At a recent appearance in France, Jesse Jackson apparently lit off some fireworks by claiming that American relations with Israel would get a bit more chilly under an Obama presidency.
Barack Obama’s campaign stepped in quickly Tuesday to distance itself from a claim by the Rev. Jesse Jackson that “Zionists” would lose clout under an Obama administration.
The move was the latest chapter in what appears to be a protracted falling-out between the two Chicago figures — each of whom represents a different age of political activism.
Jackson made the remarks to the World Policy Forum in France last week, according to The New York Post. The civil rights activist reportedly said that “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” would lose some of their influence with Obama in the White House, and that “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would come to a close.
There are two aspects to this story which I would ask you to consider. The first is relatively quick and easy. It comes in the form of the question, “Does Jesse Jackson speak for the Obama campaign?” By now I think we can safely answer that question with a resounding No. David Axelrod was on television this morning letting an interviewer know that the last time Jackson actually spoke with Obama was the day he apologized to the Illinois Senator for offering to do some elective surgery on Barack’s nether regions. He is not giving foreign policy advice to Obama and won’t be informing his future decisions.
The more disturbing point illustrated by this is the continued “conventional wisdom” on the part of both parties (as much as the Republicans will protest this claim) that there is simply no alternative to this stance. It seems to still be a given that the so called “Zionist movement” in America is unshakable for reasons of political necessity. We still live in a 21st century world where Americans scratch their heads and ask, “Why does so much of the Islamic world hate us? Why were we attacked on 9/11? How did we come to be the enemy?” And in this same world, a significant majority of these same people are unwilling to openly declare that the answer to those questions can, in large part, be found in our unwavering propping up of Israel. And, in truth, there needs to come a point where any country which generates so many declarations of their “right to exist” needs to reach the stage where they prove that right to exist by doing so on their own two feet.
I’m not advocating a total abandonment of Israel by the United States, but the time has long since come for an open, honest discussion of how well America’s interests are being served by current policy and what our long term position should be. Perhaps Jesse Jackson has spoken out of turn for Obama, but brought up a question we should have been addressing more during this campaign.
On Israel’s Mediterranean coast, the usually sleepy port city of Acco has been hit by an ugly wake-up call: its Arab and Jewish residents currently need hundreds of police officers in riot gear to keep them from attacking one another.
Following the ongoing riots that first erupted hours after Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, Acco looks like a mini-war zone. The streets are littered with cars with their windows smashed in – some of them turned upside down. Police have been in full-force, physically dragging away demonstrators sometimes with the help of tear gas and water cannons, and blocking Jews from Arab neighborhoods and Arabs from Jewish ones as shopkeepers sweep the glass from their broken storefront windows.
“We are planning ahead for the scenario of, God forbid, violence spreading to other places. I call on leaders, both in the Jewish community and Arab community, to act sensibly,” said Avi Dichter, the Israeli public security minister. The two days of rioting began on Yom Kippur, when a hush falls over the country’s Jewish majority observing the holy day. Traffic across the country virtually comes to a complete halt on what is traditionally a day of fasting and reflection. There is no television or radio broadcasting and all stores in Jewish areas are closed.
Acco is a mixed Jewish and Arab city and on Wednesday, despite the holiday, Tawfik Jamal, an Arab resident of the city, drove through a Jewish neighborhood, reportedly at high speed.
Jewish youths in the area who said they saw the act as provocation swarmed him and his son when they emerged from his vehicle and hurled stones at them, forcing them to flee. The driver was protected by local police but word reportedly spread in the Arab community, incorrectly, that he had been killed.
What do Pan-Arabists - in other words, people who regard the Arab world as a single nation - think of the U.S. presidential election? This editorial from Yemen - a country that is home to a tremendous reservoir of seething militancy, starts with an examination of the history of when the Arab people have been fooled - and warns them not to expect any favors from whoever wins.
According to this editorial from the Al-Wahdawi newspaper, most are rooting for Obama, but are destined to have the hopes they place in that rising star of American politics dashed. And the reason for these words of caution? In a word, Israel.
