Month: February 2015

The Middle East Will Be Safer If Iran Cannot Negotiate A Nuclear Agreement

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The New York Times reported that President Hassan Rouhan came out swinging and criticized nuclear-armed nations on Wednesday. Naturally, he focused on the U.S. and Israel for being hypocritical about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Considering that Rouhan was chosen to deal with Iran’s detractors and to negotiate a nuclear agreement with the United Nations Security Council, it was surprising that the president spoke so aggressively, especially since a deal is in the balance. In his speech, the Iranian leader indicated that his country does not “covet” nuclear weapons. This is the principal focus of the negotiations that are underway. Iran, he said, would use its nuclear capabilities only for peaceful purposes, a comment most do not believe.

Rouhan pointed out that several countries have nuclear weapons, and these weapons have not enabled any country to find peace. [This is a reference to the U.S. Even with its vast arsenal, it is always involved in conflict.] The U.S. has not actually used a nuclear weapon since World War II, and it has reduced the size of its inventory dramatically over time. The threat of a nuclear attack assisted the U.S. as it fended off the U.S.S.R during the Cold War.

Israel has never confirmed that it has nuclear weapons, but the Arms Control Association, a research group, says Israel has between 100 to 200 nuclear warheads.

It is likely that Rouhan was reacting to the grumbling by hawkish leaders and clerics in Iran. He wanted to assure his countrymen that he will negotiate assertively with the U.S. Additionally, he may be frustrated by difficult negotiations that are underway, and the possibility they will not be successful.

U.S. senators on both sides of the aisle have indicated that they are skeptical that any sensible agreement will evolve from the current negotiations. In fact, the Senate is ready to propose sanctions against Iran if a deal is not signed by March 24. The Security Council “has given themselves until [the same date] to reach the basics of a permanent agreement.”

The countries most interested in the negotiations, outside of the Security Council, are Israel and Saudi Arabia. Israel considers a nuclear Iran an existential threat. It is lobbying the U.S., the president and Congress to not provide flexibility to Iran regarding its nuclear program, and to increase sanctions.

Saudi Arabia has a similar attitude about Iran’s nuclear program, but it has been much less vocal. Iran is always at loggerheads with Saudi Arabia in their fight for dominance of the Arab world. If Iran produces a nuclear weapon, the Saudis will likely buy one. An arms race will ensue.

Some have argued that if other countries have nuclear arms, why shouldn’t Iran? These same people say that Iran will be responsible. On what basis? Given Iran’s attitude and disruptive behavior over the years, there is no reason to assume that it will not misuse a nuclear weapon, or wield it to bully other Arab nations.

Many observers are wondering why this agreement is such a high priority for President Obama, including a vast number of Americans. There are few nations in the region, if any, that are comfortable with the thought of a nuclear Iran.

Saudi Arabia Could Influence The Events In The Middle East By Manipulating Oil Prices

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Bloomberg Quick stated, “Oil is so much more than a fuel. It’s a force even bigger than its $3.4 trillion market. It’s a weapon, a strategic asset, a curse. It’s a maker and spoiler of fortunes, a leading indicator and an echo chamber . . . ”

The price of oil was specially volatile in 2014 on the downside. The price per barrel decreased from $107.73/ barrel in June to $53.27 by year end, a 48% decline, even as Americans and Europeans drove less in more efficient cars. Today the price of oil is approximately $48. The volatility of oil prices prior to the current precipitous drop was always affected by world affairs, economics, supply and demand and OPEC, which is dominated by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has a new leader, King Salman. Will he adopt new policies towards the U.S. and other Arab countries, or will he follow in the path of his predecessor? The answer to this question could have a dramatic impact on events in the Middle East and regions surrounding it.

