Coming Back To My Senses

This week has been surreal for me. I have seen, in my opinion, the most unfit, unqualified politician become the most important person in the free world. I went through a few stages of emotional reactions and I am finally coming back to my senses.

I am now trying to understand what happened. You can listen or read the media and have all these “pundits” explain it to you, but you will have to remind yourself that the same pundits have spent the last 18 months explaining to you that DJT had no chance of winning.

So I have looked at the data myself and this is my humble analysis of the situation.

1.     Not All Trump Supporters Are Racist- Asserting the contrary would be inflammatory and simply inaccurate. Of course that all the white racist people in America who voted on November 8 voted for Trump. He naturally attracted them with his racist and divisive rhetoric; they even made him their hero. But an analysis of the counties that Obama carried in 2012 reveals that a third of the same counties voted for Trump last week. These guys voted in office, for a second term, a black man whose name is “Hussein”. They are not racist.

2.     It’s Not Only About Jobs In Rural America- Sure the DNC and Clinton’s campaign have not spent a minute identifying with the ordeals of the globalization’s left-behinds, who usually are white blue collar folks in rural America. But a closer look at the exit polls show that 49% of white college graduates have voted for DJT versus 44% for HRC.  So something else is at play here. CNN data shows that after the economy (52% of respondents), the most important issue facing the country is terrorism (18% of respondents). Additionally, of these 18% who considered ISIS to be the key issue, 57% voted for Trump versus only 39% for Clinton.

3.     Trump Is A Good Product Marketer And His Campaign Was An Acceptable “Minimally Viable Product” (MVP)- My geek friends will understand this analogy, but for the other readers, what commentators and analysts call a good politician is a man who knows how to read what electors (i.e. the market) want and give them a campaign (i.e. a product) that would answer their expectations. In the world of product development we call this PMF, a.k.a. Product Market Fit. A MVP is a less sophisticated product that still fits the market.  DJT, as it turns out, is an apt product marketer and has put forward a MVP (i.e. campaign) whose 3 must-have features were:

a)    Emotional empathy for white blue collars. Since there’s no actual solution to these lost manufacturing jobs, Trump identified with this group by defending their values: guns and god.

b)   Acknowledgement that there is a problem within Islam. Here Obama, Clinton and the Democrats largely helped Trump by never naming the problem or using the words ‘Islam fundamentalism’.

c)    No filter. Trump’s straight talk seems to have struck a chord, especially with independents, which voted 48% for DJT vs. 42% for HRC.

All the other aspects of Trump’s campaign were overlooked by his voters. Indeed, they didn’t care that he could be racist, sexist, a liar or a conspiracy theorist. The MVP analogy explains this quite well. Imagine looking for a product that addresses your needs. As long as the key identified features are present in the product, the other features seem less important and are overlooked, i.e. not used.

Paul Ryan’s Moment

     

Last August, Justin Gest, a political scientist shared in a Politico article that 65% of recently surveyed white Americans would support a party committed to “stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America’s Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam.”

If anything, Gest’s article and research show that even if Trump loses in November, Trumpism has already won with a core group of voters in the Republican Party. There is much speculation about what a defeated Trump would do after the election. He could retire, start a media company to cater to his audience, try to lead the GOP, or create a 3^rd party. Whatever he does, he isn’t going away and neither is his base.

Paul Ryan, the current leader of the GOP, has an opportunity to finally show leadership on November 9.  He shouldn’t wait for Trump or some Alt-Right leader to start a 3^rd party, he should force them. Indeed, by officially repudiating all Trump voters who are interested in a populist, protectionist, nationalist party, and by inviting them to leave the GOP, Ryan can reach three lifesaving goals for the GOP.

First, he would get rid of the toxic elements that the GOP has let grow in their ranks over the last two decades. Second, he could recommit the party to its 'Reaganesque' ideology with limited government, free markets, entitlement reform and an assertive foreign policy. Finally, and most importantly in my view, Ryan could reclaim many centrist Democrats and independents by suggesting that the new GOP will not consider science, religion and abortion to be partisan issues anymore. The new GOP could embrace the overwhelming climate change evidence and state that abortion and religion are issues that should be dealt with at the family and personal levels, not at the political level.