“Some Arabs long for the 20th of January to witness George Bush leaving the White house and Obama going in, as if to grant him victory in advance!! Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Whether Obama is better than McCain will only affect American citizens and not us, since in his first address he will express support for ‘Israel’ and the safeguarding of its security, which is synonymous with the security of the United States. … It’s true that whoever wins the election, American foreign policy will witness some changes, but those changes will not be in our favor [on favor of Pan-Arabists]. Because, for example, if changes occur in Afghanistan, Israel isn’t located there; and if changes toward Iran and North Korea take place, Israel isn’t in their neighborhood. If U.S. foreign policy changes in the Arab World, it will only be a negative change, because Israel is joined to America’s hip.”
The editorial finishes off with a cry for Arab unity and opposition to that amorphous catchall word for all things dreaded … Zionism:
“Our problems will be solved only when we make real the true dream - that of national reconciliation, Arab solidarity and opposition to Zionism. In so doing, we will restore our pride and dignity. And ever after, the enemy - any enemy - will have to reckon with us on that basis. Ever after, we’ll no longer beat the drums for anyone else. Glory Be to the Arab Nation … Victory to its people … Paradise to its Martyrs … and Allah Akbar [God is Great].”
August 20th, 2008 By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
NATO’s decision to freeze relations with Moscow and Washington’s inept handling of Pakistan are strategic foreign policy mistakes.
They are interlinked and give cause for celebration to al Qaeda and other rabid anti-Americans. The Western allies may regret them in coming years.
The mistakes stem from a conceit among US leaders including Barack Obama and John McCain that America is much more important for Russia than Russia is for the US. This should be reviewed seriously and with an open mind before it is too late.
At this time, the US needs partnership with Russia more than Moscow needs it. The Russians need only to do more business with the US and Europe, while Washington needs much more from Moscow.
A hostile Moscow can prevent the US from achieving the key foreign policy goal of promoting friendly democracies outside Western and Central Europe. It can delay stability in Kosovo, the Caucasus, Central Asia or the Middle East. It can also lay stumbling blocks to American access to energy sources outside the Middle East and Europe.
Worse, nuclear non-proliferation will be almost impossible making Israel’s long-term security unachievable.
If Europe disdains Moscow, Russia’s geography allows it to more easily turn to China, India, Iran and the Middle East for business and trade. In this sense, Moscow is not a demandeur at Europe’s door.
Instead, Europe needs access to Russia’s increasingly wealthy markets stretching from the North Sea to the Pacific for a vast variety of goods and services. Russia has less need for the full depth of European markets because it sells only oil and gas.
Currently it supplies 25% - 40% of Europe’s needs but in less than 10 years, it could divert much of this to the East. That would also impoverish transit countries like Poland and Ukraine, placing a bigger burden on Western taxpayers to aid them.
Some hardliner US analysts pretend that in a crunch London, New York and Frankfurt could freeze Russian state and private financial assets to coerce good political behavior by Moscow. This is summer silly season talk.
There will be panic if Washington uses American banking giants to punish Russia, because almost all do 45% - 60% of their business outside the US and have major foreign sovereign wealth funds as shareholders. All investors from the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere would lose trust immediately, causing an economic depression in the US and Europe beyond anything imaginable.
In contrast, the wider world may not care if Moscow temporarily punishes Europe by turning off oil and gas because no one else depends so heavily on it.
Now, Washington wants to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO although Russia’s main naval warships are harbored in Crimean ports, which are under nominal Ukrainian sovereignty. This is a formula for war and not just Cold War.
Escalating US-Russia tensions will be a boon for al Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorists. They are already building strong foundations of power because of Washington’s other strategic mistake.
That mistake is the abandonment of Pakistan’s Pervez Musharraf. This correspondent wrote before the Pakistani elections that Musharraf’s departure would give al Qaeda and Taliban acolytes the opportunity to destabilize and grab Pakistan.
This has started. Musharraf tricked Washington into forking over $10 billion in military and other aid. But he was not an Islamic obscurantist like current leader Nawaz Sharif or corrupt like Asif Ali Zardari, who leads Pakistan’s largest party.
At least, he had some control over the heavily Islamized army and intelligence services. His quarrelsome “democratic” successors have no power at all.
Pakistan has suffered over 100 very violent attacks all across its territory in just seven months. It is already slipping into the hands of fanatical anti-Americans hiding within the army and the political parties of Sharif and Zardari.
Lethal attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan have also multiplied, causing more Western fatalities this year than ever before. Their technical sophistication has increased manifold.