The world is closely monitoring the actions and comments of the Saudis relative to oil prices. The price of this commodity and the commodity itself represents the power of this Sunni state. For years, Saudi Arabia impacted the price of oil to its benefit. Vast accumulation of wealth has enabled the kingdom to maintain domestic tranquility in the face of increasing religious fanaticism and influence. The Saudis bribe other nations to do their bidding. They unleashed insurgents to Shiite controlled nations to create instability. And now, they have a unique opportunity to dramatically impact three very important countries involved in the ISIS conflict.

There are some very interesting oil conspiracy theories floating around the marketplace. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia is the largest producer of oil in the Middle East, and it has experienced a huge drop off of revenues because of declining prices. Yet, the Saudis have resisted the urge to cut back production and create an artificial shortage, which would drive prices up. While prices and revenues are low, the country can draw upon very significant monetary resources.

The Saudis have stated that if they cut back production, other producers will step in,  fill the vacuum and prices will not increase. Additionally, they say that oil prices should be established by supply and demand, not on the whim of one producer or another.

Back to conspiracies. One is that the Saudis are not increasing prices because they want to deter the production of oil in the U.S. Production in the U.S. has increased from 5 million barrels in 2008 to 8.5 million barrels in 2014 spurred principally by hydraulic fracking in shale deposits. This has enabled the U.S. to dramatically decrease its dependence on foreign oil and made it a producer equal in size to Saudi Arabia. Some say that the Saudis are keeping prices low to discourage  new production in the U.S. High cost producers in this country are currently shutting down operations rather than producing oil and selling it a loss.

Another theory is that Saudi Arabia is reveling in the problems facing both Russia and Iran. Both are large producers who are highly dependent on  oil revenues. Russia and Iran are also dealing with economic sanctions imposed by the U.S.

Russia is being punished because it annexed Crimea  and continues to support rebels who are destabilizing Ukraine. Iran is being sanctioned because it has continued its nuclear program.

Saudi Arabia is in a position that is very familiar to it. By manipulating oil prices, it can significantly impact other nations. In the case of Russia, the Saudis want it to encourage Bashar al-Assad of Syria to abdicate. Russia has been supportive of Assad and has given him military assistance as he fights with ISIS and moderate rebels. Most believe Vladimir Putin will not cave to these demands.

Iran is Saudi Arabia’s principal antagonist in the region. It is the leader of the Shiite world;  Saudi Arabia leads the Sunni world. They regularly are at loggerheads when one supports a regime and the other works to destabilize it. Iran is having serious financial problems because of oil prices and sanctions. Its ability to create unrest in Sunni nations will be diminished if revenues are squeezed. Exacerbating its relationship with Iran is Saudi Arabia’s concern about the ability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Like Israel, the Saudis believe that this contingency is an existential threat. It is highly probable that the Saudis are conferring with the U.S. to maintain sanctions and not permit the Iranians to move forward in their nuclear program, while the Saudis keep oil prices low.

Saudi Arabia is in the driver’s seat relating to several important situations. We can be sure that they will use their influence and money to take advantage of these situations.

Will The Jordanian Pilot’s Execution Increase Pressure On The U.S. To Employ Ground Troops Against ISIS?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The horrific execution of Lt. Moaz al-Kasasbeh, the Jordanian pilot, by ISIS could change the dynamics of the ISIS conflict.

In reality, ISIS’ brazen and cruel action is not really an acceleration of violence. During the past several months, the group has murdered moderate Sunnis and Shiites across Iraq and Syria, all fellow Muslims. But, the in your face attitude of the insurgents, the staging of the event and the use of it as propaganda and a fear tactic may arouse the Muslim world. The question is whether Muslims will be more enthused about participating in the U.S. coalition.

Understandably, Jordanians are outraged by the execution and promising to respond aggressively. They took a first step yesterday by executing two Al Qaeda prisoners shortly after ISIS released a video of the pilot’s execution. One of the prisoners was a female who killed 60 people in Jordan and was offered in a trade to ISIS for the release of the pilot.

