Iran From 10,000 Feet

Simultaneously clutching his Nobel Peace Prize in one hand and George W. Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine in the other, Obama has straddled this no-man’s land about as well as any president possibly could.

This column appears in the February 2nd, 2012 edition of the Long Island Press.

Trunk to tail the elephants circle the ring while the four remaining clowns in the circus vamp, weep and honk their noses to the delight of the audience. The train travels from Iowa to New Hampshire, and then makes its way down the coast to Florida where the most recent performance went off without a hitch. With dozens more appearances planned for the upcoming weeks, the greatest show on Earth promises to keep the masses entertained for months to come.

Outside the alternate reality that is the American election season, however, a gathering storm is rapidly approaching, threatening to rip the stakes from the ground and bring the tent down upon all of us.

The deadliest game of chicken in history is being played in dark alleys with no headlights. Two cars careen toward each other, Iran in one and Israel in the other, while the world huddles close to see which one of them blinks first. But we are all more than spectators in this deadly contest, we are participants. The ever-expanding concentric circles of conflict that began with the Mossad and Hezbollah, extended to neighboring nations such as the United Arab Emirates and Syria, now encapsulate the United States, Europe, Russia and China.

In short, the stage is set for World War III. Damn, those Mayans were good!

Because the economy is still in the center ring, however, it’s the primary show the audience focuses on. We can see shadowy figures moving about in the periphery. We know they’re there, but our attention is diverted for the moment. Humanity be damned, it’s still the economy, stupid. It’s why every pronouncement of war, every threat to prevent a nuclear Iran, includes references to the disruption of the global oil supply.

But exactly how do you quantify the potential ramifications of a complete breakdown in both production and supply of oil in the Middle East, and more specifically Iran? The second oil shock of the 1970s, beginning with an Iranian oil-workers’ strike in 1978 and continuing through the Iran-Iraq War in 1980, is a useful portent of financial catastrophe. This two-year flare-up resulted in skyrocketing oil prices that reached $38 per barrel in 1980. Adjusted for today’s dollars, that’s around $90 per barrel.

Think about that for a moment. If the equivalent figure of $90 today thrust the global markets into utter chaos and drove the world deeper into recession in 1980, what effect would a new shock today have on the global economy, considering oil is consistently trading around $100 per barrel today? Obama doesn’t need to ask Jimmy Carter how that would work out.

This is why Europe and America have been rallying support to increase economic sanctions on Iran while Israel continues its effective covert assault on the power structure in Tehran. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently visited China to ask for their participation in a global embargo on trading with Iran. The problem there, of course, is that China receives approximately 10 percent of its oil from Iran—a figure projected to grow steadily over the next couple of decades as China attempts to break the coal habit. Geithner’s reception was as chilly as it was when he asked the Chinese to adjust their undervalued currency in an effort to stabilize the balance of trade between our nations. Add to the mix that China has no moral or political allegiance to Israel, and it’s easy to understand why Geithner would have had better luck talking to the Great Wall of China than its ruling class.

The political calculus in Washington is as complicated as ever. Obama has been able to walk the tightrope between America’s hawks and isolationists by surging our forces in Afghanistan while withdrawing them from Iraq, and allegedly killing Osama bin Laden while entertaining the possibility of dialogue with Tehran. Simultaneously clutching his Nobel Peace Prize in one hand and George W. Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine in the other, Obama has straddled this no-man’s land about as well as any president possibly could. But time is running out as the election draws ever nearer, which is why the war rhetoric is beginning to intensify. This diplomatic squeeze is lost only on mouth-breathing Americans whose eyes are glued to the spectacle in the center ring, as they await the outcome of each GOP primary as if it matters. The rest of the planet has adjusted to the darkness as it watches these war preparations very, very closely.

Here’s the current score. Europe has taken a decidedly aggressive stance by leading the way with harsh economic sanctions on Iran forcing the United States to follow suit perhaps more than it might have otherwise. China and Russia have little to gain by punishing Iran as they trade openly. Israel is not above taking matters into its own hands and striking Iran’s nuclear facilities but it requires more assurance from the United States that we will back its play. The less-than-cozy relationship between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thwarts Israel’s next move, because acting unilaterally without U.S. support is as suicidal as doing nothing may someday prove to be.

 Saudi Arabia, which shares access to the strategically important Strait of Hormuz, also has little patience for Iran’s shenanigans; but it, like Iran’s allies in the area, has its own political and economic issues, and can hardly afford a conflict with any of the region’s stakeholders.

