, MN

Context

CNN is airing its breaking news videos of events in Minneapolis. What can be seen should be deemed unacceptable in civil society. In a larger sense, is our country tearing itself apart - because of one man?

President Trump

If I understand the federal government's position clearly, it is this. Specific responsibilities have been entrusted to the federal government by the US Constitution; among these are immigration, border control, and customs enforcement. Congress has delegated these to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The individual states and their cities are required to enforce the laws and regulations. However, if they fail to do so, then DHS and its agencies will.

The US Congress

The US Congress is the legislative arm of the government, responsible for enacting laws governing the constraints (term, cost, purview) of DSH. Hearings are planned on the matter.

Minnesota

Law enforcement is the responsibility of city, county, and state authorities, police, and sheriff's departments. There is no need for armed and masked federal storm troopers here.

The people

The people support the state's position, although they think that if an illegal commits a crime, then (s)he should be arrested and deported in a peaceful and orderly manner.

The US Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court will have to eventually decide this constitutional tug-of-war between the federal government and the individual states. They will probably limit the reach and authority of the feds.

Greenland

Noble intent, horrible packaging

Background

Greenland is a sovereign, autonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark. Under the auspices of NATO membership, The US is free to build military bases on Greenland. It has made offers to buy the island from Denmark, all of them have been rebuffed with "Greenland is not for sale."

The Arctic Ocean is dominated by Russia and exploited by China for shorter delivery routes between Asia and Europe. Therefore, it is of strategic importance for the US to have defensive installations around Greenland, especially along its northern coastline. The US calls it the "Iron Dome".

Messaging

The strategic intent is clear. The messaging was horrible and inexcusable. One does not threaten one's allies with military force and punitive tariffs, TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) or not.

Had Mr. Trump described his vision for Greenland more accurately, detailing the changes that he envisioned, perhaps the resistance from Europe would have been less. Greenland, just like Puerto Rico, is an autonomous territory with local government, flag and legislature. I doubt that this would change under US ownership. Perhaps the money would become the US dollar instead of the Danish krone. There would be an influx of investment in the form of academic research institutions, education and healthcare organizations and various commercial enterprises creating many jobs. Maybe the US would even pay big money to Greenlanders for their vote to join the US and similarly compensate Denmark for their territory. Maybe the US would build up the infrastructure of Greenland — roads, bridges, airports, ports and alike.

Would this be so bad for Greenland, Europe, US, NATO, and the world?