The Understanding

 On April 4 I wrote about the latest iteration of the Iran War in Further on Mastering The Tides Of The World.  I refer to it as the latest iteration because Iran declared war on the United States in 1979 and that declaration remains in effect.

We are at war once again, this time with Iran.  Before it started I did not know what the right course of action was.  Now that it has commenced I think it essential we achieve victory along the lines outlined by Secretary of State Rubio.  This is a circumstance where, having started the task, failure to achieve these outcomes will have serious long-term negative consequences for the United States.  I am aware of the sunk cost fallacy but, in this case, we need to continue.  I'm also painfully aware of the potential for unforeseen consequences, a theme that has prompted a number of THC posts.

We now have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran.  In 2015 I wrote several posts on the Iran Nuclear Deal, which, as a reminder, was a "political commitment", not a treaty, Executive Agreement, signed document, or legally binding, so thought I'd take a look at the MOU, which is also just a political commitment (though in this case signed by the parties).

Beyond that, I am not sure how to characterize the document.  Partly because it reads more like a 60-day ceasefire agreement pending a final deal and partly because Donald Trump is one of the parties.  Point 3 of the 14 Point agreement reads:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent. 

In April, after mentioning my uncertainty about whether to initiate another phase of the Iran conflict, I stated the need to achieve victory along the line mentioned by Marco Rubio, including elimination of the nuclear and ballistic missile threats.  I did not reference President Trump because I could not find a coherent set of demands by the President, other than blustering and often contradictory outbursts.  Nor did the President ever set forth for the American people a clear explanation of why now and what his goals were, a necessity if you are entering a prolonged conflict.

Moreover, we know from the past decade that Trump has a short attention span, is often fuzzy in his language, improvises as he goes along, is subject to bouts of pettiness, and corrupt, making it impossible to predict where he will end up on any issue or, indeed, if there is any final ending.

Trump has now said many things about Iran and given different and conflicting messages.  He did the same regarding tariffs, where his justifications changed on almost a daily basis.  It's why I always wait a while to comment on anything involving Trump.  Reacting to anything he says on Monday is useless because he often completely changes his tune on Tuesday and then switches again on Wednesday.

He also seems to regard every negotiation as a form of commercial real estate deal.  When it comes to foreign policy that can sometimes works (see Venezuela and, perhaps, Cuba(1)) where ideology does not play a significant role.  But it does with the Iranian regime which has consistently, since it came to power in 1979, acted in accordance with its ideology, even at great cost to the welfare of its people.  Trump seems to think the enticement of dollars and business will lead it to change its ideology.  I believe he is mistaken, just as FDR was when it came to the Soviet Union (see Personal Handling). 

For all of those reasons, I had reservations, because with Trump you never know where you stand. 

Let's start by looking at the situation pre and post this latest round:

1.  The Straits of Hormuz were open to transit for all vessels.  However, Point 5 of the MOU concedes de facto veto power to Iran:

Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days, only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the tactical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. 

2.  The Iran regime was subject to severe sanctions.  Under the MOU those will be lifted.

The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, i.e. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule. 

3.  The Iran regime was under severe financial pressure as its infrastructure and financial stability crumbled.  Under the MOU, the U.S. has pledged up to $300 billion in "other people's money" for Iranian reconstruction.  Given the U.S. was focused on military, not civilian targets including energy infrastruture, what are these reconstruction funds to be used for?  As I pointed out in the 2015 deal, money is fungible and can be used for anything, including continuing to fund Iran's terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion (£225 billion) for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  

4.  Iran's ballistic missile capabilities were unrestricted and proved to be considerable in this latest round.  They remain unrestricted.

5.  Iran had pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.  It reiterates that pledge in the MOU, adding that it will not "procure" such weapons.  No one believed this in 2015 and no one believes this now.

Under the MOU, the pre-attack status quo has not been preserved.  Iran is better off now than it was.  I would not characterize that as a U.S. victory.

In their public statements, President Trump and VP Vance are stressing the "moderation" of Iran's new leaders.  We've been down this road before as Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama (2) all fell for the moderation line, while Bush II passively refused to retaliate when Iranian IED's killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War.   I think they will be disappointed.

I think Trump lost interest in the whole subject when Iran did not collapse in the first couple of weeks and has moved on to other things that have caught his attention like his self-generated quarrel with Italy's Meloni over whether she asked for a photo with him.  A puzzled and furious Meloni, who has generally been supportive of Trump over the years, responded:

"Donald Trump's statements are completely fabricated. I am frankly stunned. I don't ‌know why ⁠the president of the United States behaves like this toward his own allies. After all, it is not the first time."

"I can only say it's a shame he doesn't show the same resolve toward with the enemies of the West and toward the enemies of the United States — toward leaders with whom he, on the other hand, is much more accommodating. But there is one thing he should remember: Italy and I do not beg." 

While the MOU is only a cease fire I don't think Trump will have the appetite to resume force in the event of a failure to reach a final deal.  Unless he gets ticked off by something or someone. Who knows?  He certainly doesn't.