Many of my conservative friends will disagree with me on this. Also, I believe my wish is a long shot, but if it were to happen, the new centrist GOP would take enough voters from the Democrats and independents to largely compensate for the extremist fringe that will leave it for Trump or any of his successor.

President Donald

 
Monday April 3, 2017 

It’s a snowy day in DC. President Donald and Ivanka Trump, his chief of staff, are in the oval office working on the week schedule.

Ivanka: Mr. President, we have Angela Merkel visiting next week. When would you rather have the press conference with her, next Tuesday or Wednesday?

President Trump: Ugh….

Ivanka: Mr. President, next Tuesday or Wednesday?

President Trump: I don’t want to do it. I don’t want to meet Merkel. In fact, I know that it makes sense for me not to meet her.

Ivanka: Why?

President Trump: Because she doesn’t like me. She will ask me tricky questions, I know it. I know a bad deal when I see it.

Ivanka: But you never met her before.

President Trump: It doesn’t matter; we have a common friend who told me she was unhappy that I was elected. Plus, who knows if she’ll be at that period of the month. I don’t want to deal with that.

Ivanka: Dad! You cannot avoid meeting people you don’t like. You created a huge diplomatic incident last month already when you went to Iraq and refused to show up at a planned conference with their prime minister.

President Trump: Oh please. The guy hates me; he said so during the general election. But I did well; in fact I did very well, by holding that event in Baghdad instead.

Ivanka: You mean the event when you auctioned Iraqi oil to raise money for the Mexico wall? It is their oil, not ours. It didn’t go that well.

President Trump: of course it did, it was great. We got a super deal. I know a good deal when I see one. Trust me, I am super intelligent; I know what I am doing.

Ivanka: Mr. President, with all due respect, there is no going around Angela Merkel, she is the most important leader in Europe!

President Trump: Who cares about Europe? They’re dead, I tell you, they are dead.

Ivanka: The whole word cares about Europe. You will meet her on next Tuesday, that’s it.

President Trump: No, no, no. Don’t do this to me.

Trump starts stomping his feet.

Ivanka picks up the phone on the President’s desk: please bring us a tape of the Apprentice ASAP. The President is having another tantrum, this will calm him down.

Iran Nuclear Deal

My position on Iran having a nuclear weapon is clear, they should never be allowed to have one, at least while this current pro-terror and religious fundamentalist regime is in power. My thoughts on Iran having a peaceful nuclear energy program Iran are also clear. Why would one of the most energy-rich country in the world need a new source of energy? Given the deceptive behavior Iran has had since 1979, I wouldn't bet that their intentions are peaceful. Then there is the host of problems that comes out of a nuclear Iran: existentialist threat to Israel, Sunni's escalating reactions, emboldening of Iran's proxy terror groups (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah), and I could go on. 

I have always been skeptical of the deal the Obama administration has been negotiating with the mullahs. Moreover, the constant posturing of the ayatollahs during the negotiations on key points like immediate sanctions relief, no snap backs and no 24/7 inspections left me extremely worried. So when CNN broke the news this week, my angst level shot up. I was in China and could not access the Internet easily to educate myself on the deal's content. I still haven't looked at all the details, but it seems that important aspects have been negotiated by the West. First, snap back mechanisms are in and should be automatic. 24/7 inspections of key sites, including military sites, seem to be covered as well. It looks like Iran can object to specific visits by the IAEA, but that would give Iran a maximum of 3 weeks, after which sanctions will automatically snap back if an acceptable solution has not been negotiated by Iran and the P5+1. This is good and better than what I expected. However, this deal falls short on 2 points: 10 year timeframe and fast sanction relief. 

10-year timeframe:

The US objective of the deal silently went from stopping Iran nuclear program in return for Iran international legitimization, to Iran becoming a nuclear threshold power, while getting legitimized. That's indeed one of the main danger of this deal. In 10 years from now, assuming Iran hasn't broken out, Iran could legitimately become a recognized nuclear military power. 10 years is not a lot of time, it's actually very little history-wise. The counter-argument is that if legitimized, Iran could be a very different country in 10 years, in a very different Middle East. That's true but it's a big gamble.

Fast relief of sanctions:

It is wise to reward good behavior with sanctions relief. However, and I may be mistaken, it looks like Iran will get an enormous amount of frozen oil money just for signing the deal. That is of great concern, especially for Israel, whose mortal enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, will get a new lifeline to dramatically advance their terror agenda against the Jewish state. 