Against this backdrop, further isolating Moscow might tempt it to cozy up to radical anti-Americans across Asia. There are many precedents for this. Then, the results of these two strategic mistakes may become unmanageable.
As we enter the second day of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, I see that the two major party candidates have already weighed in on the subject. (Has anyone even bothered asking the President, I wonder?) In a previous column, I posed the question, “do we even have a dog in this fight?” Some readers were quick in displaying the intellectual honesty to eschew any dithering over American parental obligations to the nascent Georgian democracy and the fragile Rose Revolution, pointing out the threat which exists to the strategic Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which brings Caspian oil to the west. (If nothing else, this crisis should remind us yet again of how our dependence on foreign oil supplies - controlled by countries who rarely have our best interests in mind - impacts each and every move we make on both domestic and international fronts.) Even the Washington Post decided to opine that Russia must be “stopped.”
John McCain came out with an aggressive approach, demanding that the Russians withdraw from Georgia and calling for an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council and a “neutral and independent peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.” Obama, on the other hand, issued a call for “all sides to show restraint” and stressed the importance of the United States working with “international partners.” While Obama’s comments are devoid of both teeth and specificity, they may still prove to be superior to McCain’s rehtoric on this situation.
First, why would anyone even bother calling for a meeting of the Security Council? Whether it be a resolution to condemn the actions or pushing for a neutral peacekeeping force, Russia will use their veto to squash the motion. Making demands of the Russians at this point in time seems even less plausible, as such calls will likely be properly viewed as empty saber rattling. We would be foolish indeed to think that the Russians are unaware that our military forces are currently, shall we say, otherwise occupied. It is also worth taking a look at the current state of Russia, both militarily and politically, when gauging our response. Read the rest of this entry »
“All people, especially in the Arab and Islamic world, long to see Democratic candidate Barack Hussein Obama win, occupy the chair of the American President and replace Republican Bush at the helm of the United States.”
“The way Obama absorbed the inside of America during the primaries is reflected in his compelling campaign slogan (change). In the same way, his intellectual assets and his Muslim origins have allowed him to absorb the thinking of many Arabs and Muslims, notwithstanding his subsequent assurances that he isn’t Muslim, which is a position taken for political purposes only … The entire world awaits Obama, considering him a good man to replace an “evil” one. It is Bush who has prepared the ground for Arab and Muslim religious and social support for Obama, a man who may find it possible to look at their problems differently than other presidents, especially Bush.”
“It is commonplace to have U.S. presidential candidates become the focus of world public opinion and controversy. It’s to be expected that they become the center of attention for newspapers, analysts and other politicians. But in Hussein Obama’s case, almost everyone has gathered around him and considers him a possible world savior.”
As we’ve seen over the past week, the global reaction to Barack Obama’s world tour has been largely positive - if not at times skeptical. But particularly in the Arab world - disappointment is the dominant theme.
Writing for Le Quotidien-Oran of Algeria, K. Selim focuses in on Obama’s 45-minute visit to the Palestinians, and the conclusions many Arabs are drawing from it.
“Anxious to forge an international image, the mixed-race candidate - courageously we were told - decided to visit the President of the Authority. And it was even expected that after their discussion, a luncheon was to be offered by President Abbas. The Authority had in mind “putting small dishes into the larger ones” (A French expression meaning preparing a grand meal), no doubt anxious, for once, to dine on something other than illusions and receive the potential future president of the United States with dignity. Alas, Barack Obama canceled the culinary portion of the meeting and rushed back to the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where, doubtless, the electoral kitchen is more nutritious.”
“Democrat or Republican, Black, White or mixed race, man or woman, U.S. officials are implementers of a Middle East policy that constitutes the basis of their international relations. That policy, which is based on the dispossession of the Palestinians, is that of the military-industrial complex - at the heart of which the Zionist lobby plays a major role. … The Palestinians know that freedom isn’t something to be granted by the United States - that grand patron of the last colonial state [Israel], and that the only realistic course of action is that of resistance.”
While Europe continues in its paroxysm of excitement over the impending visit of Senator Barack Obama, some on the Old Continent have begun to ask what will happen after his European triumph.