As a practical matter there are big difficulties ahead.  Gulf State sources, with the exception of Qatar, friends of the Iranians, Hamas, and the Trump family(3), are not happy with the MOU provision looking for them to fund Iran's rebuilding.  On the other hand, the U.S. proved such a feckless ally they may be forced to get closer to Iran for protection. 

Point 14 states:

The final deal will be endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution.

However,  France's Foreign Minister yesterday said it would not approve lifting current UN sanctions unless the final agreement addressed Iran's use of terrorist proxies and its ballistic missile program, neither of which are covered in the MOU.(4)

Finally, Point 1 addresses Lebanon, a country that neither the U.S. nor Iran are directly involved in:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. 

This is intended to address Hezbollah's recurrent attacks on Israel and the Israeli response.  However, the omission of Israel, as in language that should read "including in Lebanon and Israel" is striking, since it is Hezbollah's attacks that triggered the Israeli response.  The provision also effectively leaves the initiative with Iran, which controls Hezbollah.  Indeed, Hezbollah has continued to attack Israeli forces, killing four IDF soldiers and when Israel responded, Iran announced it was closing once again the Straits of Hormuz.  The Iranians want to see how Trump responds.  Depending on the President's mood at any particular moment he may lash out at the Israelis or the Iranians.  Who knows?  And that is the problem.  

-----------------------------------------

(1)  Cuba remains nominally communist, but it's as ideologically dead as the Soviet Union in its final years. The country is now being run by a criminal gang. 

(2) President Obama may not have thought the Iran regime was moderating.  He just didn't care.  His foreign policy aide Ben Rhodes thought, and still thinks, the mullahs, along with Hezbollah and Hamas, are the good guys.  

(3)  The problem of Qatar, along with Russia and China, is bigger than just the Trump family.  The degree of influence the three enemies of America have attained with academic institutions, media, think tanks, politicians, influencers, and podcasters is staggering.

(4) Of course, France and our other European allies refused to help the U.S. keep the Hormuz Straits open, compounding our problems. 

Biblical Themes

Towards the beginning of this year I began listening to Richard Elliott Friedman's 29 hour long lectures on the Hebrew Bible.  I'd never done anything like this regarding the Bible but ran across an intriguing reference to the Friedman lectures, decided to give it a try, and ended up, to my initial surprise, listening to all of them (which you can easily find by searching on his name on YouTube).  Since then, I've read two of Friedman's books, Who Wrote The Bible? and The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters, thoroughly enjoying both.

Friedman taught for many years at University of California, San Diego and is currently Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia. 

The lectures address the historicity of the Bible using both text and archaeology.  Friedman, who reads nine languages, including Assyrian, Aramaic, Greek, and ancient Hebrew and is conversant in recent archaeological investigations in the Middle East provides an easily understandable guide.  After some general scene setting he proceeds chronologically through the narrative books of the Bible skipping, for instance, Psalms, Proverbs, and Job.  Along the way he addresses who authored the Bible, the relationship between Israel and other Middle Eastern cultures, and when and how the transition from paganism to monotheism occurred.  I very much like his informative and casusal style, often interspersed with "Dad" jokes (in fact he starts the first lecture with one), though by the end I'd heard some of them two or three times.  Who Wrote The Bible? provides a more in depth analysis of his lecture discussions, while The Exodus is his attempt to reconcile Biblical accounts with history and archeology about whether and how that pivotal event occurred.

I am not knowledgeable about biblical scholarship so can't evaluate his work in relation to other scholars but I like that when he explains how he reached his views he also acknowledges those who differ in their interpretations and is open about when his conclusions are not aligned with those of most other scholars.  

Here is the first of his lectures: 

Finals

Congratulations to the New York Knicks.  I was hoping for a good Finals series and it happened in an unprecedented way with the Spurs blowing double digit leads in each of their four losses.  San Antonio's youth and inexperience showed and Mitch Johnson's coaching, particularly in Game 4, didn't help.  

At the beginning I was pulling for the Spurs but ended up very impressed with the Knicks, particularly with Jalen Brunson.  It's very unusual for a small point guard to lead his team to an NBA title.  The only other one who comes to mind is Isiah Thomas who captained the Pistons to two titles at the end of the 80s.  Because Thomas is so disliked by an NBA player with the initials MJ, and by many fans (including me), it's sometimes forgotten he was a truly great player and leader (which I will grudgingly admit, including he may have been the best small point guard in NBA history).  Some place Steph Curry in the same category but he's a bit taller than Thomas and Brunson and not a traditional point guard.

Going into the series I was a fan of Victor Wembanyama but these games took a bit of the glow off.  In particular I did not like a couple of his moves on Brunson, most of all in this play from the final game where, I believe, he was actively trying to injure Jalen.  You can see Wemby look down to make sure his foot is placed underneath where Brunson is coming down.

The Knicks played Wemby very tough, grabbing and pulling on him, but that's different than intentionally trying to hurt someone.  It reminded me of the hated Bill Laimbeer, from Isiah's Piston team.  Laimbeer is the one player Larry Bird still despises all these years later because, as Larry said, he tried to hurt you and he specifically mentioned the type of move that we saw Wemby pull on Brunson last night. 