So what to think of all this? And what should be Israel next steps?

Let's face it, this deal is far from being ideal, but we have to think of the alternative. What would happen if we had no deal? First, deal or no deal, Iran will get the bomb. However, no deal means Iran stays a pariah state, Iran most likely continues enriching uranium, and Iran chooses their moment to break out. So on that point, assuming Iran sticks by its covenants, the deal gives us 10 years and a timetable to prepare. At least that should give Israel time to strategically prepare for when the outcome turns ugly. Then there's the lifting of the sanctions and the resulting money in Iran's coffers. As I explain above, that's  an issue, a real one. However, there is evidence suggesting that apart from the U.S., the international community appetite for sanctions would have seriously waned down in case of no deal. That's because Iran can buy a lot of contracts and the world wants in. 

Bottom line- this is a bad deal but it's an OK "bad deal". Congress should make sure it clarifies the snap back mechanisms and inspection clauses instead of rejecting the deal, as Obama will veto a rejection anyway. Congress should also offer Israel an enhancement to the current security arrangement between the 2 countries and the U.S. President should openly state that the U.S. will consider any heightened Hezbollah or Hamas attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S. itself. As for Israel, the Netanyahu government should bury the hatchet and work with Obama on a joint plan to address the new threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. In my humble opinion, it would be an unwise course of action for Israel security to lobby Congress to stop the deal at this point. The train has unfortunately already left the station and Iran will get the bomb, no matter what.

Iraq Should Not Be US Responsibility At This Stage

Yesterday, the Obama administration declared that it could not be in charge of Iraq's security anymore.

For once, I agree with Obama that Iraq should not be America’s problem, at least at this juncture.

To be clear though, I care about Iraq, I see ISIS as a global threat, and I believe in troops on the ground in certain situations. Also, even though I believe we should never have gotten into Iraq, I do believe that we got out way too prematurely. But we got out, and since we have left, the geopolitical context has substantially changed.

By that, I mean Iran’s assertiveness and Syria’s civil war.

In Iraq and Syria, Iran and its proxies, are determined to fight ISIS. It’s not that Iran’s mullahs disagree with ISIS view of the world; it’s that old Shia-Sunni rivalry that is at play. That rivalry is so acute, that I am actually convinced that Iran wants to see ISIS decimated more than the US or any Western country. So why not let them do the dirty work for us? We should, and here are further reasons that we, in fact, must do so:

1. Sucking Iran In- by not bringing its firepower to Iraq, the US is inviting Iran to get involved even more seriously to defeat ISIS. That’s a lot of fronts on which Iran will have to be seriously engaged- Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Consequently, Iran’s hands become tied and less free to project their terror agenda elsewhere.

2. Casualties Are Not Us- it may sound horrible to say this, but I am all for having fanatics on one side fighting fanatics on the other side. Let’s have each side inflicting many casualties to the other.

3. Iran Nuclear Deal- getting out of Iraq reduces one important US dependency on Iran, which should hopefully lessen Iran’s leverage on America in the current dangerous nuclear deal negotiations.

4. Israel’s Security- Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy declared this week “Hezbollah, day by day, is contributing to the security of the state of Israel”. It may sound counter-intuitive, but it’s actually quite logical. Hezbollah, a proxy or Iran, armed and trained by Iran Revolutionary Guards, has been summoned by Iran to help fight ISIS in Syria. If Iran has to double their effort in Iraq, due to America’s position, then Iran will make more demands out of Hezbollah, first in Syria and probably in Iraq too. This means less Hezbollah’s provocations in the north of Israel. This also means Hezbollah’s well-trained fighters both dying and inflicting casualties on ISIS in a way that neither Israel nor America can. Indeed, if Hezbollah or Iran creates collateral damage or destroys a place of worship, nobody in the Muslim world would condemn. You can, however, imagine the outcry if it were the US or Israel doing so.

Making Sense of Obama’s Middle East Strategy

The Middle East is in big turmoil. Iran is surging. Iraq is a mess. Yemen is bound to be a bigger mess. Syria is a civilian slaughterhouse. ISIS is on the offensive. Sunnis are bombing Shiites. Shiites are killing Sunnis. Israel is genuinely concerned about its existence. The Palestinians are not going to have a state anytime soon.

And, America is retreating!