The reaction from the Muslim world could go in three directions. The outrage might inspire greater participation of Arab countries in the ISIS conflict. Frankly, the most helpful response would be greater pressure on the ground against ISIS. This is far-fetched and unlikely.

A second possibility could be no significant response at all. Nothing has changed; ISIS is continuing to kill Muslims and terrorizing the Arab world.

Thirdly, Arab leaders may pressure the U.S. to become more engaged in the ISIS conflict. Keep in mind that, to this point, the U.S. is bombing the enemy at a rate significantly lower than it did in previous Middle East conflicts. And, the U.S. is not employing ground forces. It seems that every military person interviewed by the media has stated that ISIS cannot be defeated without ground troops.

President Obama has resisted this notion, but Arab leaders might try to convince him to change his strategy. This blog has repeatedly indicated that ground forces that can root out ISIS fighters in populated areas and direct bombing sorties, are critical to successfully dealing with the ISIS threat.

Does Terrorism Pose An Existential Threat To The U.S.?

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

Does terrorism pose an existential threat to America? An honest answer to this question would enable our leaders to write effective policies that would protect us from those elements that wish us harm. The security of America should be the most important concern of the president and our leaders, not the feelings of those who might be insulted by actions to ensure our safety.

A few days ago, President Obama indicated that terrorism does not existentially endanger the homeland. I believe he meant that it would not be possible for a terrorist organization to attack the homeland and do significant damage. Based upon history, Obama’s position is indefensible.

A band of terrorists commandeered commercial aircraft in 2001 using box cutters and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The destabilization of the U.S. after these events was horrific, and we are still feeling the effects to this day. So, if the president believes our reaction to terrorism globally should be muted lest we offend one group or another, or for any other reason, I strongly disagree.

What about Pearl Harbor and 9/11? Should the U.S. have declared war against Japan after that fateful day in December 1941? And, was an invasion of Afghanistan an appropriate response to the Al Qaeda treachery in 2001?

The former event is clear-cut. Over three hundred Japanese planes attacked our homeland and killed over 2,400 Americans in an effort to destroy a U.S. naval base in Hawaii. Franklin Delano Roosevelt urged Congress to declare war on Japan, and the rest is history.

Al Qaeda terrorists planned and executed an attack on U.S. soil that killed over 2,700 innocent Americans. Shortly thereafter, President Bush authorized the invasion of Afghanistan, the nation that harbored Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11. Did 9/11 warrant such a bold reaction from the president? Before you answer, keep in mind that the conflict has continued for more than a decade, over 2,300 soldiers have been killed in action and the price tag has exceeded $650 billion.

In retrospect, the Afghan response seems excessive, especially considering the cost in blood and treasure. But, the action severely impaired Al Qaeda (for a time) and could very well have prevented other similar incidents. George Bush did not hesitate. He believed(s) terror does represent an existential threat to America, and he responded accordingly.

Radical Islamists have proven that they are willing to die for their warped ideology, one that endorses the murder of innocent people. And so, it is feasible that one day a suicide bomber armed with a small nuclear weapon could kill thousands of non-believers on the orders of a crazed cleric.

Is the possibility of such an act of terror an existential threat to America? I suppose it depends upon how many people are murdered and whether such an atrocity would destabilize the U.S. I believe the odds of a nuclear attack and its potential aftermath absolutely qualify it as an existential threat.

You may glean from my words that I am supportive of draconian measures to protect the homeland. Political correctness and hypersensitivity about civil liberties do not move me. Moreover, I would be prepared to accept increased surveillance personally if it increased the odds of preempting an attack on America.

The preponderance of troublemakers consists of either Arabs, or westerners who travel to Middle East hot spots to be trained and brainwashed. The response to this is clear. Our authorities must close our borders to those (citizens and non-citizens) trying to enter the U.S. after traveling to places fraught with radical Islamists. This is not a tactic that will be looked upon favorably by many, but it will mitigate some risks affiliated with lone wolves.

