Iran Nuclear Deal

I woke up this morning and while reading the news on my iPod, I saw that the President was holding a press conference regarding the Iran Nuclear Agreement. I rushed down stairs before getting dressed to hear what he had to say. I was excited about the possibility of an agreement having been reached and was not disappointed. I have felt for a long time that Iran was the closest of all nations in the Middle East, maybe barring Israel, to becoming a true democracy. It has a political structure already in place, an educated population and natural resources. Though it is currently a theocracy, I feel that with the passing of time and the current Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an old man, the democracy movement will grow and succeed unlike Egypt’s and Libya’s where there was not a structure in place to take over the reins. The theocracy in Iran, with its philosopher kings (the ayatollahs) and the Guardians (the Revolutionary Guard) is modeled on Plato’s Republic. (The Supreme Leader following the revolution, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was a professor of philosophy in Paris and the world’s foremost authority on Plato.) With Khomeini gone, in another decade or so it will have outlived its novelty and fade away As to the quest for a nuclear bomb; I believe that none of the major powers, or at least the US really believed Iran was going to develop a nuclear bomb. I recall an interview of Ahmadinejad a few years ago. When asked about their effort to build a bomb, said that it is not Islamic to do so. With him being a politician, I didn’t pay much attention to it. On the other hand, when about a year ago the Ayatollah, in another interview said that an atomic bomb goes against the teachings of the Koran, I listened. The Ayatollah has, within Shia, the same standing as the Pope in Catholicism. Unlike the Sunni, who believe there is no intervening authority between them and god, the Shiites do. The Sunni are responsible for interpreting the teachings of the Koran and the stories about the life of Mohamed themselves. They can, and do, look to learned men for assistance in interpreting but if they don’t like that interpretation they can just go to another scholar. The scholars have no authority, whereas the Shiites believe that the word of the Ayatollah is sacred and inspired by God. Unlike Ahmadinejad, It would be very difficult for the Ayatollah to walk back his statement that the nuclear bomb is against the teachings of the Koran. Iran had nothing to lose since I believe they were not really going to build a bomb. In Iran the agreement was “greeted ecstatically by liberals and reformists, and with sullen resignation by hardliners”. There were celebrations in the streets of Tehran. To many, it represents a relief from everyday hardships brought on by the sanctions while to other this agreement facilitates engagement with the West, opening up commerce and further democratization. What did we gain? I believe it reduces the probability of another war in the Middle East forced on us by either hawks here or in Israel. It opens up Iran, bringing more balance into the region which is currently dominated by Israel and Sunni monarchies and military dictatorships. The opening of Iran expands the market for western goods (as I am writing this Germany is sending a trade mission to Tehran) and services, facilitates the cooperation necessary to fight against ISIS and restores one of our listening post on Russia, a role Iran played before being proclaimed a part of the “Axis of Evil” by President Georg W. Bush. One of the main issues raised by the opponents of the Deal is that the repeal of sanctions will bring a hundred billion dollars into Iran’s treasure chest to be used to fund “terrorist” organizations. First of all, President Obama in his morning address pointed out that our contribution to the sanctions is only about 1/3rd, and even if we did not lift them the other nations would so that Iran would still fatten its treasury. Furthermore, an argument within Iran for the Deal was that the influx of capital would improve the economy which the sanctions have stifled and thus the lives of everyday people. If that was not to happen, the movement toward democratization would be greatly accelerated and I believe there would be riots in the streets. The President acknowledged that the Agreement would not change the relationship between Iran and “terrorists”. I would like to question the assignment of this category to Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas which is the governing body in Gaza has a local agenda which is to liberate the West Bank from an oppressive occupation and to rid itself of an Israeli blockade (by international law, a blockade constitutes an act of war). Given the brutal nature of both, any people in these circumstances would use whatever means to rid themselves of it. Israel, while under British rule, conducted what would today be called acts of terrorism to rid itself of the British yoke and Golda Meyer would be branded a terrorist. Kenya, during the Maumau uprising against British rule, led by Jomo Kenyatta who later became it’s prime minister, committed horrific acts against the British settlers. I suspect that even during our revolution we were thought of by the British as terrorists. Hezbollah also has a local agenda focused on protecting the Shiite minority within Lebanon from both Sunnis and Israelis. I quote from a recent BBC article: “In Lebanon, Western diplomats have for several years made no secret of the fact that they see Iranian-backed Hezbollah as a stabilizing factor, given the more deadly threat they perceive from radical Sunni Islam, especially the self-styled Islamic State.” Governments have historically intervened in internal affairs of countries they consider strategic to their interest, supporting their proxies as did Russia in the Ukraine, Chechnya and Hungary, China in Korea and Vietnam, the Brits all over the world, and we in South and Central America (Iran Contra scandal and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion. So I am optimistic though I recognize that relationships between nations are very complex and fragile and that there is danger whenever the balance of power shifts. Time will tell.

Unintended Cosequences

There is a saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The other day I googled a person who I had some business encounters with during the telecom heydays. She was a financial executive at a large company, retired young, bought a yacht and sailed around the world. During the Google search I found she decided to return to her roots in Newfoundland and share some of her success with the community where she grew up. One of the first things she did was to set up a scholarship for local students. Community leaders said they really appreciate her wanting to help but with the community’s financial woes, many people are leaving the fishing villages for jobs in the more industrialized parts of Canada and the scholarships would encourage more of the best and brightest to leave. This story made me think of a few other instances I have run across over the years where an obvious good could potentially backfire. About thirty of forty years ago I was watching a debate on PBS between two groups with one advocating banning smoking in public places and the other opposed. During the debate someone from the “ban smoking” side pointed out that if everyone stopped smoking, life expectancy would go up by some number of years. A crusty old guy from the other side very calmly said; can you imagine what would happen if the life expectancy suddenly went up that much. Of course continuing promoting smoking to keep the population growth at a reasonable level is a poor argument but nevertheless, a rapid rise in population would present problems catching society unprepared to feed and care for its suddenly increased number of elders. Around the same time I heard another debate where one side argued that providing food aid was a bad idea and the other side argued, not that it was a good idea but it wasn’t as bad as the others claimed. On the face of it, this seems like a ridiculous debate. Of course feeding the hungry is a good thing. The side arguing against, pointed out a few shortcomings with providing food aid. In most instances truly starving people didn’t have the strength to get to the distribution centers. In cases of droughts the outputs of agriculture were very low and farmers would give up whatever farming they could do to walk for days to get the donated food. In some places the food was used for bribes and even sometimes to enslave people. Wheat products were provided to areas that could not grow wheat and in time people became accustomed to wheat which they then had to buy from the countries that donated them. One country, I believe it was in South America, outlawed foreign assistance because of the havoc it raised in the aftermath of an earthquake. By no means am I proposing that we encourage the early deaths or not feed the hungry and help the needy (although I think Ayn Rand maybe would). Human nature requires us to help, some of us only the deserving others all needy. I am just pointing out the multitude of interactions within societies are very complex and require well thought out solutions. Even then we will sometimes be wrong.