In fact, while attempting to retreat, America has put itself in various paradoxical situations:

• The US left Iraq but is still responsible for sorting it out

• The US left Yemen but is forced back through a Sunni coalition

• The US abandoned Egypt, triggered a terrorist group “democratic” takeover, maintained its arm shipments to the Muslim Brotherhood government but declared an arm embargo on the subsequent el-Sisi government

• The US has now lifted the embargo on the el-Sisi government

• The US is revisiting its long lasting relationship with Israel, its strongest ally in the region

• The US is trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran while asking for Iran’s help in combating ISIS in Iraq and supporting a Sunni coalition against the same Iran in Yemen

• The US wouldn’t accept Netanyahu’s apology on his shortsighted 2 state comment but doesn’t ask Iran to apologize for its “death to America” comments while negotiating with them

So what’s happening here? Is Obama clueless, anti-Israel, or pro-Arab as many would say?

It does seems as if Obama lacks a strategic compass. This mess is in fact the direct result of his actions and inactions. To be fair though, the Iraq mess could have been avoided if the Bush administration didn’t invade that country on false pretenses. But Obama inherited that situation, and as the executive in charge, we expect him to re-assess each situation and act accordingly. Clearly, leaving Iraq was not the best course of action as it triggered ISIS ascent and accelerated Iran regional assertiveness. But Obama is not clueless, there is more to it than what meets the eye.

Is he anti-Israel? I don’t think so either. There are a lot of facts proving that he is no fan of Netanyahu and probably not the biggest fan of Israel, but to call him an Israel hater would be unfair. He was a proponent for the funding of Iron Dome for instance.

Is he pro-Arab? Again, I don’t think so. He mistreated Egypt. He threatened Assad not to cross the chemical weapon line, but did nothing to defend all these innocent Arab lives after Assad did cross that line. And now, he appears to be turning his back on the Arab Sunni states in favor of Iran.

So what is it? I would venture that the explanation lies in Obama’s radical view of the world, of America’s role in it, and of the Middle East’s strategic importance to the US going forward.

Fundamentally, Obama doesn’t think that the US should be in the Middle East anymore. This is partly due to his liberal views of military disengagement but also due to his belief that the balance of power in the region has shifted in US favor. Indeed, with America’s energy independence at hand, Obama feels that the Middle East now needs the US more than the US needs it. So why continue to spend gigantic amounts of taxpayer money in a region that appears less strategic when he can redirect these budgets towards economic and social issues at home? Within this framework, letting Iran become a nuclear power in 10 to 15 years, or become the regional power, does not pose a strategic threat to the US anymore. Better even, Obama gets an opportunity to be the US President who normalized ties with Iran. What a legacy!

I do not agree with this view of the world and I believe Obama is unleashing a very dangerous situation. True, the US may not need the Middle East in the long run as an energy source, but as long as other parts of the world will, the Middle East will continue to be a region flush with cash that needs to be monitored by America. The combination of wealth and religious fundamentalism has shown to be very lethal and will increasingly threaten the US on its own soil. Moreover, expect Saudi Arabia and many other Sunni gulf states to start a nuclear race. The security guarantees that the US could issue to them so they wouldn’t arm would sound empty as this administration has created for itself a well deserved reputation of abandoning its traditional allies in favor of disengagement in the region and normalization with Iran. That outcome is directly at odds with America’s security as the combination will become wealth + religious fundamentalism + nukes. In the end, Obama can get the US out of the Middle East but he unfortunately won’t be able to get the Middle East out of the US.

Obama’s strategy is dangerous for the US and the world. It makes George W. Bush look like a strategic thinker and Jimmy Carter look like Machiavelli.

Aimer

La rencontrer.
Sans projection, ni idéalisation.
L'aimer pour ce qu'elle est vraiment.
Aimer c'est rencontrer.

Une fille puis une femme.
Une danseuse puis une mère.
Le futur arrive en conjuguant le passé à l'intensité du présent.
Aimer c'est conjuguer.

L'arbre est au gré des saisons.
Ses racines restent là.
Le passé, le présent, la géographie, tout se marie.
Aimer c'est marier.

Les années passent.
Les enfants grandissent.
Les visages changent, les corps aussi.
L'éternelle beauté c'est celle du cœur.
Aimer c'est tout cela, et plus encore.