Additionally, the U.S. should end all student visas from the Middle East along with work permits unless credible companies, schools and individuals sponsor these travelers.

Finally, profiling at our borders is critical. When are we going to give TSA officers the training necessary to identify potential troublemakers?

These actions would likely create quite a stir. Nevertheless, the U.S. should take reasonable steps to amp up its defenses against terrorist threats.

Middle East Predictions: ISIS, Civil War, Terrorism

/ softballpolitics / Leave a comment

By Sal Bommarito

The prospects for peace in the Middle East are not favorable in the near future. The ISIS conflict and several other ongoing problems will continue to plague the Arab world during the next year. This essay will examine some of the more pressing issues and their effect on the geopolitical landscape.

 

The ISIS caliphate will begin to take shape as hostilities wane between ISIS and its enemies. It will be a monumental achievement for the interlopers to establish a new nation on stolen ground. The brutality of ISIS will not subside. In an effort to solidify its dominance, ISIS will execute opponents as well as non-Sunni Arabs. These actions will serve to exacerbate the refugee crisis and increase the number of displaced Arabs.

 

The immigration of refugees to countries neighboring Syria, including Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, will create dire circumstances for the lost souls and for the countries that have been so receptive to those in need. Refugees will encounter worsening living conditions and be ostracized by citizens of countries to which they immigrated. It is likely that thousands will perish from starvation, cold weather, unsanitary conditions and genocide.

 

The coalition’s plan to train and arm Iraqi soldiers and moderate rebels in Syria will be unsuccessful. This contingency will create a stalemate if the U.S. does not send ground troops. Ground force support of bombing operations is critical as ISIS fighters fortify their positions in populated areas. Pilots have not been able to identify and destroy targets without experienced controllers on the ground.

 

At some point, the U.S. will be forced to abandon its objective to destroy ISIS. There is no reason to expect that President Obama will change his battle plan during the final two years of his administration, even if Congress petitions him to do so.

 

The extraction of U.S. forces from the region is a significant goal of the Obama administration. This coupled with resistance of Americans against ground troop utilization should ensure another unsuccessful American military escapade.

 

Iraq will continue to be a battleground where Shiite government forces encounter persistent Sunni opposition and ISIS fighters. The current leader of Iraq will eventually cave into hard line pressure and increase the oppression of Sunnis not under the control of the ISIS caliphate.

 

The Shiite/Sunni feud will escalate throughout the region as each sect employs insurgents to destabilize nations governed by the other sect. Yemen is the latest victim, where Shiite fighters have deposed Sunni leadership.

 

The consensus among nations determined to dethrone Bashar al-Assad of Syria will dissipate as domestic conditions in each Arab country worsen. The U.S. has already deferred its earlier objective to topple Assad, so he will survive for the time being. Iran must deal with western sanctions and oil-inspired economic instability, so it will be diverted. Turkey has a gargantuan refugee problem that is taxing its financial condition and a growing Kurdish push for independence. The only state that will likely pressure Assad is Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, Syria will continue to be a killing field as ISIS protects its gains and Syrian rebels battle against Assad.

 

Iran will not be able to negotiate a deal with the U.S. to produce a nuclear weapon. The U.S. Congress is going to resist any inane deal that would make the Middle East more dangerous and encourage others to develop or buy a nuclear weapon.

 

Saudi Arabia will be the only country with relatively stable conditions. Low oil prices will decrease its revenues, but it has significant monetary assets on hand. The inability of Iran to develop a nuclear weapon will be a great relief to the Saudis. The new king will attempt to increase his country’s influence by bribing other nations and unleashing Sunni insurgents into Shiite countries.

 

The big question relates to terrorism. Will all the upheaval in the Middle East create new problems for the west? Will ISIS encourage new lone wolf atrocities throughout the world? Is global terror on the rise and being encouraged by ISIS’ success? Will ISIS refocus on building a new nation based upon terror, cruelty and fanatical religious ideology?