“While Barack Obama has embarked on a tour of the Middle East and Europe, the international community is eager to learn the new direction that the Democratic candidate would give American foreign policy - if he’s elected in November. His program includes lots of good news for the allies and for certain adversaries of the United States. But these will come at a price. President Obama would require much more of his partners than the unilateralist George Bush.”
“Europe, which benefited from money from the Marshall Plan and American protection during the Cold War is to be invited to repay that debt. “It’s time for the United States and Europe to renew their common engagement to fighting the threats of the 21st century.”
About Iraq the dueling pair
Have a very different take;
McCain thinks ’twas a good idea,
Obama a mistake.
Barack says that if he gets in
We’ll leave “I’ll set a day.”
While John says he won’t get us out
‘Til Petraeus says O.K.
So here’s the choice, one that’s quite clear
Not hard at all to see:
Move on from this unending quest
Or stay,
Come what may,
And pray,
For a day,
We can call it victory.
July 14th, 2008 By SWARAAJ CHAUHAN, International Columnist
Everything, it is said, is fair in love and war. Let’s admit it, we all are in love with “oil”. In the present long-drawn “war” we have allowed anything and everything to happen. In fact our “love” has turned into a naked “lust” for oil. And when “lust” takes hold of leaders and the public, they lose their sense of proportion and become virtually myopic (or blind) to the consequences of their actions.
So what can a Mc Cain or an Obama do under the circumstances? (Have a look here…) These thoughts occured to me when I recently went through a must-read book “Half Gone” by Jeremy Leggett. A powerful book that provides fascinating insight into the geology and politics of oil…and hope(?).
He writes: “Despite the defectors from the Empire of Oil, the growing dissent within it, little (has) changed. The Great Addiction remained…Barons of the Empire of Oil rode the planet in executive jets, more powerful than any president except perhaps the president of the Number One Nation State. But then he was one of them anyway.
“The most basic foundations of our assumptions of future economic wellbeing are rotten. Our society is in a state of collective denial that has no precendent in history, in terms of its scale and implications.
“Most US presidents since the Second World War have ordered military action of some sort in the Middle East. American leaders may dress their military entanglements east of Suez in the rhetroic of democracy building, but the long-running strategic theme is obvious. It was stated most clearly, paradoxically, by the most liberal of them.
“In 1980 Jimmy Carter declared access to the Persian Gulf a vital national interest to be proteced by ‘any means necessary, including military force.’ This the US has been doing ever since, clocking up a bill measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and counting. With such a strategy comes an increasingly disquieting descent into moral ambiguity, at least in the minds of something approaching half the country.
“The deeper the dependency on oil and oil money becomes, the worse the effects of the unforseen energy crisis will be when it hits, so the more America’s security is undermined, even as its government advances enhanced security as the rationale for the latest actions of the Pentagon’s global oil potection service.
The war of words between Iran, Israel and the United States has now reportedly now inched beyond words with news that Tehran sent its foes a pointed show-of-force message by test-firing 9 missiles — which reports say are long-range enough to reach Israel or U.S. bases.
It throws a new monkey wrench into already-heated negotiations and rhetoric over Iran’s nuclear program - and will likely warm up the rhetoric in the U.S. Presidential campaign which already is marked by intense political jockeying on national security issues.
One day after threatening to strike Tel Aviv and United States interests if attacked, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards were reported on Wednesday to have test-fired nine missiles, including one which Tehran claims has the range to reach Israel.
State-run media, quoted by Western news agencies, said the missiles were long- and medium-range projectiles, among them a new version of the Shahab-3 which Tehran maintains can hit targets 1,250 miles away from its firing position.
The reported tests coincide with increasingly tense negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, which Iran says is for civilian purposes but which many Western governments suspect is aimed at building nuclear weapons. At the same time, United States and British warships have been conducting naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf — apparently within range of the launching site of the missiles tested on Wednesday. Israel insisted it did not want war with Iran.
The financial consequences to the world’s increasingly frail economy was felt immediately — in the impact on oil prices — and the prices didn’t go down:
July 4th, 2008 By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
An air strike by Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities will shatter both Washington’s credibility in world affairs and its own long term security.
The intensified chatter that Israel may act before the November election or soon afterwards should be cause for consternation to all its supporters.