We are witnessing one of the greatest standstills of all time. The deciding vote, however, will likely come from none of the nations mentioned here because a new, more powerful force has emerged in the global landscape with the ability to tip the scales: the people.

From Occupy to the Arab Spring, the past year has shown that the most influential voice in world politics is that of the people. In this new interconnected world, the Iranian government’s clandestine policies and shadowy behavior are anachronistic. That’s not to say Israel and the United States don’t understand this potential, as both admit to stoking tensions within Iran to mobilize its youth in the hopes that they will lead to yet another revolution. If a fruit vendor in Tunisia can set off a series of events that changed the Arab world forever, the same can even happen in a nation as mysterious and closed-off as Iran. Dictators can be ousted and regimes can be toppled without deploying the U.S. military.

It’s why an untimely show of force against Iran would undermine the Iranian people’s naturally occurring dissatisfaction, shown by their willingness to protest the regime’s fraudulent elections and its hard-line stances that have wrought such economic hardship. This phenomenon has been occurring even before the most recent round of rigorous sanctions. In practice, imposing more stringent sanctions or military action may have the opposite of the desired effect by coalescing support for the Iranian government from within. Given the Iranians’ already poor economic circumstances, they may in fact see little distinction between enduring harsh sanctions and a blistering show of force.

Critics of the Obama administration have likened his stance on Iran as akin to that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler with the Munich Pact in 1938. They claim that the United States is being hoodwinked by Iran’s leadership who will immediately use nuclear weapons against Israel once they possess the capability to do so. Most who have written about the subject, however, believe this is folly, but that it’s better to have an Iran without nukes than one with them. In the meantime, the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction might take a backseat to the mutually assured production of oil. In my mind, the specter of nuclear warfare is a singular endgame issue, not an ongoing strategic battle that dismisses the Chamberlain/Hitler analogy in favor of Kennedy/Kruschev. When both men drew their lines in the sand and realized the lines were in exactly the same spot, everyone knew where they stood during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.

Because the current leaders of Iran have publicly stated that they are committed to annihilating the state of Israel, they have legitimized the world’s fear of a nuclear Iran. But I would submit that the world doesn’t have an Iran problem, it has an Ahmadinejad problem. Were the U.S. to declare unequivocally that we will use force if Iran’s president denies UN inspectors in Iran or we discover that they have developed the capacity to use nuclear technology beyond domestic energy production, we would hardly be blamed for being the aggressor. But perhaps we should re-examine the role of sanctions and look at things differently because a free and prosperous people have a much greater ability to dictate policy in Iran than we outsiders ever will.

A desperate population with nothing to lose alters the equation of Mutually Assured Destruction and interrupts the natural evolution of the Arab Spring. It’s time to reverse the antiquated notion that a forcibly impoverished nation is ultimately obsequious to those nations that suppress it. President Obama should call upon the Congress and the world to lift all economic sanctions on Iran because sanctions starve the people, not the government. Moreover, the people have proven they know how to seize the opportunity for self determination.

Then we can all go back to watching the circus.

 

Main Photo: Associated Press

Obama’s Iago – The ‘Indispensable’ Man

True to his Harvard Law School roots, the current occupant of the White House opted for an elitist approach to the worst economy since the Great Depression. He signed up central banker types, including a former Treasury Secretary and a former Fed Chairman.

“In following him, I follow but myself.”

“Your legacy,” the newly installed Treasury Secretary counseled the recently elected President, “is going to be preventing the second Great Depression.”  Quite a legacy if one ignores on-going recession, permanent high unemployment, rampant health care and higher education costs, legislative gridlock, China ascendant, all played out to the distant fiddling of the inflamed Euro-economy.

“Your Money, Your Vote” debate kicked off by asking Republican presidential wannabes what they would do to buffer America’s anemic economy against the bunga, bunga of Italy’s economy, the world’s seventh largest.  One-time frontrunner Herman Cain announced he would “assure that our currency is sound. Just like — a dollar must be a dollar when we wake up in the morning. Just like 60 minutes is in an hour, a dollar must be a dollar.”  Dollars to donuts, most folks wouldn’t be hiring a financial advisor based on fortune cookie advice.  Clearly, though, there is an element out there that has no problem subjecting the world’s biggest economy to master plans scribbled on the back of bev-naps.