Geography Lesson

From 2000, the title song from Mark Knopfler's album Sailing To Philadelphia, the only pop song about the two surveyors of the Mason-Dixon Line which established the boundary between Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.  Inspired by Thomas Pynchon's 1997 novel on Mason and Dixon, the song features Knopfler's trademark guitar sound and vocals with Knopfler playing Jeremiah Dixon and James Taylor as Charles Mason.

I am Jeremiah Dixon
I am a Geordie Boy
A glass of wine with you, sir
And the ladies I'll enjoy

All Durham and Northumberland
Is measured up by my own hand
It was my fate from birth
To make my mark upon the earth…

He calls me Charlie Mason
A stargazer am I
It seems that I was born
To chart the evening sky

They'd cut me out for baking bread
But I had other dreams instead
This baker's boy from the west country
Would join the Royal Society…

We are sailing to Philadelphia
A world away from the coaly Tyne
Sailing to Philadelphia
To draw the line
The Mason-Dixon line

Now you're a good surveyor, Dixon
But I swear you'll make me mad
The West will kill us both
You gullible Geordie lad

You talk of liberty
How can America be free
A Geordie and a baker's boy
In the forest of the Iroquois…

Now hold your head up, Mason
See America lies there
The morning tide has raised
The capes of Delaware

Come up and feel the sun
A new morning is begun
Another day will make it clear
Why your stars should guide us here…

We are sailing to Philadelphia
A world away from the coaly Tyne
Sailing to Philadelphia
To draw the line
The Mason-Dixon line 

The reference to "Geordie Boy" is because Dixon was born near Newcastle in the north of England whose inhabitants are known as Geordies.  Dixon's mother was from Newcastle and Jeremiah spent much time there over the years.  Mark Knopfler is also a Geordie, which is why he voices Dixon in the song. The lyric about enjoying "a glass of wine" is a reference to Dixon being a heavy drinker, despite being a Quaker (he also enjoyed wearing colorful clothes, another aspect frowned on by Quakers).  The reference to "coaly Tyne" is to Newcastle, on the River Tyne, and one of the birthplaces of the Industrial Revolution and the heavy use of coal.

Mason was born in 1828 in the West Country as the lyric says, specifically in Gloucestershire. 

Both Dixon (1733-79) and Mason (1728-86) were well educated, trained in surveying and astronomy, meeting in 1761 when both were sent by the Royal Society on a mission to observe the transit of Venus in Sumatra.  Their passage delayed, they made their observations from the Cape of Good Hope.

For many years the precise location of the border between Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware had been the subject of controversy with violence occasionally erupting among settlers.  In 1763 the Penns and Calverts, proprietors of the Pennsylvania and Maryland colonies, hired Mason and Dixon to survey and establish the bounds.  Their project would take four years.

While it settled the border dispute, the Mason-Dixon Line would take on a broader significance in American history.  It was only during the debates over slavery that led to the Missouri Compromise in 1820 that Mason-Dixon Line came into popular usage and from then it came to mean (at least the PA/MD part of the line) the division between free and slave states in the Union.  Indeed, it is possible that the term "Dixie" to describe the South may have been derived from Jeremiah Dixon's last name. 

After returning to England, Dixon continued survey and astronomical work until his death at the age of 45.  He is buried 40 miles from Newcastle.  Mason also continued working in England, primarily as an astronomer, but in September 1786 he wrote a letter to Benjamin Franklin informing him he'd returned to Philadelphia with his wife and eight children but was ill and confined to bed.  He died the following month and is buried in Philadelphia's Christ Church Burying Ground where Franklin was also laid to rest four years later.  It is not known why Mason returned to Philadelphia. 

The Old Mill

Another work by Daniel Garber, an early 20th century American impressionist who I first came across earlier this year.

 

Efficient Bureaucrats

 "Efficient bureaucrats can be more deadly than disorganized fanatics".

- from Julian Jackson, France on Trial: The Case of Marshall Petain.

Jackson is also the author of an outstanding biography of Charles de Gaulle, a brilliant, brave, infuriating, and enigmatic figure.

The above observation comes after this passage:

"When asked how he could justify Vichy's measures against Jews and freemasons, Peyrouton, who had been a high ranking colonial administrator under the Republic, told the court: 'I did not ask myself this kind of question.  I have told you, and I repeat: I am not a Republican; I am not an anti-Republican.  I am an agent of the French government.'"

Another side to this occurs when the bureaucrats through manipulation take on the operation of government themselves (see, for instance, Yes Prime Minister, the classic BBC series).  Several years ago I was at a Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) conference in Phoenix which included attending an Arizona Fall League game.  At the game I ended up sitting next to a recently retired guy who spent his career as a high ranking civil servant at the US Department of Agriculture.  At one point I asked for more details about his job was and he responded, "to make sure the political appointees did not make any important decisions".   Just being efficient, in his view.