Whatever Teheran’s rhetoric of peace, we should work on the premise that it is covertly developing nuclear warheads capable of reaching as far as Western Europe within 5-15 years. Undoubtedly, that threatens Israel’s existence.
But an Israeli solution patterned on the 1980s strike against Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactors would be folly. This is not because Israel may fail to cripple the facilities but because the level of fear under which it lives currently will increase manifold.
It is hubris to expect that nearly 30 years after that strike, Israel’s enemies remain so intimidated by its military that they will not seek revenge repeatedly.
Were Israel at peace with all its neighbors, Iran would be too isolated diplomatically to retaliate. Instead, Israel’s neighbors are bitter enemies encouraged by its military’s confused performance against the Hezbollah militia which had no air power. They also see its inability to halt suicide bombers and artisanal rockets fired from Gaza and the West Bank.
They have seen the failures of Israel’s allies in Washington and NATO to suppress insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, who confront those ultra sophisticated armies with light weapons and improvised explosive devices.
The debilitating effects of lengthy wars of attrition should not be discounted. They have repeatedly turned the strong into footnotes of history.
At this time, many governments around the world are Israel’s friends and it is a rich and respected country. However, it is well to remember that the American people are Israel’s only real protectors.
Almost all of Israel’s other friends will stand on the sidelines, whatever their sympathy with its arguments about the justice of its preemptive attack on Iran.
Lumbered by national debt and interminable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, even the American people may be incapable of giving sustained support in the aftermath when Muslim terrorist vengeance rains upon Israelis week after week for years.
In the short term, nobody has the stomach for another major war if Iran retaliates as promised by blocking the Hormuz Straits through which 40% of Western oil arrives. It may also widen attacks through proxies on US assets in the Gulf kingdoms, Iraq and elsewhere, including Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia.
In international affairs, it is normal for countries, including allies, to take advantage when the powerful start to weaken. Both Israel and America have many rivals waiting for signs of weakness to make economic, diplomatic and, when possible, territorial gains.
Turkey, which is veering towards Islam, may refuse use of its territory despite NATO membership as it did for the invasion of Iraq. It may also cause trouble in Iraq’s Kurdish region to disarm rebels and in oil-rich Kirkuk to prevent Kurds from dominating Turkmen.
Syria will certainly take advantage of Israel’s predicament to retake the Golan Heights and perhaps more. Hezbollah’s Shia militants could grab the superb prize of Beirut, which they almost did a few weeks ago. They may also probe into Israeli territory in the south.
Hamas could break out of Gaza to depose American and Israeli-backed Fatah in the West Bank. Arms smuggling by sea and overland from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon may become uncontrollable.
On how many fronts could Israelis fight on their own, regardless of their wealth and leading-edge military technologies? In the end, wars are about people and Israel does not have too many of those. In any case, it is populated by human beings not warrior supermen.
Voters in European NATO countries are hardly likely to approve support for an Israeli request for military protection, if it launches an undeclared war of choice by attacking Iran.
Russia, China and India would certainly not enter such a venture. The Sunni Gulf states may quietly withdraw from any secret agreements they have currently with the US to contain Iran.
In the best case scenario, a strike may give Israel some breathing space and may not trigger a wider regional war. But it certainly will not strengthen Israeli security or stop the birth of vengeful enemies.
Judging from the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, even a crushing defeat may fail to install a new system in Iran. So, Israeli hawks should think through a more candid lens about the legacy they wish to leave to their children.
In any case, politics is an unpredictable process. Perhaps the current Israel-hating Mullahs will have changed by the time Iran develops its nuclear bomb. Then its weapon may become as acceptable as that of Pakistan, India or Israel itself.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen has stated that a strike against Iran would be ‘extremely stressful’ for the US. I’ll say it would — though of course, he’s talking about a different sort of stress.
There have been a number of reports lately (and significant evidence) suggesting that Israel is gearing up for a strike against Iran. Just to take one example, more than 100 F-15 and F-16 fighters recently participated in exercises over the Mediterranean which were apparently intended, among other things, to send the message that Israel is ‘prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.’ (International Herald Tribune)
As BBC News’ Justin Webb notes, it seems apparent that Adm. Mullen does not want an attack on Iran at this time, and is fighting hard behind the scenes to prevent it. While Mullen believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News)
Like many others who are concerned with the looming debacle, he wants ‘a dialogue’ between the US and Tehran. (BBC News) While he believes that Iran ‘is on a path to get nuclear weapons and…that’s something that needs to be deterred,’ he thinks that ‘the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”‘ (BBC News)…. Did I mention he recommends a dialogue between the US and Tehran?