True to his Harvard Law School roots, the current occupant of the White House opted for an elitist approach to the worst economy since the Great Depression.  He signed up central banker types, including a former Treasury Secretary and a former Fed Chairman.  Timothy Geithner, whose five years heading the NY Fed placed him at the helm for the economic meltdown of ’07-‘08, was named T-Sec.  Given his renowned intimacy with New York financiers, Geithner knew how to serve his masters by covering them with a $700 billion TARP at crunch time.  No man is a hero to his valet and Geithner says he could’ve “cared less about Wall Street.” But he had to get credit flowing again, even it went to core perpetrators of the meltdown.

The docudrama “Too Big to Fail” portrayed current Fed chair Bernanke, dropping the D bomb on congressional and banking leaders: go along with the Bush economic team or detonate the next Depression.  Exiting from the actual meet, John Boehner looked drawn and quartered as if he had just faced the Grim Reaper.  But Depression prevention was “not enough” for the incoming President, so he set about to reform a bloated, inefficient health care system by extending it to the 45M uninsured.  The jury is literally still out on that aspect of Obama’s legacy and, like almost everything else in America today, subject to slow death by deadlock.

Meanwhile, Treasury actually realized a profit on the widely despised TARP bailout, even as the banks have opted to sit on trillions while taking record bonuses for themselves.  Mad Money’s Jim Cramer gushed recently that “Tim Geithner did a lot to make our institutions stronger…. He’s one of the greatest Treasury Secretaries we’ve ever had!”  He has become this Administration’s Indispensible Man, the President beseeching him to stay on through the end of his first term.

Geithner’s bank-centric approach has not come without collateral damage.  Bloomberg reported that Geithner-led NY Fed instructed crippled mega-insurer AIG to cross out references to $62B in swap payments to banks like Goldman Sachs, which were made at 100 cents on the dollar, no haircut.  Geithner reportedly assured the banks that the dreaded doyenne of consumer financial protection, Elizabeth Warren, would never head the newly formed bureau.  Though he denied “slow-walking the President,” the T-Sec reportedly ignored Obama’s early directive to dissolve troubled Citigroup (which had previously offered Geithner CEO).

Nothing has suffered more in T-Sec priorities than jobs.  Geithner has intermittently lip-serviced the problem, lately with a Jobs Bill he knows is not getting past Republican blockades.  In fact, the most arbitrary job barrier was thrown up on Geithner’s own turf by federal agencies closely interconnected with Treasury.  On July 6, 2010, OCC, FDIC, NCUA and FHFA, the conservator for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, unloosed a coordinated strike against Property-Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs.  PACE obligations, they contended, would pose a threat to “the safety and soundness” of mortgage products.

Launched in 2008, Long Island Green Homes was the first operational residential energy efficiency retrofit program in the nation.  A typical retrofit is $9,400, averaging yearly savings of $1,114 that generally covers the homeowner’s monthly obligation, secured by the property.  Energy use and emissions are cut over 25%, saving homeowners money, enhancing property value all while putting hard-hit tradesmen to work.

None of this matters much to the holders of a couple of trillion dollars of toxic subprime mortgages.  In PACE, legislatively affirmed in 27 states and promoted by a Vice-Presidential White Paper, they imagined the second coming of toxic instruments and the chance to demonstrate what tight-fisted regulators they’d finally become.  Fact is that if 5% of the nation’s 80M houses were retrofitted it would amount to a 0.6% rounding error of Fannie & Freddie’s total exposure.  At the same time, this shovel-ready work would create 435,000 job years nationwide never to be outsourced.

The Town of Babylon, along with the State of California and several counties, filed suit against FHFA who fundamentally argued that they were accountable to none, even the courts.  A Federal judge in California’s Northern District ruled otherwise and appeals are heading to the next level.  In its suit, Babylon argued that FHFA had unilaterally abrogated state and local sovereign rights in determining what infrastructure could be remediated for a public purpose.  In an aberrant departure from Washington gridlock, a bipartisan group of congressmen (23 Reps/29Dems, with Peter King the sole Long Islander to date) has embraced this principle by sponsoring the PACE Protection Act.  Message to Feds: ‘Hands off our incandescents and back off of our local energy efficiency programs!’  Go figure.

Watching this mountain be made out of a mole hill, Geithner has held himself back behind the wizard’s curtain, as if PACE could conceivably be the straw that breaks the economy’s back.  The Indispensable Man, who corralled the world’s most powerful bankers, could put the leg in legacy by delivering a swift kick to his in-house regulatory bureaucrats.  As Othello’s Iago knew, so should Obama’s Iago, that, “Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit and lost without deserving.”