Beyond the headlines, we occasionally get “soft” news about how the post-9/11 world really is, as we do today in disturbing narratives about the unseen wars in Iran and Pakistan–patterns of secrets and lies that Americans and their representatives in Washington either don’t fully know or want to talk about publicly.
In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh details a new “major escalation of covert operations against Iran…designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership” as part of a literal tug of war in the White House and Congress on how to deal with the nuclear threat from Tehran.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports “a secret plan to make it easer for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda,” a plan that exists only on paper as a result of Washington indecision and in-fighting.
Until the Bush Administration departs next January, it will be easy enough to blame all this dangerous confusion on their certified bunglers, but how well will successors of either party in a country that prides itself on government transparency be equipped to navigate this shadowy world of shifting alliances among violent splinter groups?
June 26th, 2008 By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
Rivals Barack Obama and John McCain agree on one thing – that persistence of $4-a-gallon gasoline will damage their electoral prospects. Obama democrats often place the blame on Big Oil, speculators and price gougers while McCain’s people blame controls on drilling offshore or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Both sides agree that the US has compelling reasons both economic and geopolitical to sharply reduce its use of oil and import less from the unstable Middle East. Many from both sides also agree that emissions of greenhouse gases must be cut to mitigate global warming.
Energy could push aside other domestic issues and the Iraq war if gasoline and other petroleum related prices continue to rise and recession or stagflation becomes more menacing. Compared with people in other countries, the pain is immediate for Americans because earning their livelihoods requires a lot of driving, in the absence of decent public transport outside city centers. Therefore, the politics of this issue is critical.
Yet neither Obama nor McCain offer anything “we can believe in” about the solution to this situation other than harping on the needs for energy security, energy independence and clean air, all of which are long term remedies.
With enough political will, many things could be done over the long term, such as diversifying sources of supply, energy conservation, improving efficient use of energy, alternative fuels, new technologies, solar and wind energy, and carbon capture and sequestration. But there are so many ifs and buts, and each requires so much new investment, that we shouldn’t hold our breath.
In the short term, ordinary Americans have already begun their personal solutions by cutting back on using gasoline and other oil derivatives. People around the world are reducing unnecessary air travel and pruning back their home fuel and electricity bills.
But both Obama and McCain are sitting on their hands. Obama blames Big Oil and speculators, including their windfall profits, but punishing them wouldn’t bring the price down at the pump by more than a few cents. The real problem is tight supplies.
McCain wants to work on supplies by removing regulations that stop exploitation of American resources but new US oil would take years and probably decades to come on stream in the best of conditions. What you pay at the pump would still be governed by world oil prices and those would not be affected much by the increase in US-based oil.
Saudi Arabia held a meeting of producers and consumers a few days ago and decided to put about 200,000 new barrels a day on the market but that tiny relief was immediately wiped out by a rebel attack on pipelines in Nigeria. That cut Nigerian output by nearly 800,000 a day. In effect, on the supply side there will be no relief in coming months.
The only possibility of sudden good news is a change in market sentiment. Currently, traders are pushing up prices by continuing to buy because they fear still higher prices. They think the Middle East producers are reaching their output ceilings and rising demand is unlikely to abate from China, East and Central Europe, Latin America and India. They expect shortages so they are buying quickly.
Expectations about supply would change significantly if the market felt that Iraq and Iran were sure to increase output even over a 6-15 year horizon. That would make it less necessary to fear tomorrow.
But Iraq is stymied by the war and Iran by US and European sanctions, which stop it from raising the money it needs to expand supplies and employing American and European companies with the best expertise. The other major supplier, Russia has dilapidated oil infrastructure that will take at least 10-15 years to put right. In any case, both the US and Europe are wary of its growing economic and political power and would rather depend less on it.
So we come back to square one. The only feasible way to mitigate suffering from high oil prices now and in the near future is for Americans to use less oil and its derivatives. Perhaps Obama will have the courage to say so and stop Americans from returning to profligate ways or look for scapegoats.
The good news is that roadside bomb fatalities last month were down by almost 90 percent from the last year, largely as a result of almost 7,000 heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles being rushed to Iraq since then.
The sad news is that four months ago members of Congress were seeking whistle-blower protection for a Pentagon analyst who claimed that hundreds of lives could have been saved if military paper pushers hadn’t obstructed delivery of those vehicles three years earlier.
In February, a former Marine official named Franz J. Gayl went public with a report accusing the Corps of “gross mismanagement” in delaying deliveries of the mine-resistant, ambush-protected trucks for more than two years because MRAPs, which cost $1 million each, were a financial threat to programs aimed at developing lighter vehicles that were years away from being fielded.
Hundreds of lives were lost, Gayl asserted, as requests of field commanders were buried in bureaucratic paperwork until Defense Secretary Robert Gates made them the No. 1 priority in 2007 after he replaced Donald Rumsfeld.
Gayl’s revelations were greeted with Marine Corps denials. quibbles and promises of investigation.
Are Arabs finally coming to accept that the United States is not really part of a Zionist conspiracy in pursuit of a Jewish takeover of the world?
In this hopeful op-ed from Yemen’s Alsahwa newspaper, Sabah Al Kheshni makes quick work of the global Zionist conspiracy and argues against the common habit in many Arab countries of blaming everything that’s wrong on a conspiracy. In regard to the Iraq War and other targets of Arab angst, he writes in part:
“All strong nations believe they have the right to secure and expand their interests beyond their borders, just as America has done. … The conspiracy theory has become the peg upon which weak societies - most importantly ours - hang their misfortunes … The latest fashion is a conspiracy, hair-styles are a conspiracy - even freedom of expression can’t escape conspiracy …”
Fascinating analysis by Shmuel Rosner in Ha’aretz, “Will next U.S. Congress top current record number of Jewish lawmakers?”
What we’ve got now:
The class of 2006 gave us a record number of Jewish legislators on Capitol Hill. The numbers: 30 Jewish members of the House (29 Democrats), 13 Jewish senators (9 Democrats, 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats and 2 Republicans). This is the highest number ever.
Rosner reviews the Cook Political Report and here are the places where he sees possible gains for the U.S House:
5. The Republican Toss Up column has no Jewish members of the House, but again, we also checked the list of challengers. Here is the outcome:
A. Alaska-AL: a leading Democratic contender, Ethan Berkowitz, is Jewish. He is leading among Democrats and lugging not far behind the main Republican challenger. Imagine: a Jewish legislator from Alaska! (Apparently, not the first one). B. AZ-01: Howard Shanker is a Jewish attorney and is trying to become the Democratic nominee. One should note, though, that the list of prospective nominees is long and that the district is conservative. Shanker seems like a long shot. C. NJ-03: In this open seat, Democratic nominee, John Adler is Jewish. It was a Republican district in 2006, but now it seems as if Adler has an edge. Bottom line: Up to three new Jewish members (but if all of them win this will be a surprise, some of them have to overcome a primary battle first).
And then:
7. There are also a couple of long shots I’ve decided to include in this roundup. These are races that are not counted by anyone as Toss Ups, but if this year becomes a Democratic tsunami (as more and more people believe it might be), maybe some of them will change hands anyway. This, of course, will make this year much more likely to be a record year (more Jewish legislators and contenders are Democrats - oh, and voters too).
[The races are in NJ-05, WY-AL and VA-10.]
Turning to the U.S. Senate (here is the Cook Political Report info), of note:
2. The fierce battle for Minnesota is the one Toss Up, but it will not affect the number of Jewish legislators as both Senator Coleman and his challenger, comedian Al Franken, are Jewish. It might affect, though, the composition of the Jewish caucus, by possibly taking away yet another Jewish Republican seat.
…
5. And here is a nugget I can add thanks to a reader in NM: Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico, son of Former Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and a nephew of former Congressman Mo Udall from Arizona, is not Jewish, but is a long time member of Temple Beth Shalom in Santa Fe, New Mexico. He is married to Jill Cooper, a Jewish woman. And he is running now for the open Senate Seat in New Mexico. We didn’t count him as a member of the Jewish group in 2006, so we will not count him as one if he becomes a Senator. But maybe an honorary membership is d
